![]()
![]()
![]() Justnobodyfqwl wrote: I can't for the life of me imagine not playing a TTRPG ancestry because of details you don't like in the art. I've never felt that beholden to one specific artist's interpretation. Often one artist is tasked with creating a “design template” for other artists to follow. There will always be leeway for each artist’s particular style and approach, but they tend to stick to the design template. Paizo goblins have a head shaped like a football. That’s pretty ingrained. Kent Hamilton’s design for the jotunborn seems like a pretty solidly…solidified and coded approach to what they look like. To me they look like the aliens from Prometheus in the Aliens franchise, only somewhat majorly weirded out in the neck and shoulders….and legs….and head. I definitely am turned off by it. So it makes me completely not interested in playing one from an aesthetic starting point. I get a lot of mileage out of aesthetics, so….I guess I can’t imagine playing a TTRPG ancestry that I find unappealing. Not that Kent hasn’t done an amazing job - I always find his sketch pages thoughtful, inspired and creative. Having said all that, I do like the arthropod companions creatures and the use of shell and silk. It is definitely an interesting take on the current iteration of the age old fad of “monster parts” that everyone from Battlezoo to Kobold Press are jumping on lately. I also imagine that if the “alternate dimension” isn’t detailed clearly it on the one hand gives players a lot of room to create their own narrative but that precise lack of clear detail could lead to some quite jarring table variation in that narrative. Also not sure how I feel about alternate dimension as a stand in for “super exotic way out planar space”. I’ve always felt a tension between “dimensions” and “planes of existence” and the conflation of the two. [EDIT - the article actually doesn’t say “alternate dimension” but “alternate plane of existence”, but my general point still stands. Could be a mistranslation by the author also…] The only thing I really want for a giant race is actual massive size and strength - reach, Strength bonuses and ability to smash objects and throw smaller creatures. Offset by the problems of fitting into regular corridors, and being flanked by just about everyone in the room. ![]()
![]() YuriP wrote: My point that I still kept is that the class is weak, clunky and conceptually strange to what its proposes. Making it a subpar class. Well I don’t have enough experience with “weak” but I considered making an Inventor and definitely found it clunky and conceptually strange. There were almost zero options I was interested in across all three Innocation types, and the core mechanics of Overdrive and Unstable seemed…massively clunky. I should add that I derive a great deal of fulfillment personally from emulating a particular “class fantasy” for each class, so the root “functions well in combat” or “hits appropriate markers” do absolutely nothing for me. The idea that anyone would choose an ancestry to maximise their class, or take a class dedication like Kineticist to shore up their AC is so anathematic to my approach that I am definitely “playing a different way” than others here assessing things like viability and balance or the relative lack thereof. But for me, Inventors were something I was quite interested in thematically but found lacklustre in the available options and conceptually strange in that it felt like the class concept was first rendered into powder, then rehydrated and poured into a “combat mechanic capacity” alembic. Then stirred, and poured into a the hope a “fun class” came out at the other end. For this individual, it completely failed. No real inventing. Innovations thematically hamstrung by strange core mechanics across the board and topped off with lacklustre and too few options. ![]()
![]() It’s disappointing that folks can “cheese” their “build” with such obviously token narrative choices. It’s disappointing that the playtest classes can be “cheesed over” with a known exploit, and still be less than stellar. It’s disappointing that Beastmaster, rather than be a master of beasts, becomes a Mounted Cheesemaster. At least those are the three ways I felt the use of Beastmaster (and not just by the OP given the general credence the concept was given) was disappointing. ![]()
![]() Also ladders, ropes, hatches, tight corridors, water and other terrain “obstacles”. I’ve mostly found Mounted options almost never applicable, so while I have some fondness for the concept generally I’m surprised the archetype has reached this level of cheese-ubiquity. Ubiquicheese? That it is so ubiquitous that it enters playtesting considerations is disapppointing. ![]()
![]() Exocist wrote: Most of the time, this class' best contribution was simply casting muscle barrier over and over again. Given YuriP’s assessment of the ubiquity of Muscle Barrier, I have to ask: how “necromantic” does it feel to…buff your allies with viscera…goo? Like I get that there will be more options in the final release, but this isn’t what I would be looking for to be “necromantic”… I guess I’d like to know more about how the class…feels narratively. I’ve made my distaste for the thralls clear both in terms mechanically AND aesthetically, but I’d like to hear others thoughts on the aesthetics… ![]()
![]() I have seen a lot of posters make really good, inspired and insightful posts on perceived problems both narrative and mechanical and proposed solutions, both as derived from actual play-tested games and “theorycrafted”. I have not seen a single post from any developer. Not one. That seems…super weird. And if that is the new normal then that is beyond disappointing. I get that it was stated from the very outset that there wouldn’t be a second round of playtesting, that there would ‘t be any feedback in the blog until after the playtest period but as I stated in my “Welcome to the Playtest?” thread the radio silence has been deafening and, to tell the truth, demoralising. The surveys for the Commander and moreso the Guardian were anemic and obviously hyper-focused on incredibly narrow data points that did not allow for other points of view that clearly the devs had zero interest in. I haven’t looked at this batch of surveys yet. Sadly, the runesmith holds absolutely zero interest for me as a concept and this iteration of a “placeables” Necromancer repels me narratively. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is an interesting mechanical concept that has been seen before, but it’s not one I particularly want to either play or run a game in which one is being played. ![]()
![]() I will echo Mathmuse in that I look at PFS scenarios as a GM as a way of taking smaller episodes and splicing them into my home games. I haven’t yet, but I am on the lookout. I’m finally running a home PF2 game for some family/extended family members and given it is a conversion of a third party PF1 adventure the learning curve is steep! I’m hoping some PF2 PFS scenarios will help with getting a greater understanding of challenges, encounters, hazards and expectations. I’m sure standalone adventures or AP volumes could also help… ![]()
![]() I definitely hear that part of the attraction of PFS is the flexibility: allowing players to try out different class/ancestry/concept combinations; and allowing forever GMs to finally play!; and allowing players to jump to the “other side”. I only have experience with PFS via PbP, although my character was not PFS-conversant I was still a player - I found almost the entire group lacked role-playing skills and have since learned at least some of them are self-confessed “rollplayers” with little interest in interpersonal roleplaying. I don’t need a small novella with every post (in fact more than a few paragraphs has me scratching out my eyeballs) but at least some understanding that there are characters rather than wandering statblocks would be nice. It was however a fantastic education in PF2 - running through both Otari sequences (Menace/Trouble) in their entirety - and a particularly tense final battle in the first arc was super fun. The GM was/is fantastic and ran a smooth game both in terms of pacing and setting but also in terms of combat (recaps each round, explanations of rulings etc). My main problem with PFS is more aesthetic - I find Golarion’s world a little too “banality of fantasy” whereby the Star Trek style “humans with funny heads” actually makes fantastic elements mundane by their ubiquity. As I get older, I tend to want my character to be fairly simple - my character during that Otari opus was a fairy vanilla Human Fighter - wandering around with a Catfolk monk, Leshy sorceror, Halfling cleric and duskwalker warpriest. The only other true “human” was an old witch but she died in that battle under Otari and her player replaced her with an Orc Druid who was fairly wild and ferocious but not very personable. Interestingly enough, that group decided to move on to a conversion of CotKK but I dropped out (mostly because I found my own character [the Human fighter] had the personality of a cardboard box so the roleplay lack was also mine… ) but also because I was already in another PF2 CotKK and the group added a few more players, and had all changed characters and the group seems to have at least a modicum of RP going on… So all groups are going to be different, and even the same group will be different moment to moment or scenario to scenario. And PFS allows for those moments to change with frequency. ![]()
![]() Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
Pretty sure WatersLethe was being sarcastic, but thanks for the link to that thread - had a quick look and found it pretty enlightening as to the changing cultural norms of Society play. ![]()
![]() There is a problem where previously available options (regardless of how borked they already were, nor how seldom they were used, possibly but not only due to aforementioned borkiness) are now repackaged as slightly different or the same, but now available a certain other, differently achievable way, in a supplement that is specifically *not* the Core experience. Folks are justifiably concerned that this is not good design policy, and would like not to see the like happen ever again. At least that is what Barney the Dinosaur told me to say. Except “borkiness”. That was Gumby. ![]()
![]() PossibleCabbage wrote:
All of which speaks to the issue with Pathfinder 2 being so embedded into the lore of Golarion. For those without these narrative “barriers”, they…don’t exist. So while it might help Paizo craft an identity for their necromancer, and give some reasons for mechanical limitations/boundaries, it leaves those of us who play largely outside of Golarion…bereft of equally interesting mechanical options because “story”. ![]()
![]() AestheticDialectic wrote:
So…those are all Divine spells…that the Necromancer…doesn’t get? Ouch. Definitely don’t want raise dead or necrotize. No sirree. Phew! That was close! Almost had thematic spells there. ![]()
![]() AestheticDialectic wrote:
Yep. I see that. I agree, pick-a-list can be seen as a thematic void, but given that there are folks like me that see the traditions as a thematic fail through being a poor fit, and pick-a-list as a thematic possibility, I’d prefer pick-a-list on a Thrallmaster. For a Necromancer….I guess I see Occult working, but it still is a thematic kludge. We are playtesting the Necromancer. I get it. I just think that this selection of a class to be in this playtest is a conceptual missed opportunity - the mechanics, though familiar, are interesting, and I would actually loved to have seen Paizo’s take on a Golarionic “placer of turrets/thrallmancer” rather than what I see as a “Necromancer that doesn’t”. So it kinda burns both ways. Even before you get to spell-lists. ![]()
![]() RPG-Geek wrote: It's tough to see the 4 traditions of magic as a good pillars of design when we're having this much debate about an iconic type of spellcaster with a very easy-to-assign list of spells. A Necromancer's spell list should be an easy slam dunk, but the inability to narrow down a caster's list of spells has led to debate and discord and will surely lead to friction for the entirety of this class's existence. Yep. The fact that there exist the focus spells as a workaround proves to me that this isn’t a slam dunk. Teridax wrote: Each tradition's spell list as we know it now was visibly designed around each of the four tradition-specific CRB classes, which is why the arcane and occult lists are overloaded with plenty of spells that affect vital essence (because Wizards had to wield the eight OGL schools of magic, and Bards had to be able to do a little bit of everything), and the primal list has poor access to void damage or undead healing (because Druids can't be allowed to create or manipulate undead, or do anything that goes against nature). Ah. Thanks for pointing that out so eloquently. I just don’t like the tradition approach, and now I know a little more why it feels unhelpful. Teridax wrote: Even beyond iffy delineation, part of the discourse around the Necromancer is that spell lists are too broad: the occult list of course has lots of spells that don't fit a necromancer at all, because it's got tons of mental effects and other stuff tailored around the Bard, but even the divine list has lots of spells that wouldn't really fit the class, to say nothing of the other two traditions. Even if the class were given divine spells, which in my opinion would have been a better fit, that would not have been fully satisfactory either, which is presumably also why the Necromancer's feat lists gives us tons of focus spells to really dig into their specific flavor through spellcasting. Yep. It really has to straddle list-and-focus-spells just to be a Tigger. ![]()
![]() Or, more simply, how does the Necromancer, with Int-based casting and summoning of thralls, function with each spell-list? Is a Primal Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics? Is an Arcane Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics? Is a Divine Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics? (Lets forget for the moment about the nomenclature of the thrall powers, bony barrages and necrotic bombs can be refalvoured….) ![]()
![]() Squiggit wrote:
I’m finding more and more that I dislike the four traditions and the thematic delineations that they necessarily attempt to shoehorn - and the fact that classes do get…nailed to certain traditions. It seems incredibly limiting conceptually, and I wonder at the efficacy of any mechanical reasoning for it. I do also wonder if, for the Necromancer, Occult is the “best choice” or merely a “strong choice”, given that there seem to be a lot of personal opinions floating about for the application of each tradition. A primal Necromancer would be, to excuse the pun, wild. Or, just a reflavored Druid. ;p ![]()
![]() Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: To me, Lamashtu's faith is here to embrace monstrosity, reject beauty, corrupt purity, and to feast upon those who would oppress them (in their minds: everyone), which is a dark, twisted nightmare, but a fascinating one to play with at the more ambiguously evil aspects. Her ideal of family may be the most twisted and monstrous imaginable, but to her followers it's still family--with all the usual toxic justifications that can imply.. This is exceedingly well put. Thanks SEO. I’ve always been drawn to Lamashtu and her story (apart from her real world name, that is just…annoying) but this makes me love her and her followers all the more. Families are hard! ![]()
![]() So, once ![]()
![]() I can see both sides of Int or Cha. Using a force of will and…spirit (Cha) to control and call forth spirits/undead works perfectly for me, as does long hours of study, reading, rereading, memorising and interpreting musty fungus covered tomes in dank ossuaries and mental gymnastics (Int) required to do same. Anyone decrying that they are absolutely sure that necromancy “is definitely all about study” is as unfortunate as anyone railing that necromancy is all about “awesome force of will being spirits to their power”. Many of these instances of quests for power and urges to control can be provided for both ways - those that seek to gain knowledge to gain power, and those that seek to bend others will to their own to…gain power. It’s more a innate tension between just what Intelligence and Charisma are - in terms of where does one end and the other begin. Emotional Intelligence. Social Awareness. Locations on certain spectrums. Apart from all that, it does seem as though it might be better for Necromancers to be Int based given the unfortunate relation between Int and Skills. As for Dirge: Not sure why people think “dirge” is some odd, uncommon word, but I totally understand it being used here. I can totally get the long quiescent mumblings in the ancient arhythmic tongueless tongue of the abdead or whatever. It’s a little…forced, but I have to admit it totally fits the theme. And I really like the absence of a spellbook. Spellbooks are very twee, and the less said about them the better. For sure, a Necromancer could have had a grimoire, or tome or whatever else, but a memorised litany or connection to a songtrain bubbling below the surface of their febrile mind is perfectly sufficient. And while I’m sure dirges *have* been written down, when I think of a dirge I think of a sad haunting droney dirgey song for the dead, not its written form. ![]()
![]() @Blave: I totally get your points, and I alluded to them in my OP - there are definitely downsides, but that could definitely be creatively approached. But I don’t disagree that this playtest Necromancer is a Necromancer it’s just that…well let me put it this way. I always thought the band KISS were…weird, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. Then, it hit me - if you close your eyes, the fact that they wear demonic/wild costumes has almost entirely nothing to do with their music. All that facepaint and leering and heels and spikes and armor only to sing “I was made for loving you”. Absent the theatrics, it’s entirely staid rock. And that’s how I fee about this Necromancer. It wants to dress in all the right get up, wield a scythe, shoot bony projectiles etc, but it’s not really singing an interesting tune. So, yes, it’s “valid”. But sadly, I wouldn’t want to play it. And I love necromancy as a narrative trope. And the thrall mechanic is interesting, as has been seen previously - it just doesn’t necessarily need to be necromantic… ![]()
![]() Trip.H wrote:
Yep, the “no-negativity” is so prevalent as to be stifling. It really feels like more open engagement would at least clear the air. Many times. Instead of endlessly blaming the community, the people who post here in the hopes of better dialogue, as being toxic and speculative. I can be terse and dismissive at times, but I truly wish for Pathfinder 2R to be the best it can be. And it seems that often Paizo doesn’t care enough about that and would rather it be “mostly functional” except where a) we know there’s an error and b) we’ve published more content that accumulates the known error of a). And that seems…like malfeasance. I’m not sure how else to put it, and I’m not being toxic, or attempting to be. Fix the known errors. Don’t exacerbate them. To me that seems like a baseline, not an especial bonus. ![]()
![]() Thanks for the kind words Trip H. I and others have been decrying the strange process of just bulldozing on through with shiny new instead of fixing the glaring errors for…years at this stage. And the usual folks keep justifying it for Paizo that “new content is necessary to pay the bills”. But where is such obvious abrogation of essential quality control “necessary”? ![]()
![]() Well, it would be great if someone would step in and say “yes, we are definitely looking at including gemeral out of combat functionality for Necromancer’s undead (whether thrall or otherwise) akin to a Kineticist’s Base Kinesis” but I’m not expecting that given the trajectory of successive playtests. So really all I would have hoped for was a post to say “Hi, we’re really excited and hope you are too. Try not to x, don’t bother to y and here’s to having some Impossible fun.” or a more individual post stickied at the top of each class for the individual dev in charge to keep track of really, glaringly superduper important changes or keep us informed of same. Iunno, it certainly helped before. As to it being close to Christmas, that isn’t really that meaningful either. Either you organise to commit, when it works, or you…don’t. Otherwise, do it after Christmas. When you can. ![]()
![]() keftiu wrote: It's right there on the blog, just like every other playtest launch post has been. Please, try checking the place Paizo has always posted their communications before acting like the walls are closing in. No, that’s the “Welcome to the Playtest” blogpost. Which every playtest has. And which is usually linked to the Playtest General Discussion, but hasn’t been. But generally there is a separate post, either in this subforum, or in each of the particular class subforums to say hi, lay out some expectations and ground rules for what the devs do and don’t want. I’ve read the blogpost. That’s how I got to the playtest forum. But there was no thread in the Playtest General Discussion subforum. I think that is…new. If anything, it isn’t that the walls are closing in, it’s that the place is….deserted. It’s not a good feeling. ![]()
![]() I find it odd that there isn’t a welcome thread here in General Discussion from James Case or even Joshua Birdsong. Given the number of posts from either developer during the last playtest could be counted on a few hands, I’m also not surprised. Also given that the playtest doc confirms that: Impossible Playtest wrote: We don’t expect to release any changes during the playtest itself, only in the final book, but keep an eye out for a blog or two after the playtest period where we might debrief some of our observations! I feel the nature of playtests is becoming more and more opaque. Perhaps Paizo have decided that the cost benefit analysis is that a lighter dev hand during playtests is favourable, and that engaging in minutiae is just not worth their time. Or it could be argued that there just isn’t the time available, which begs the question - why commit to something you can’t commit to? Regardless, it feels a little lonely and empty without at least a welcome thread and a few housekeeping comments to at least guide some of the chaos. Even some guidance as to posting writeups of *actual playtests conducted* perhaps here in the Playtest General forum so the devs can easily find them. And finally, given the disappearance of Michael Sayre as the “Director of Rules and Lore” without any kind of community notice I feel a little more bereft. What is going on at Paizo? ![]()
![]() willfromamerica wrote: Didn’t he just become Director of Rules and Lore this year? The titles at the back of the Playtest credit Adam Daigle as “Director of Narrative” and Joe Pasini as “Lead Designer (Games)” with James Case and John Compton as “Lead Developers”. So there has been some shakeup. Hard to tell when Michael’s position as “Director of Rules and Lore” ended with reagrd to (before/during?) the development of this Impossible Playtest. I hope Michael is ok. We’ve had our disagreements (usually during playtests!) over the years, but I have always found him to be an incredibly gifted designer and thoughtful and well-intentioned “explainer of things” whether they be design intent, game mechanics and their associated consequences/reasoning or just…life. ![]()
![]() Kyrone wrote: Investigator mainly, hate the Pursue a Lead and That's Odd. Forgot about Investigator. Totally banned. Not much point having a plot or…anything really with one of these around. I blame the concept of the Pathfinder Society for the whole Investigator shenanigans. Which is a pity, because I liked the Robert Downey Jnr Sherlock Holmes combat scenes kind of Investigator, but not the “I see, understand and winkle out all knowledge” meta. As well as the people who tend to play them, like the people who tend to play all the races I ban in my list above play them in such a way I…do not like. ![]()
![]() Conversely, should a highly hyped new release to narratively explore campaign world-affecting stories not include all classes clearly, simply and effectively? It seems that kineticists have somehow slipped through either development or editorial cracks (or both). That isn’t great, professionally or institutionally for the company. People might say it is a small thing, but it is the entirety of the point of the company. Not just interaction with dual classing. ![]()
![]() Wait, so it is a spell, and the spell is a plinky dart you have to hit with to make it then create a nimbus of glowy energy only you can see? That is so incredibly….I actually don’t know the words to describe it. “Narratively janky” springs to mind, but they may be because someone was describing WoI as filled with jank in the “Exemplar MC is overpowered” thread. Quite apart from the action economy cost, it just feels really specific, and highly weird. Not really what I envision when I think ”Did you hit them with the hunting…dart?” Cerbunos asked the grim stalker.
Plus, also strangely, if the last thing you did was hurt them, you can dismiss it and…hurt them more. Now *that* is vindictive, but doesn’t really help you find them any more. I dunno, it just seems like a narratively mixed up activity, and I don’t like that you have to tacitly hit them with a ranged missile attack to enact it. ![]()
![]() Blave wrote:
Where is that PDF from? It also has “copyright 2025” listed on a few pages…so perhaps it is…from the future? ![]()
![]() SatiricalBard wrote:
Yep, I found that one completely counterintuitive. I also found the deities somewhat odd - while I really liked the new direction Uirch is heading in, the two tech-heads (Varg and Wulgren) seem far too similar, even down to sharing a domain (creation) and their respective 4th level Cleric spell…ummm…creation. I also wasn’t really sold on the thread holding Jukha’s story together. It seems she failed in keeping her band together….and then…whoops….is now the god of big game hunting. It’s a bit of a leap, that doesn’t make a lot of sense with the minimal details we are given…. Mostly though, I actually found myself interested in playing this AP, and as a non-human. Finally an AP that makes complete sense to be a strange stranger in a strange land of strangers. And orcs. I guess my last issue with the AP is that while the Player’s Guide is actually pretty informative, it doesn’t really help me to understand how a) the group of “ambassadors/diplomats/fortune seekers/opportunity exploiters become a “group of adventurers” or b) how they come to share a common goal. Given most murder hobos don’t need much more than to have accidentally on purpose fallen over a fourth wall in any available tavern this isn’t a big issue, more an observation that the narrative appears a little nebulous compared to say…Season of Ghosts or….just about any other AP. Even Strange Aeons. I guess the common goal is to stop Ardax losing his deathgrip on control of Belkzen so as to keep some stability? ![]()
![]() I didn’t find the linked video in your post very informative, and much prefer THIS more recent one which introduces the core concept (heroic - professional monster slayers, not new adventurers; tactical - absolutely needs to be played on a grid; cinematic - not tracking torches or rations - this isn’t OSR) then breaks down the core mechanic - Power Rolls on 2d10 that then inform Tiers of success - 11 or below is Tier 1, 12-16 is Tier 2 and Tier 3 is 17+. So you essentially always hit, but Tier 1 is some damage, Tier 3 is much damage and an effect etc…there are also edges and banes - one edge provides a +2 to your result while 2 edges bumps your success by a Tier. And the reverse for banes. A critical (19 or 20) not only does good damage but also gives you a free action. The video then also introduces the five initial classes quickly and the use of heroic maneuvers and other resources. Also, it is half as long as the other video, which really is more of a set of impressions of someone who played the first playtest packet, and describes the differences between the first and second. ![]()
![]() Deriven Firelion wrote:
While I am unsure about Wizards as I have never played one I would dearly like an Unchained Summoner that didn’t have the janky shared Action Economy and shared HP pool. My experiences of PF2 make me feel that the much vaunted 3 Actions are mostly illusory as many activities are 2 Actions, and thus there aren’t that many things you can actually do to be narratively interesting. Act Together feels like more of what I feel is PF2’s dominant paradigm of “No, but…” (where, you can’t generally, but if you take this feat…at this higher level…you….can!) rather than “Yes, and…”. ![]()
![]() Not very sure about this, actually. For two reasons: 1: There still hasn’t been a very useful demo presented of the game. I’m not really sure how a user…interfaces with the game, and without seeing the game in action…what am I…backing? This is kinda weird to me. The first Update has a link to an…interview…with a person…not playing the game. About the game. Great. I don’t need hype, or good intentions, or passion, or more background of how experienced these guys are. I know who they are, and I was there downloading hakpaks for NWN back in the day. I want to see what they have made now, in action. 2: It is beyond disappointing that the player can make only one (1) character, and then has to choose from a cast of companions that are preset. Given I want to play the game to interact with the ruleset and have little to no interest in Golarion lore or the presented companions “backstories” the companions as currently presented are….problematic. As someone said in the Comments of the KS, there is currently no option to play through the game with a party of all fighters, or all wizards. Would much rather be able to build a party of four characters, and play the game, rather than get involved with three other, preset personalities. So currently it’s a watch and wait. ![]()
![]() I guess I really don’t get the concept. Why have the adventures linked, but not be targeted at the same characters? It seems like a strange way to present a narrative and feels like an ersatz yet abbreviated AP... As for any comparisons to Dungeon about the only thing I see is that they are wildly different in level and vary in length. Dungeon adventures often ran the gamut of campaign settings, length, tone, level and obviously, theme. ![]()
![]() Obviously any attempt to free content from litigation and make it as widely available to as many people is a good idea in my opinion. Making all such content entirely free so as to remove barriers to entry would be a bonus. However I’m not sure that any of this will come to pass. I don’t see two let alone a dozen of those *bu$ine$$e$* even embarking on talking about such an alliance. ![]()
![]() Kelseus wrote:
And I’m fairly certain I saw Beamdog’s Neverwinter Nights update on Xbox…yep, just checked. So eventually I’d guess it would make it.
|