Mike S Avatar

Mike Selinker's page

Lone Shark Games. Goblin Squad Member. 2,362 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 606 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Lone Shark Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

I made the very same arguments while working on Core.

(My suggested terms:
Retain them into a retention pile; deal with them during retention.
Bank them into a bank; deal with them during banking.
Suspend them into a suspension pile; deal with them during suspension.
Defer them into a deferment pile; deal with them during deferment.
Expend them into an expended pile or a recovery pile; deal with them during recovery.
Deplete them into a depleted pile or a recovery pile; deal with them during recovery.
Consume them into a consumed pile or a recovery pile; deal with them during recovery.
Spend them into a spent pile; deal with them during recovery.)

I even proposed eliminating the word "banish" altogether, introducing the verb "vault" to mean "put into the vault."

But while those solutions might make sense in a wholly new edition in which we didn't care about the usability of older cards, this isn't that.

I believe I said at the time, "I agree with every word you said, and no, we can't do that."

Lone Shark Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's my latest:
----
Blood Letters
by Mike Selinker
I'm not a vampire per se. More of a blood-drinker. Vampires have fangs. I didn't get so lucky. In fact, these loosey-goosey dentures really aren't helping matters.

Lone Shark Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not aware of any time we've tried to do that.

Lone Shark Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this rule should just be "You look at a location and decide what traits it should have if you care about them."

Lone Shark Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have described this situation at least 20 times since Gen Con. It was a wonder to watch.

Lone Shark Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Longshot11 wrote:
That said, I seem to remember a Paizo/Lone Shark person stating way back that they used "she" in the male character powers, and "he" - in female's - ostensibly so they avoid confusion if the character is targeting someone else of him/her/themselves :)

In the core sets, that's true. But we were inconsistent. Reiko, Nyctessa, and Zelhara are some characters that broke that rule, likely because we forgot the rule occasionally.

The singular they is a subject of great debate at the Lone Shark office. Everyone agrees with it philosophically, but the wording is sometimes very awkward. A lot depends on how you feel about the "word" themself. So we try to avoid constructions that lead us down these strange and unfamiliar passages.

Lone Shark Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Tyler wrote:

The two main takeaways I got from this blog are that:

* We're not going to see a Jade Regent AP any time soon (though that may be relative to when the Ultimate Add-On Decks were conceived, so it might be more soon).

This seems likely. Mostly, we have a lot of ideas we'd prefer to do first. But the positive side is that the Core+ format allows us to make Adventure Paths of pretty much any size, so depending on Paizo's interest level in Jade Regent (or anything else), we can now do it a lot easier than we could have. Still, Hayato and Reiko's appearances in Ultimates, plus all of their Eastern-inspired gear, whetted our whistles for Jade Regent for a while.

Brother Tyler wrote:
We're not going to see dedicated Class Decks for the classes that don't yet have them.

This is less clear. We haven't really evaluated whether we're going to do more Class Decks. We are watching the RPG line to see which characters get revived in PF2 and what they look like. Both Valeros and Harsk changed enough in their weapon/armor choices that we will want to make sure we get any new versions of characters right in line with the RPG designers' thoughts.

Lone Shark Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also that. Right, we actually planned for this.

Lone Shark Games

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Whipstitch wrote:

Thanks for the Free RPG Day fun! My daughter and I went to our local gaming store in our Pathfinder shirts to run this fun adventure.

Any chance those characters will become Guild legal, maybe using either the Goblins Fight deck or the Goblins Burn deck?

100% chance.

Lone Shark Games

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Are you kidding? We have SO MUCH STUFF planned for PACS, you have no idea. But you will soon!

Lone Shark Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's level 4.

Lone Shark Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you've played Apocrypha, you know that we pulled the "same name, same art, different powers" trick a lot. That's because each chapter of Apocrypha has different mechanics, and we want the cards in each set to respond to its set's mechanics.

For example, the card Paper People in the Candlepoint (e.g., the Base set) chapter's powers are:
* Confront: [All saints] Cannot play Strike gifts.
* Lose: Shuffle the top card of the clock into your nexus.

But the card Paper People in the Fae chapter has the no-Strike gifts power, but replaces the last power with:
* Initiate: Toss this threat into the air. The saint it lands nearest to confronts it instead, ignoring this power.

That's because the Fae chapter is where those carnival games powers are, and we wouldn't want the Paper People to be left out of that fun. But in the Base set, that power would make no sense. (Nothing in the Fae chapter makes sense. Guess which Shark wrote it?)

So, after that experience, it wasn't reasonable for us to hold the line in PACG on this subject any more. If there's a Gargoyle in Curse, it should be the Gargoyle it needs to be.

Lone Shark Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Using the hour power is not playing one of your cards. The rulebook says "Collectively, the party may play no more than one boon of each type," which means the cards have to come from the party. You don't own the hour, so it doesn't count against the cards you can play.

Lone Shark Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, very much so! I only listed the things I had a hand in, and since I didn't work on that with Crystal, it didn't make sense for me to make it part of my personal narrative. But you should get it!

Lone Shark Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gibo Auja wrote:
Honestly anything involving Linda Zayas-Palmer is guaranteed to be amazing.

This is truth.

Lone Shark Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yewstance wrote:
  • Are you playing Seasons 0-5 with the Core Set added (I'm not sure this has been explicitly stated, but I would presume this is the intent, based on previous statement by Mike Selinker)?
  • I do not remember saying this, and if I did, I was speaking out of turn. What we hope to see is people playing older OP scenarios with the Core Set rules.

    We are definitely still tinkering with the details (even having some meetings between Paizo and Lone Shark at PaizoCon on the subject), but we will get it all worked out real soon now.

    Lone Shark Games

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    wkover wrote:
    Seems a bit unusual that Core-based PACS events were being run without the new Guide being released. (Or was the Guide released and I missed it?) It's possible that the new Guide fixes some of these issues.

    We are testing the new Guide elements at PaizoCon and will release it when we decide the testing has produced the results we're looking for.

    Lone Shark Games

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Next week the Core Principles series covers all things conversion-related. We’re taking a list of pre-Core card changes to PaizoCon and discovering anything else we find there.

    Lone Shark Games

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Yeah, we have that one on deck already.

    Lone Shark Games

    9 people marked this as a favorite.

    Here's what we're going to do: See how Core and Curse are received in the player community. Then we'll make some decisions.

    As of today, I'm happy we have the number 1 and number 3 new boardgames on Amazon, so that's cool.

    Lone Shark Games

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    rulebook, p. 14 wrote:
    If you’re told to summon and encounter the danger, summon the danger listed by the scenario and encounter it; if the scenario lists more than one danger, randomly choose one of them.

    Lone Shark Games

    10 people marked this as a favorite.

    If anyone missed the announcement about Keith becoming the new president of Lone Shark Games after I stepped aside to focus on being chief creative officer, here it is.

    ---

    Some welcome changes for me and Lone Shark, part 1

    This month marks the completion of some things I’ve been planning to do for a while. If you want to hear what’s up with me and Lone Shark (spoiler: all good), read on. I’m pretty excited about it. I’m writing it in a few parts, with a complex story arc, exciting new characters, and deeply immersive… dammit. Don’t make it a project, Mike. Just write.

    Part the First: I’m no longer the president of the company

    James Ernest and I started Lone Shark in 2003. I’ve been running the company for twice as long as I spent at Wizards, even though some people think I still work there. For me, “president” is part of my identity; I run things.

    Of late, the thing I’ve been running most is myself into the ground. Like, constantly. Lone Shark is healthy, but it’s healthy at the cost of me not being so. And that’s been because I’ve been doing three jobs: president (the guy who runs the company), chief creative officer (the guy who makes sure we make cool things), and lead designer (the guy who invents the cool things we make). I love the last of those, like the second, and have complex feels about the first. Regardless, I’ve come to dislike all three of them happening at the same time. I’ve become something of a bottleneck with everything direction-wise and creative-wise going through me, so that had to get changed.

    So, okay, what to do about it. When talking to my amazingly talented and tolerant team, they could imagine a different president. (Whether they could imagine me accepting one was the subject of some question.) They could imagine someone else (say, one of them) coordinating the design, possibly even a lot better than I do. What they could not imagine was a Lone Shark where I stopped walking through the door saying “I think we can do this and to prove it I just spent 48 straight hours in a cave making it work.” For reasons I’ve never completely gotten, I write things that encourage other people to become wildly creative. I spark things. I’m a sparkler.

    For me to keep doing that without keeling over, something had to go. But it couldn’t just go to anyone. I’d spent the last year forging a new Lone Shark back-of-house with chief business officer Sean Molley, who completely changed how we deal with the business side of the company. We empowered our long-suffering events and operations manager Shane Steed to figure out everything we needed to make it work. And we hired a marketing dude in Trevor Kidd who could write our Kickstarters and our social media and the like. But none of those people could be the company president.

    Lone Shark is a creative endeavor. We get asked by everyone to help them dream out loud. That’s because our creative team is second to none. For someone to lead Lone Shark better than I could, they’d have to get that. They’d have to be a part of it. So I asked designer Keith Richmond if he wanted to take more of a leadership role. Some of you don’t know Keith. That’s cool. Keith has been quietly helming most things Pathfinder for us for a while. When we needed to write a new Core Set and a sprawling Adventure Path in Curse of the Crimson Throne (out next month!), Keith was the center of that universe.

    Keith also has two other features that make him qualified for this job. The first is that is steeped deep in the well of project coordination. At Akamai—you know, the folks that hold the internet together—Keith’s title is Principal Release Engineer. I won’t pretend I know what that means. But see that word “Release”? One thing I have been wildly less good at than everyone would like is releasing things on time. Keith is a principal at that. Our train is about run a lot smoother, I think. Freeing up my time, allowing me forbidden things like weekends and vacations, will make me better. And rebuilding things so Liz, Skylar, Chad, Aviva, Gaby, Tanis, Paul, Rodney, and every other creative force here feels comfortable taking an evening off has to be good. We’re not there yet. But we’ll get there.

    The second is that Keith is a family-oriented person. He values work-life balance. He puts his family first, and he transfers that commitment into the deeply supportive family at Lone Shark. I … well, my track record is mixed here. I used the word “tolerant” before, and no one has been more tolerant than my wife Evon. I’m tough on myself, I’m tough on the team at Lone Shark, and I’m collaterally tough on Evon. That’s gotta change. As Lone Shark has expanded, I’ve spent a lot of my team just dealing with our people’s internal issues. Not always well, mind you. I’m not an empath and everyone knows it. I’m a problem solver. Keith’s pretty good at that too, but he’s also an empath. We’re creative people. We can get complicated. Keith’ll figure it out.

    So I’m delighted to officially announce that I’ve transferred the responsibility to run both our staff and schedules to Keith Richmond, Lone Shark’s new company president. Me, I’m gonna make you some more cool stuff.

    Thanks for reading. Part the Second comes soon.

    Lone Shark Games

    9 people marked this as a favorite.

    I am pleased to pass the torch to Keith, especially when it's on fire down to the handle.

    Mike

    Lone Shark Games

    7 people marked this as a favorite.

    Then I guess we'd better get the rest of these "preview" blogs out!

    Lone Shark Games

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    JohnF wrote:
    What happens if I want to apply this reward to a character I'm intending to play under the new rules?

    For simplicity's sake, this is what the new rulebook says about rewards in older scenarios and APs:

    new rules wrote:
    When playing an older Adventure Path, continue to use the feat rewards as listed on the cards; limits on feats don’t apply in those APs. At the end of each adventure, each character gets a hero point that cannot be used to gain a feat.

    Lone Shark Games

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Cantide wrote:
    So wait, if the adventure deck number limits the number of feats you can have, does that mean 6 is the new upper limit on power feats? Or will we be going from Adventure 0-6 to 1-7 instead?

    This will be discussed in an upcoming blog. Hang loose.

    Lone Shark Games

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The We Be Heroes adventure is 8 pages that are 5.5" x 8.5". We did not provide role cards in the adventure because the characters are too low level in the adventure to use them, but we will be providing them in a download.

    Lone Shark Games

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I'll be going on Reddit at 1 pm today to discuss anything people want. If you have questions, go here at 1 pm Pacific. See you there!

    Lone Shark Games

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thetang22 wrote:
    There’s plenty to like about all the new changes, but some of the artistic choices are still frustrating. Why in the world was it chosen to zoom way in on heroes/enemy faces, rather than giving more of a visual overview of the character/enemy? Looking at Amiri, I’ve got very little indication of what the character looks like below the neck (same to be said of enemies seen so far).

    All characters are represented in full body view on their pawns.

    Lone Shark Games

    12 people marked this as a favorite.
    emky wrote:
    I wish you'd just be honest and call it 2nd edition. This is ABSOLUTELY a new edition. there's almost no semblance of the original game. It might have some (challenging) backwards compatibility, but that doesn't mean it's not a new edition. I think you'll annoy people more if they get this expecting it not to be a new edition and seeing what it is now.

    Hey folks, I know what it means to reboot a game and create a new edition. This isn't it.

    I was a creative director on 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons, the first edition Wizards of the Coast put out. Now THAT was a new edition. I remember articulating a hippocratic principle in the first meeting I was in—I said "If you do nothing but make armor class go the other direction, you'll be doing the Lord's work"—and the team abandoned that stance immediately. Everything was on the table for changes in that edition. There wasn't any desire to keep any material from 2nd Edition compatible. We ripped up the ground and started over.

    When Larry Harris and I rebooted Axis & Allies, we introduced completely new ways to win. We threw out all the submarine rules and started them over. We merged the two combat systems into one streamlined system. We had 18 years of frustration build into the system and we fixed it all.

    When I created the Deluxe Edition of Attack, I threw out the original designer's entire turn sequence. The board still functioned the same way, but the cards now did totally different things. You couldn't play the original edition and the deluxe edition together if you tried.

    When I convened the team to revise PACG, none of that was on the table. We expressly wanted everything to work as well as possible with earlier material. We've made more than 100 characters, and nearly all of them continue to function exactly as they did before. We've made dozens of adventures, and most of them play just fine with Core. Yeah, we had lots of things we wanted to fix and streamline, and we did all that, but the core of the game and most of its functionality is unchanged. In our files at Lone Shark, the entire game is listed as "PACG+". That comes from the principle that we are adding to the fun of the game, not replacing it. It's better now, in our opinion. Its graphic design is very different, and that might take some getting used to. But it's all built on what was there before.

    As Vic notes, we’re not calling this a new edition because it’s fundamentally the same game, and isn’t going to make you stop using your old cards. I understand that there are people who think we’ve changed enough to call this a new edition, but as Vic again notes, there are people who thought we changed enough in Skull & Shackles to call that a new edition too. Trust me, when I want to make one of those, you'll know.

    So yeah, I don't like the suggestion that I'm not "being honest" about this. My team and I have spent the last year trying to make a game that both honors what went before and improves upon it. The value of that work will be up to you to judge. But you should be clear about what my intent was. If Paizo had wanted someone to rip up the ground and start over, coming to me to do it would be a fine idea, because I've done that many times before. That's not what they wanted, and it's not what I wanted. I'm pretty happy where we ended up, and I hope you will be too.

    Mike

    Lone Shark Games

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Xexyz wrote:
    Ouch, that nerfs WotR Seoni's first power pretty hard. No more using the same spell on multiple combat checks. I wonder what other characters have powers that are going to be affected by this change?

    Thanks for finding that, Xexyz. We had not caught that one in our sweep through all the cards. In this case, we'd probably make Seoni able to reach into her recovery pile too. (Assuming we didn't find some reason to disallow that.)

    We'll be building an online document that lists changes to previous cards. Our goal is to bring them in line with the new rules as closely as possible to their original intent, unless we have a reason to change that intent. So please note anything you think is worth updating on a card-by-card basis, and we'll consider it for that document.

    Lone Shark Games

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    alucardeck wrote:
    Any changes about character improvements and roles card?

    Details next week.

    Lone Shark Games

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Shnik wrote:
    The way my group plays these cards, if you aren't required to "do an action" with the displayed card (recharge, discard, etc.), displaying it and immediately using an optional power counts as a single "use" of the card, so can be done in response to a situation.

    I would defer to Vic to issue a more elaborate explanation, but that is pretty close to the intent.

    Lone Shark Games

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Whipstitch wrote:
    Hawkmoon269 wrote:
    Keep in mind, we haven't seen what spell, barrier or support cards will look like. We already see that some types of cards have an oval window while some have squares. It is possible other types will have shapes and sizes for art.
    This is true. Let's hope I jumped the gun!

    You jumped the gun. We'll have previews of spells and barriers and such next time.

    Lone Shark Games

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Krzysztof Bieniawski wrote:
    But yet, with all these changes you've made a terrible decision of shrinking the art down

    Take a copy of Longsword from Runelords, turn it sideways, and compare the art box to that of Wyrmsmite above. You'll discover that the box is the same size. The monsters and allies all have taller windows as well. When you see barriers and spells next time, you'll see that their size hasn't changed much either.

    What you are seeing is us more efficiently using space, not reducing the art size.

    Lone Shark Games

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Calthaer wrote:
    Would love to hear how Organized Play is going to work now in the New Regime.

    This is a major priority for us to develop now that we've finished Core and Curse. I'm sure Keith Richmond especially would love to hear people's opinions on where were should focus our development efforts, so please bring the knowledge.

    Lone Shark Games

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I am now sad to discover the existence of the word "Dorn-dergar" AFTER sending PACG Core and Curse of the Crimson Throne to the printer. Harsk will never forgive me.

    Lone Shark Games

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    eddiephlash wrote:
    Is this the first instance of a character being introduced in an Adventure Path after they were used in a class/character deck?

    Yes.

    For those who don't know, Varian was introduced as a cohort in the organized play Adventure Path Season of the Righteous before he was introduced in the Pathfinder Tales Character Deck. Radovan has actually completed the circuit from cohort to character and back to cohort.

    Lone Shark Games

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Marco Massoudi wrote:
    Nice to see that Mike Selinker gets his due

    The new box tops not only say "A game by Mike Selinker" but the names of all the designers of that set as well. In this case, I'm joined by Chad Brown, Keith Richmond, Liz Spain, and Aviva Schecterson.

    Lone Shark Games

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Hawkmoon269 wrote:

    Wildcards

    We didn't really get into these. Each time there was a person or two who were playing Core for the first time, so I didn't want to throw them too many changes at once. I know I wouldn't want to learn to check the wildcard while also learning to check the hour. But I like the idea to give replay some optional variability.

    Interestingly, it took us a while to get into them as well. We had them designed for a while and yet folks didn't want to make their games harder and weirder. Then Chad designed a scenario that revolved around wildcards, and we loved it. Then he and Keith designed an entire adventure based around wildcards, and we found it one of the most challenging and fun adventures we've played—especially when we were able to remove them from the adventure one by one.

    So go ahead and put them aside at first. We think you'll figure out what they're for and learn to love them as much as we do.

    Mike

    Lone Shark Games

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Parody wrote:
    Placement isn't as much of an issue as the text wrapping, regardless of whatever design they eventually use.

    Don't worry, Sonja fixed that. The icon's over on the lower right now.

    Lone Shark Games

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Elinnea wrote:
    That sounds like a lot of different knobs that can be tweaked - potentially too many, for someone who doesn't know yet what level of difficulty they actually want, or how fast a game will play. I hope there's a clear "Normal" difficulty path set out for a starting default. I could forsee it taking some trial and error to figure out what works well for a given group.

    The way to think about this is that "Normal mode" is a deck of 30 blessings, 9-card locations (plus any henchmen or villains), no wildcards, and the adventure number that's on the adventure you're playing. You know, like normal.

    Lone Shark Games

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Neume wrote:
    I was worried we'd never hear about the card game again.

    Sorry for the radio silence. We've been face down in editing and proofing the Core Set, and just didn't have too much time for blogs. It'll be done soon ... but then Curse will start in editing. We're gonna make sure we keep up the blogs as best as we can, though.

    Lone Shark Games

    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    I'll bring the PACG Core/Curse set and we can set up a game or two after dealer hours. I'd love it if you folks got a chance to play it.

    Lone Shark Games

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Browolfe wrote:
    This is definitely way cool. Any chance that you'll do an enhancement book/s as add-on's for the original four PACG's to give them the same kind of treatment? I would think it would be pretty popular and people who start with the new version of the game will be more likely to go back and buy the older products if they had something like that to support it.

    I've mentioned to Vic and company that I would like to do this eventually. Paizo would have to come up with a viable plan for it to actually sell, and I'm not sure that's feasible. Of course, I'd have to find time to write it. But I would very much like to see that happen.

    1 to 50 of 606 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>