Chakat Firepaw wrote:
Thanks for the info and I will look further into it.My limited exposure to Living City was from people going to cons and playing in it around San Francisco, CA and their reports of their experiences.
From my experience and comments of other with PF 2 B1 (and maybe some of the expansion or edits but not beyond edit #3) and keeping in mind that it was a beta or alpha beta test and trying to look at the underlying structure presented and not the "paint on the face".
1) Magic items seemed to tied to the PC and being given them at specific points seemed very video game like. (Maybe the market has changed to the point this is often standard but it is one thing quite often that I have heard people say turns them off to a game. But then again that is why a good number of systems are needed so everyone can be reasonably happy(but do not expect your new canine processed solid mocha (dog poo) to be a hit with everyone and sell a bunch))
Sorry got to go, if I did not answer any you want me to please ask again or send me a PM and I will post in the thread or directly back to you.
Thanks, I understand now what you are saying.
Yes that is or can be an issue with living settings and is something that has to be managed on the dev end.
The main idea is "how to get more people groups involved in the settings and keep them involved?". Will the living setting idea work? In the past (I think it was called the living city project or soemthing back in the 90's) I think it was tried but the things you need were not in place (the internet). And I seem to remember that there was comments about organization of "how things were done" that some people thought were troublesome.
I remember this from back in the 80's and various games and how rules were written and not thought of when interacting with descriptive or narrative text.
I can honestly say this is why many people I know have left the Piazo forums and have reduced their play of PF.
Also just saying that someone has a different opinion than you is not a conspiracy and I agree and I do not think that is what I have said.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
It was very strange to the person who hard it and then others who work and own game stores overheard things close to this, from various people in the store.
From my own experience, I have seen a number(4) of small groups move from one store to another and bring in "bad game etiquette" and have a serious negative impact on the store and events run by the store.
So YMMV as has mine.
I am not a moderator or associated with the company so it is not my job to try and determine such things. And even then once you find one the hard part is what to do moderating them or not moderating them.
In general I agree.The term came about from a person who visits various game stores overheard some young adults talking and posted about it. Then another person who owns a store in another country chimed in that it was something that he had over heard in his store also.
Again talking is not doing.
But I also can say for myself that I have seen one person post here as if they were playing the game for the first time, when in the past the rules outline was presented to others for comment and a person with the same name and picture said they had tested the game and found no problems or issues.
In the middle you bring up a very important point, why have players lapsed? And the other unspoken point(s) do we have good data (or any data) as to why? is the data good and valid? and are our efforts going to bring back players (data driven)? or is the game targeted to a different group than our past players and the company just hopes and believes that older players will enjoy the game?
I understand that this is the beta or alpha-beta (old grocery store joke).
But why do quite a few people feel underwhelmed with the magic items?
I have also been struck as to the similarity to the magic item feel (IMHO) to Warhammer FRP (I was looking at my book from the 80's) and the tone that was presented their for magic items.
IMHO, basic things such as magic item availability, power, etc have a large impact on the game setting and how people perceive them and I cannot bring to mind a case where a major setting change has gone well. But in fact the reverse is often true in that significant minor changes often alienate both groups that the change involves and reduces the number of players.
I do agree that you do see in Video Games often huge swings of base setting ideas and implementations and to various degrees of success. But again PnP RPG's are not Video Games and when you treat them like that you often get the same result, you play for 10-40 hours and then play another game.
I say the above as someone who generally likes to play a limited number of systems and is not interested in switching game systems every month for casual game play. But I do agee that there are people and groups who love the play this way.
Michael Sayre wrote:
The APs also aren't the only venues of lore moving forward. The novels, modules, and Pathfinder Society scenarios are also all canon and have moved the story forward in various ways. I would expect, for example, that since the society freed Ranginori, the good elemental lord of air, that he'll be free in the new canon and that will have cascading effects on the other elemental lords since they're now out of balance. Similarly, the Assault on Absalom special involved a significant number of things happening in Absalom, like the manumission of every slave who joined the fight to defend the city, so I'd expect a lot of things that used to be true about Absalom to have changed for the new edition thanks to a decade of growth and adventurers running around.
This does sound good.But I also know of some GM's who have bought (they has told me and others but I do not know which) adventures that were not constructed to the high standards I would expect from Piazo.
It is those adventures that have reminded us of issues some of us experienced back in the late 80's and 90's with AD&D.
So a lot of us hope that with any changes to PF also tighten up on the story side of some of the adventures also.
Example of Issues I have be told of or seen:
Note: I know adventure writing is hard work and is often not compensated as it should be.
Secret Hidden Tunnel to get into castle: Party finds only person in village that has info.
Getting Past Army to other location: Multiple instances of sneaking past groups using various contrived means.
Ignoring Environmental effects of Sound Travelling: many
Contrived explanations for various things: ie everyone loves a circus so dress up as entertainers to get by obstacle X is a classic.
Treating Encounters like a play or book: This is a tough one to explain as encounter's and chapters in book or scenes in play share some things in common. But players do not often exactly follow the paths that the author sets out for them like they would in a play, movie, book or TV show. Example in each of those last things actors or characters are supposed to be in X place at Y time to interact or not interact with person, place or things Z. So all actions are defined and supposed to run like a program would run on a computer.
smileIs not Baba Yaga mother-interfearing or interfearance?
World Going On Around the PC's:Yes things should go on around the PC's that they do not touch or interact with.
This provides ideas for the GM to run other home adventures or other paid adventures.
Fan "I Have Skin in the Game" Idea:
Play "These Things Significantly After Release":
Most of your views are common ones I hear from others across the USA and world.
But having said that there are quite a few people her that have had a different experience.
I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.
*A Sunshine Troll is someone who agrees with bad rules to try and hurt the game for various reasons. A group of us decided to coin a term after one heard a group of people talking about doing just that, up voting bad ideas (that they said they did not like) and pretending and defending said bad ideas.
A long time ago and a D&D system far away, I gave the players a limited number of class's to pick from as well as leveling class options based on the adventure. Then as we moved past the start they could learn/switch to other classes. There was no re-training so the players just worked with their abilities/class powers etc as we moved forward. And I think we had a great deal of fun.
In my game I would talk to the player and see if we could make a change in some way to the players PC or the other PC's of the group to balance out the issue.
Having said that I also agree that at times things just do not work out for a number of reasons, unfortunately.
Michael Sayre wrote:
One thing I have heard quite a few people talk about is if (somehow) Paizo could include in some way the results of an AP in the one going world.For Example:
One AP would be chosen and org play and home groups would have a specific time frame to submit their results and have that info affect the world going forward.
Time Frame? Well I do not know how long it takes a standard org group or home group to complete a AP but if it could be done in a year and a half then a half year to work the change into the setting.
Then at the time the official change is introduced the next "change" AP is introduced.
Why? Well it provides some forward motion to the setting over all.
I agree in part. By that I mean in the way past mid 80's through mid 90's (often) the setting core set was good but the expansion material suffered. But also some niche settings as you have stated do not have the breadth to survive long on their own. Yes they are fun for a side trip of fun but often they do not have the depth necessary to play continually every week for 2 years. I do agree that there are exceptions to the last statement but if you try and look at data from how people play the game vs a segment (home games in San Diego, Con game, etc) you get an entirely different picture of what people want from their material.For my self (in the 80's and early 90's) I can say that often we would shift to other game settings (dark Sun, Raven Loft, CoC w D&D, or other games) before going back to a home setting.
Why? well it was more like picking up a new book series (example Dark Sun campaign setting) and then going back to an ongoing book series (going back to Forgotten Realms) a more traditional setting.
I am trying not to throw stones but the thought that Dark Sun setting would save a system in early to mid 2000's should be a red flag on someones decision process. The gamer population of the time, or now just does not enjoy this type of setting for a long term game (again over all and not taking in small pockets of support).
Mary Yamato wrote:
Yes, as you pointed out designing AP's both in company and at home. Generally the people I help out start 6 months or so before they run the first game. And sometimes even longer stretch if they are trying to build a world from the ground up.MDC
You have stated a very important point that is often missed, systems often are shaped by their default settings and new versions of the game that are dramatically different often require changes (dramatic?) to the setting to function.MDC
In the past what I have done is advance the less optimized PC's in level so the effect in play is the same.MDC
This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?MDC
The Second Issue:
Lets say Paizo fixes Issue 1: PF 2.
A big issue (Issue 2) I am hearing from quite a few people (50+) is how during the play test their (or their friends or posts that they agree with) have gone missing or the threads have been deemed non-viable, not-important or non-productive.
What you are talking about tends to happen to all settings and it is hard to know when to develop a new settings and just stick with what you have and continue on.In general (depending on the setting) most groups I have found like to see a change every 4-8 years. But I have also seen groups that their motto is "no change ever" or "I do not want to learn anything new".
But one of the things that caused a lot of excitement from various people I know was new setting info because of Star Finder.
side bar your honorI can see it be a number of skill rolls to determine the correct answer or each skill roll provides a piece of the final answer.
end side bar
The DM of wrote:
When playing (79-88) in various campaigns it was very common in many of our games to have new PC's (who died and or were replacements) come in a lower levels.Depending on the game level differences could be as much as 10 but often were less.
Since about 2000 I have not seen a lot of games with large level disparaty (except online play by post and or a game that had sub games and groups associated with them) but if done right can be fun.
Steve Geddes wrote:
In talking to people it was generally not do to the core system but generally; how much the material applied to their game, a seeming shift in play style focus as well as a few other factors more specific to their games.
In general a shift to a new system has not resulted in a change in their attitudes but again (very very important) the final game is not out yet.
IMHO and from past experience most of the reasons I and we have not just run high level adventures is do to the fact that they do not fit into the story we have going with out PC's.For example:
High level adventure vs an AP: in the past we have adjusted the AP going forward and had am easy time where are just buying an adventure we might have to suddenly jump locations, introduce whole new plot lines, NPC's etc.
One of the main reasons we stopped buying adventures in the 80's was the fact they did not seem to fit how our PC's lived in our own game worlds but were suddenly thrust into someone else's idea of a game world.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Thanks for explaining a bit more.I agree quite a few major pieces of the play-test PF2 B1 was not received as I think the dev's thought they would be.
It took some groups I know a shot time to make a decision and some longer but in the end they all generally agreed on their thoughts on the rules.
I think you are saying that PF 1 fans are not as happy as you would like to see and thus many of them IYO will not buy the product?Is that correct? Or am I misinterpreting your POV?
If so I tend to agree as 35+ groups now I know of did not have the experience that quite a few positive posters here on the test forums have had. And thus have made pans for the future. But a few will look at the product and make a decision instead of just buying it because it is a Paizo product. Then again this trend has been forming more and more since about 2014 in many groups.
When I say something like this I mean the opposite, I hope that Piazo hears what I am hearing from people in the USA and around the world and how they are saying they are going to spend their money.Why? In general, even if we do not play any version of PF most of us agree that a strong Paizo and an excellent game from them will make the hobby better in the long run.
IMHO, wanting to and knowing its right to are different than being able to.MDC
Maybe add some Crafts that can duplicate some of the skills in Thievery skill. So Lock Smith craft/profession would also also lock picking.
A big issue I have with the "every use of Thievery skills can not be used by Paladins because of what they are", is that bad guys also use weapons to kill people, thus should Paladins be able to use weapons at all as weapons are for killing people?
Your example highlights one of the important things I have taken away from the play-test.1) Talk to people and find out how and why there can be such disparity in experiences.
a) Is it play style alone ?
b) Some using rules as written and some house ruling things?
(Yes I know you are supposed to use the rules as written in a play test as that is the info you want but among the 20+ GM's I have talked to about 1/2 changed some basic thing.)
c) Was it class choices picked by group?
d) was it just a poor dice night/week/month?
e) adventure not to groups liking?
f) What type of game they like to play? Rules light/med/heavy/GM dominated etc
g) Online play vs in person?
h) org play style vs home play style?
I am sure there are more but that is what I came up with while sitting here.
Frankly as others have said my experience and observations as well as quite a few people I know around the world differ drastically from what other posters have said their experiences have been.
The above may be good in books as it can provide humor breaks from the drama but in game settings over the long term it was very disruptive.
Having said that I know of quite a few PF 1 groups that liked to play goblins and their attitudes for a game or two as presented in the free goblin adventures.
P.S. The Kinder issue is one common dividing point among groups that I have seen in that very few are in the middle of the issue.
Example from Film and maybe Literature (I did not read the books)
From real life:
Locksmiths in general:
The easy way to describe Stam-Resolve is take 1/3 of you HP and make it so you can rest 10 min (spend a resource) and get those HP back.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I can answer this one.A lot of people I know (who want the changes) have stopped coming to the discussion threads for various reasons or do not even post on the Paizo boards for various reasons.
I think we may have dramatically different views on play tests and alpha and beta play test definitions.MDC
I agree, in fact I know of a lot of people that have moved into a if it is not PF 1 then I am going to play game "Z" instead position, (the best was I could polity and non-argumentative way of saying something).
Again it is the hope of many the the finished game is so much better than the play test in terms of core rules the game uses to play the game.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Thanks for this info, but it seems that I and quite a few other did not know this and in fact a number of us have a discussion going on now about "what do you think would have happened if PF 2.0 Beta 1 was released as a finished game?"
PS Are you talked about the statement that came about 2 months or so after the release of the play test in which a dev said "...changes had potential to be great" if so it is had to know if the statement is true or damage control. Which is also another discussion among'st us.
The more I play Starfinder, the more I like the Stamina-Resolve system.
I know 3 groups that decided to play SF and after about 10 months the Stam-Res rules were one of the reasons for quitting the game.The rule was just to video game'ey during play and drove their role-playing more in the video game direction and away from what they wanted from their game.
In general it sounds as if the changes are going to make a number of people I know move away from the statement "They (Piazo) are making it very easy for me to not buy the game (PF 2)" and might make them take another look at the rules.
But it really depends on what the final rules are going to be.
The huge issue I am hearing now is "They seemed to think that PF 2.0 beta 1.0 rules were going to be a great game and it was not for me and my group, so I really have trouble trusting that the new un-play testing version is going to be much better."
But in general most hope that PF 2.0 is a good game and makes the industry step up to a higher publishing bar for their products.
Igor Horvat wrote:
IMHO, yes this add's flavor and keeps some realism in the game vs just looking at numbers and saying I need to do this because this has this value and that in my opinion throws off the game.
Also is 2H F weapon supposed to be : str+2 (x) dex or str+2+dex?
Also the other option to keep numbers lower is to have totals divided by some value. And IMHO is also good for young players to practice simple math or to provide an app for those who think they are math challenged.
Most weapons I know do not have a tag that says I do 1dX when I buy them.Also so far as I know in PF2-B there is no way to say weapon X is harder to use then weapon Y but after you invest significant time weapon Y is generally better to use.
IMHO, yes and no.It does take some time and some thought to GM (generally and it depends on the type of game you run as I know of games where it is just a combat sim or the GM spot rotates during the game so every "room" or encounter has a new GM who knows nothing of the adventure and the person gets 10 min to become familiar with their encounter (yes in some pre made adventures it causes problems)) and not everyone wants to do this. Just like not everyone can write a good short story quickly.
A bit of a side comment:
Or in reality; there is a very valid reason why army's did not equip their troops with whips and go to war in the past as well as today.