Ye gods. This place really hasn't gotten any better in the couple of years I've been away. People are still demanding employee blood because they didn't like a product. Oh well. See you all in 2020 I guess.
It means running a game that the players and DM call "Pathfinder". What people on the forums who arent playing the game call it doesnt really matter. This. When I'm playing Pathfinder, unless I've specifically used "Full CRB Rules-as-written", "CRB Only", or some other qualifier then it means "You'll find out when you sit down to play, unless you can be bothered to ask me first." If playing with people that don't usually sit at my table, I'd almost certainly make sure to qualify it to avoid any misunderstandings.
You know how things work around here. If you make a claim people want proof or a verifying argument. We are waiting. This, to be honest. I'm still of the opinion Paizo's explanation of why it would negatively impact sales holds water, and I'm yet to hear a compelling argument why they're wrong. It all comes down to the non-subscriber customers, and the fact that when they're faced with a selection of products, they're more likely to, say, buy the AP that interests them most than to buy them all. That's why a reduced selection works better for the books - it channels those sales towards the items Paizo want shifted out of the warehouse.
I'm not concerned. Whatever I don't like I am free to use or not. I don't get the whole worry over bloat. No one is forced to use it let alone buy more books. Unless your being threatened with physical harm. It just seems that a rpg that comes out with more new material seems to suffer from a "sky is falling syndrome" with some of the fans. The only physical harm I'm being threatened with is that my bookshelves might topple and fall on me ;)
I read this. I scratched my head.I worried a bit. I thought about it some. I mulled it over. I looked at it from both sides. I came up with only one word to describe it. Epiphany.
What some people call "bloat", I call "ongoing support" - I don't want to see a line drawn under and a declaration that the game is somehow now finished and complete, because that tends to result in a reset back to a brand new game with a new CRB and starting over yet again, in an endless cycle. My only real concern is with the heaviness of the core rules themselves - I'd dearly love to see a pared-down version of the CRB with more of the complexity moved out into optional books.
I've never really gotten into anime. However, a friend got me to watch Log Horizon recently, and all that is about to change.
Is there a particular reason why some of the Mummy's Mask adventure path books are going out of print when Paizo is getting ready to release the Mummy's Mask pawn set? I ask because I am fairly new to Pathfinder and I am interested in GMing APs that have the pawn sets. I already have RotR, but it seems like the other APs with pawns have out-of-print books. :( Info mostly gleaned from Paizo responses to this question in the past: Mostly, Paizo products don't go "out of print" but rather "out of stock" - they only tend to have a single print run, unless they're one of the RPG hardcovers (which sell enough ongoing copies to make reprints viable.) The paperbacks tend to be sold more in terms of a periodical (released monthly, then sold until they run out.) If they're running out of stock, it's because they've simply sold out of the print run. The economics of printing usually make it non-viable to go back and do a second run, because they would have to print far more copies than they'd likely ever have a chance of selling. In addition to this, it would create unwanted competition between older APs and newer ones. If Mummy's Mask is getting low on stock already, it shows something of a surge in popularity for that particular AP. Unfortunately, the Pawn Sets tend to be released a few months after the end of the relevant AP. Your best bet for the future is probably to pick up an AP, put it aside for later, and then grab its pawn set once it is released. In the meantime, however, bear in mind that (as mentioned above) the PDFs of the APs will *always* be available, and I'd suggest snapping up copies of Mummy's Mask ASAP before they're gone :)
I've noticed an increasing number of issues cropping up where customers have been trying to contact the increasingly-overwhelmed customer service about an order, just to find the order has been dispatched before anyone got around to their message. So, here's my suggestion:
Then when the system comes around to processing an order, if there's a customer note on it, the system skips processing and charging, and instead flags the order as "urgent attention required" to ensure the customer isn't charged and the order shipped until whatever needs doing has been done. I think that'd probably solve a lot of customer hassles, as well as making it a lot easier for CS to pay attention to those flagged orders as a priority instead of trying to manually filter the urgent order-related emails.
Possibilities could include lack of time by the d20pfsrd people to copy it to their site (there is a LOT of OGL material out there, after all), or the inclusion of too much content not covered under the OGL - Wayfinder is able to use the Community Use Policy for example, allowing it to use a limited amount of Paizo IP in addition to OGL rules, while d20pfsrd is a commercial site and thus unable to.
So if someone is talking about converting one of D&D's official settings to pathfinder, its going to be a "same themes" "serial numbers filed off" kind of situation.Which is about what I expected, but for a lot of people it's apparently a massive turn-off. They either want the real thing or nothing at all, as several comments in this thread have attested. Yeah. My issue there is that the serial numbers tend to be the very thing I'm buying that book *for* :) If I want a conversion of stats out of a book from one game system to another, I'd do it myself, and would hope most other decent GMs could. If I want a nice, neatly organized setting book with the relevant stats right there on the same page as the setting text, I'll pay for it. Anything I have to cross-reference, however, just complicates my already overly cross-referenced game even more. That said, books like the Pathfinder Technology Guide, which aren't really tied to any particular setting but can be used to help facilitate a number of them, are certainly appreciated. For the majority of settings though, I usually don't really need anything other than the original setting book and the Pathfinder CRB and bestiaries.
To me, this is why we even have GMs in the first place. To cover all the things the writers of the rulebook didn't think of or have room for. Otherwise you could just all be players and run a dungeon crawl with dice or cards to decide what comes up in the next room (not that I have anything against that kind of game either, <3 Advanced Heroquest :) .) "The GM overrules the rulebook" isn't always a bad thing. If you have a decent GM, they'll do what's right for the table as a whole rather than just use it to their advantage. When you have to rely on the rulebook to bash the GM over the head with, that's not a fault in the game, it's a fault with who you choose to play with. A good GM *always* tries to facilitate rather than dictate.
Absolutely. And one of the things I like most about it is the bit that tells you to change the things you don't like or think you can improve on. It's an RPG, not a boardgame, it's designed to be customized, to have its square pegs forced into round holes by stubborn GMs (shaving bits off to fit and gluing new bits on, where necessary) and to generally be used as a toolkit to construct the game *you* want to play with it.
Yes, but a new (rewritten with clarifications and fixes, and maybe even re-done classes) edition of the rulebook, not a new version of the game. So, because of what the majority tend to think because of the way it's been done with D&D over the years, that's a "no" in this particular vote.
I think the biggest issue, as others have mentioned, is that many people spend the best part of a year running a single AP so it's just not worth it for many customers. Releasing them individually as $1.99 bolt-on expansion PDFs could work better (maybe even add in a couple of "sidequest" encounters to bulk them up a little.) From the Paizo side of things, the usual applies - the current product volume has them pretty much at capacity, and they really don't want to expand any further than they already have (my guess here is a combination of a manageable number of staff and being pretty certain they've reached the optimal number of monthly releases before people have to start choosing between which ones to buy, which means any extra expansion ends up with diminishing returns.) 3PP is an option, and I've seen some products that are clearly intended for use with specific APs, but of course then the issue of not being able to directly reference the AP name or most of the storyline details within comes into play.
From what I understand, it's mostly a contractual or legal billing issue. They can't charge us for the order until it's about to ship due to either the agreement with the card companies or trading laws. Making the PDF available early would then leave Paizo's system open to abuse by people cancelling orders before shipment but after the PDF is sent. I guess they *could* charge the PDF list price on the day the PDF is sent, then charge the balance of the order price (minus the bit already paid) on shipment, but that would likely require fairly major changes to the subscription run code, as well as ending up with Paizo getting double-charged on card processing fees. It's been brought up enough times in the past that I'm pretty certain if there was a smooth and painless way to make the PDF available on day one, they'd have done it. Of course, they might be working on something for the future but not wanting to get our hopes up by mentioning it until it's been done.
You guys seriously believe that Paizo will never do a new edition, even if they have to lay off half their staff to please you? You guys seriously believe that they can subsist on adventure related stuff alone at the level they are now? I don't doubt there'll be a new edition at some point. I do doubt it'll be a D&D-style reboot that invalidates all the existing material, simply to be able to re-release updated versions of every book over the following 12 months. But a 2nd Edition Core Rulebook that drops directly into peoples existing collections, with revised versions of the core classes (possibly taking some lessons from Unchained), tweaks to the base combat rules, and an excuse to redo the entire book layout to fit in all the FAQed/errata-ed things that can't fit in right now? (And please for the love of all that's holy remove Paladin as a core class and make it a PrC instead) - I can absolutely see that happening.
Pretty much concur with this thinking and the two quarter prediction. There'll be an initial surge of 5e rulebook purchases ("everyone" buys those) after which the support products currently appear to have a far slimmer release schedule, meaning Pathfinder likely gets the lead back through sheer volume of releases each month.
The absolute worst PC I've ever seen was a good few years ago, it was a Packard-Bell monstrosity with some kind of in-house menu system layered over the installed Windows 95 OS.
Scott, as I've said before - you and I may have completely different gaming preferences, but at the end of the day who cares? It's only a game and not something to judge other people on or develop intense feelings over. When it comes to things like this, things that actually matter, things that affect peoples health and their lives - I'm happy to say that we are in 100% agreement. Relative to that, our gaming differences are about as important as what our favorite colors are.
The whole wall situation in A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones is another good illustration - there's all sorts of crazy crap going down, but 90% of the continent is quite happily ignorant of it and disregards anything they hear as exaggerated tales.
I think I can safely say I'm in the "the RP elements provided are okay, it's the convoluted combat rules that make combat drag on so much that are the issue." camp. Agreeing with the idea of eliminating random encounters - especially if you also remove XP, then you've eliminated a big need for them too. I'd love to see more things in APs that make my players _think_. More problem-solving encounters that have a range of solutions - even if one of those is rolling dice against a skill and another is to just kill the problem, as long as there are other feasible solutions as well. If I want a combat game, I'll just throw some dungeon tiles on the table and pick monsters from the Bestiaries :) No need for any other prewritten material - I want material that does my thinking for me, not that just automates picking what monster to go where. I think the APs, overall, are storylined nicely - I just want to see more things where a writer has sat down and concocted a really, really complex situation for me to throw at my players. So overall - combat is a problem, the only real solution in PF is to just have less of it. RP in APs is okay, but there's certainly room for more.
The class names are irrelevant. The characters can call themselves whatever they like. Likewise I think the best "Paladin" for many people would just be a multiclassed Fighter/Cleric to get the whole alignment issue out of the way :)
This. I don't really view character classes as part of the system core - more of a layer on top of the underlying d20 system (attributes, skills, and how to perform skill checks). Changing them doesn't change the underlying combat rules, monster stat blocks, and doesn't really break compatibility of adventures (except in the case of the occasional NPC belonging to one of those classes, in which case you've still got the option of using the original class or re-statting that NPC yourself.) There's nothing intrinsically broken with that underlying system that can't be fixed by detaching and replacing parts of it in a far more modular way like this. Take some classes and replace them, rework how magic works, even rewrite the combat rules, and you still retain stat-level compatibility for adventure modules. New modules would still work with the "old" system and old with new, without any worries about forcing anyone to run a particular system with it. And you know, if these versions of the classes end up being more popular than the originals, there's no reason why there can't be a new edition of the Core Rulebook somewhere down the road that uses these (and any other new rules introduced in a modular manner) instead of the old ones. That's how "editions" should be done (and are done in the majority of RPGs) - not by writing a brand new game.
If you're the one running the game, it's completely ethical to set the ground rules. *Any* ground rules, as long as you state them up front. It's equally ethical for the group to decide they can't agree to those rules, of course, and that's the point where it's either negotiation or finding a new GM - either is valid. Sometimes compromise ends up with a situation where nobody is happy, and sometimes it's just a matter of agreeing that it isn't going to work out. Nobody should have to play in a game they're uncomfortable with, for whatever reason, and you know better than anyone else what your comfort limits are.
See I think of it as the opposite. The eidolon is a blank canvas that the PC and GM can apply their own flavor to. It could be the summoner's imaginary friend, or psychic essence, or an outsider called in with its own agendas, or a stand. I love that blank aspect on it because I can put whatever flavor I wish to it (with GM approval of course). That's the big draw for me. I prefer flavorless classes that I can mold into what I wish, rather than flavor-focused classes that are unbending and rigid. Oh, you've gone and done it now. I now have an urge to make a summoner with an eidolon that looks like this :D
It is also important that the fighter gets to feel he has something relevant to do. At very high levels, there is a risk in this area. It's important to remember that one person's high level game isn't necessarily the same as another person's. I always go out of my way as a GM to provide the players of martial characters with things to do other than "hit it", "hit it harder", and "hit it in a really strange and unique manner" - but the game itself doesn't make that provision, and while some players don't even see that as an issue, there are also some that do.
I like a simple core, and shelves full of options, settings, and reference material :) I love things like Ultimate Campaign, especially, because I can choose to introduce them into a particular game or not. Books full of monsters, adventure path books, gazetteers, things like the NPC Codex. Anything that can be plugged in but which doesn't actually expand and complicate the day-to-day usage of the core. My ideal game setup would be something like a 32-page player booklet and 10,000,000 pages of GM info. (Also, I'm *really* glad you asked that question, as it's something I've often realized can look a little odd in my posts, and felt I should explain some time.)
Downloaded it.
There's nothing new in there. That's a *good* thing for me, they haven't tried to make changes just for the sake of making changes. It's a very nice return to a basic system that's vague enough to cover things without needing specific rules for every possibility, and there's a distinct (and welcome) lack of complexity as can be seen in the lack of equation-based boxes on the character sheet. This is D&D, the way I remember it. A set of fairly loose, uncomplicated rules that let you get on with the game without having to keep consulting a rulebook every time you breathe in order to check the lung capacity table, and which allows you to get on with the storytelling without your decisions being influenced at a tactical level by various rules and exceptions. Color me *very* impressed at their willingness to discard the layers of core complexity the last 20 or so years have added and not to come out with Warhammer 40K, Skirmish Edition. (I have a feeling here that Hasbro have released them from some former obligations to make rules designed mostly to sell minis...) Like some others, however, it's come too late for me. I'm invested in Pathfinder too much to buy back into (as in, fill a few shelves with) D&D instead. However, I'm going to be stealing more than a few concepts from this for my own Pathfinder house rules, and I'm very happy I've got the other core books on preorder. I've always said I'd find any major change to Pathfinder very unwelcome. I have to say now though that if they changed to something like this, I'd happily eat those words.
Probably the most important lesson I've learned over the years is that occasionally friends and gaming doesn't mix. Sometimes you just want different things, and it's important to accept that there's nothing wrong with that. The biggest mistake you can make is to assume you're "playing Pathfinder" (or whatever game you're playing) - it's far more than that, the whole dynamic of the group around the table can end up moulding the game far more than the rulebook does. Just like you might not go to a football game with friends if you hate football, or might not go to watch a movie you hate if friends are going to see it, it isn't wrong to bow out of a game either. Feeling forced into something you don't like is a great way to ruin a friendship, and unless you're physically shackled together spending that time apart is always an option. As we grow older that tends to happen anyway, so there's nothing wrong with getting used to it early by spending game night with a different group of people. The biggest way this has affected my own gaming is that I now play in two weekly groups - a long term group where we enjoy each other's company more than we enjoy the game, and a group I put together just for a single campaign and then disband. The latter group is where I decide what I want to play and then find people who want to play it, rather than always fitting in with the group. In turn, that takes the pressure off in the long-term group as I don't feel the need to drag everyone there into a game they may not enjoy.
I think having an AP set in Golarion would require Paizo to have editorial oversight of the product, and it'd get stuck in the exact same bottleneck that's preventing them from doing it themselves. Therefore I don't think it's a matter of writing the AP, it's a matter of the small number of people that can stamp the seal of approval on it. By necessity, that can't be a very big group of people if you want consistency in the setting. Having a more generic AP that GM's can port into Golarion themselves certainly seems to be the more likely option, and that puts the ball firmly in the court of 3PPs to produce such a product.
I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?See this article (which, hilariously, actually references D&D towards the end). And before someone starts in with, "But D&D isn't software!" - yes, yes it is. This is something I've been messing around with in the back of my head for a while, too :) If a table of players is the hardware, you can view an RPG and adventure module either as OS and application, or as game engine and data file. I'm tempted to define supplements as plugins. RPGs have an API (the rules), they have defined interfaces (stat blocks, for one example), and anything designed to work with the API and rules is compatible with them. Anything that isn't needs "patching" manually in order to work. Sometimes an upgrade of the RPG results in adventures and supplements no longer being compatible. Sometimes it's a minor enough change that many will run without modification.
This thread took a detour through Off-Topic, I see. I just assume the occasional on-topic post is the detour.
What are the mechanics for sexual intercourse in Pathfinder? Pretty sure it'll involve a hard DC.
Which is why this is sort of silly. If thog the barbarian is being played by a mathmetician, and The 20 int wizard and 20 wisdom cleric are being played by people who dont know what prime numbers are, are we really saying the illiterate barbarian that counts with is tows is the one that comes up with the answer here?Which number of 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 does not belong with the others? "Thog not like stupid puzzle. Thog smack puzzle with axe until it surrender." Thog then proceeds to hit the nearest panel - which just happens to be the one with the number 9 on it. The door opens. "Ha. Puzzle surrender to Thog!" However, I'm not suggesting that puzzles should always be presented OOC to the players - just that it's nice to have the option for those of us that enjoy solving them. Again, bear in mind that it's equally silly for a battle-hardened veteran to run around standing in the worst possible positions during combat, just because the player doesn't understand tactics at the same level as their character or the game mechanics that would allow them to perform better.
Add my name to the list of people who want it! Mine too! ... and, ah, also my 5,000 friends that have asked me to post here.
I'm really not a fan of the word "Switch". It implies that a system or game is being abandoned for something else. I've switched from AD&D 2E to 3E and then to v3.5 / Pathfinder and then to 4E and then to D&D:Next. I still play v3.5/PF and 4E because they do things that the other doesn't. Further we still have characters and adventures that are on-going in those editions that needs wrapping up:I think the casual gamer may only have time for one game and one system. So when they commit to something thats it. They invest in that system and thats what they play. I play a few things, but mostly it's focused around Pathfinder as our "main" game (the one all the time and money investment goes into). Any system the size of PF/D&D is going to mean switching from buying one to buying another if we adopt it an any major way. There's also only so much of the same genre we can tolerate before wanting a change, and given our campaigns tend to last up to two or three months there's not room for many different games in that rotation. Any alternatives in there tend to be single-book games or those that have maybe half a dozen supplements at most (although Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space is the main exception here, slowly growing at the rate of one sourcebook per Doctor.) So yeah, for me it would be a switch - it would mean clearing the shelves of Pathfinder books to make room for whatever new 20+ book system is going to take its place, and terminating my Paizo subs in order to be able to afford to buy those new books. That's why for me 5e is going to be just the three core books, to take up a little bit of shelf space at the side and not require any ongoing expense. That's why my piles of 3/3.5 and 4e books are now in storage, and my 2e collection scattered to the winds via eBay (my beloved BECMI books are still on the shelf, however, as you'd have to claw those from my cold, dead hands.)
Other playstyles are not wrongbadfun, and awareness and sympathy of playstyles other than one's own is NOT a bad thing. I want to see this permanently emblazoned in 64-point letters directly above the post reply area... :)
I have to admit I'm not a fan of puzzle DCs at all, except as a means to provide hints. Yes, it means the player does the thinking. But, we don't roll against a tactical skill DC to place characters in the best possible position and make the best possible action in combat, either - the player still does the thinking for their character there, in just the same way. We don't make a roll to decide whether the best manner to proceed is to negotiate or initiate combat - the player has to think and make that decision. I really don't see any real difference here. It's just about where you draw that line between rolling and thinking. Otherwise, we'd just start an adventure with rolling against an adventure DC, checking for success, and then declaring game over.
That is not how orbital mechanics work. At all.Sure? And here I thought the mass of a planet pinches space-time and the antigrav counterforce of a moon counters the pinching of space-time by the planetary mass. Sneaks off with evil smile. All I know is The Doctor managed to tow Earth back into position after the Daleks stole it.
Isn't the FAQ a group thing anyway? I didn't think they were the work of one person. Um, you pretty much just described customer service positions there :) No power to do anything about the underlying problem other than to smile politely and issue refunds, yet they still have to be the one facing the irate customers. So yeah, that very setup is exactly why Sean tended to catch all the flak for the FAQ, being "the FAQ guy" that we all associated with it despite the fact the entire team work together on it (it's been said a few times in various conversations about them on here that one of the reasons why the FAQs get answered so slowly is that each one requires the dev team to sit and discuss it before coming up with an answer for publication on the site.) If anything, I'd hazard a guess that it's probably best to consider the FAQ role as being subservient to the entire dev team, as the poor bastard that has to sit and do the paperwork after everyone's finished sitting around talking it over in the meeting, rather than having any real power over the FAQs. ;) That, plus it's never, ever a good idea to assume any single staff member is behind anything in particular. It's always best to identify a specific perceived issue ("I don't like X about the FAQs") and leave the actual decision as to whether that really is a problem with the product (because it really can be that the "problem" is there by design even if an entire subset of players don't like it), and if so who is responsible for it (because the polite thing is to let that get handled privately behind closed doors, and not out here on the boards), to the company. Otherwise it can end up with message board conversations turning into a mob with flaming torches screaming "burn the witch!" ;) In other words, always aim criticism well and truly at the product (or company) in question, rather than at a human being (e.g. "Google Chrome's UI changes over the past year are absolutely terrible and make it feel completely disjointed from the OS, as if for some reason Google feel their own look and feel is better than using the user-chosen theme for their computer. I've stopped using it because it doesn't feel like a web browser application any longer. That, plus the fact I don't trust Google any further than I could throw their datacenter." as opposed to "Whoever is in charge of UI design for Google Chrome must be totally blind and needs firing so hard that they end up getting a new job five years ago." - I speak from experience here :D )
The site was not hacked. These spammers are actual people, unfortunately.CAPTCHAs. Sadly, as long as the account-creation process can easily be automated there is no incentive for the spammers to go elsewhere. :( They don't care about CAPTCHAs - they're usually actual human beings nowadays from third world countries, paid peanuts to manually answer any CAPTCHA questions that come up during account creation.
Honestly, this (like most of these issues) seems far more likely to be upsetting players than the people who create the things. I think there's a huge lack of understanding amongst the fanbases that the people involved in the different parts of this industry actually get on rather well outside of their own companies, for the best part, and that they tend to quite happily feed off and improve on one another's ideas. Here's a shocker - Paizo and WotC staff are even friends on Facebook, and sometimes even joke with one another about friendly competition (I know right? It's like Pro Wrestling isn't it? These people who are fighting each other onscreen are travelling around in the same cars together! *gasp*) As much as I know some people would love to see Paizo grind WotC into dust beneath their feet, I also know that's absolutely the last thing the majority of people at Paizo want (seeing your friends suddenly jobless is not a good feeling). Perhaps we should start respecting the fact this is a friendly industry, and not a cutthroat one. That doesn't mean people can't to continue to hate whatever they want to hate, but it does mean they shouldn't try to turn it into a two-sided war between factions.
I honestly thought I had done something terribly terribly wrong the first time I played the game and got to that part (the going straight to crap part). Final Fantasy VI and Ultima VII: The Serpent Isle were the two games that made me realize how much more video games could be. U7 is quite possibly the holy grail of CRPGs to my mind. Story, adventure, plot twists, a party, a huge open world to explore (along with enough side-quests to make you forget you even had a main questline), and... breadmaking! It's a feeling I never really had again until Oblivion, and even more so in Skyrim - despite not being able to have half a dozen NPCs trailing in my wake - at least not without using mods :) Also the lack of breadmaking, until the Hearthfire addon!
I disagree. Say you purchase the game Stratego. You expect to be able to play the game using the rulebook and materials in the box, without having to guess at rules or customize rules. While you CAN modify the rules to a game (like Monopoly), ultimately you should be able to play the game as-written out of the box and have the game be fun and without play issues. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one :) I've never seen any RPG as being something to run out of the box, the closest I've ever come to that are hybrid RPG/boardgames like Warhammer Quest. I do, however, concede that if a product isn't designed to run out of the box, it should state that clearly. Then at least there's no room for claims that it isn't suitable for its expected function. In fact, some kind of indicator on APs and modules of the amount of work a GM is expected to put in could be a nice feature.
I think pretty much every good suggestion has been covered. Here's the ones I can think of, which in a lot of cases are duplicates. - Have the characters deal with it IC.
Nonetheless, dismissing our opinion is dismissing the only feedback you are likely to get. So we are representative by the very fact that we are the only ones willing to put in the time to represent the player base. However, you're not representing "the player base" - you're representing your section of the player base. If, say, (and this is a totally arbitrary figure) 95% of the player base are happy with things, the 5% that are not and voice an opinion about it still only represent the 5%. That said, it's not really up to anyone here to dismiss your opinion, the only thing that really ought to matter is whether Paizo listens to you or not. I do hope you are able to find a satisfactory resolution.
The GM pulls out their character sheet, and looks at you expectantly.
Gone, lost, forgotten, and never going back. I'm a very story-oriented player, and I find having arbitrary "leveling points" fits far better than XP for that kind of game - especially if you're playing a prewritten AP or have planned stat blocks for a campaign far in advance. I find it encourages players to simply get on with the game and stop worrying about whether an activity earns XP or not, it's one less piece of paperwork to worry about, and it avoids any issues of characters being out of sync with one another. It also means there's no problems if they manage to skip ahead (missing the chance to get XP) or get diverted (and earn extra XP) because whatever you face will always be level-appropriate.
|
