Viviolay's page

I'm a bit disappointed regarding how complex the structure seems and I worry it's exploitative.

Instead of just saying, Spend X Dollars get X dollars off - the use of gold reminds me of monetization methods from some games where you always buy a form of currency instead of directly using dollars to cause people to have a degree of separation from dollar to currency and therefore psychologically be less aware of how much they're spending. That said - I understand the need because you're rewarding other behaviors besides purchases (reviews).

My BIGGER concern is the baked in FOMO aspect that also reminds me of certain predatory aspects in some games - FOMO also tends to work better (be more psychologically effective) upon certain groups of people disproportionally (for example, some neurodivergent people depending on the condition) and can lead to unhealthy spending. (I know Paizo is a company but there's a different relationship in how I see Paizo relative to its customers and some monetized games and their customers where unhealthy spending is actively encouraged regardless of detriment to the base). The idea that it's both locked behind a monetary AND limited quantity threshold vs. just one or the other I think is what makes it feel more heavily reliant on FOMO to me.

You can use Gold to access perks, but you MUST spend a dollar amount to reach a certain tier - you can't earn access by writing reviews/etc if I'm understanding the program correctly?

So it's a hard gatekeep on those who can afford to spend a certain amount - especially with an expiring time limit. $750/year is 62.50/month which for some people is a bill or groceries for a week.

It just feels bad - we're going into a likely worsening recession in the US where more people are going to be struggling due to more loss of social safety nets - and this is just one more thing people who can't spend a lot of money won't have access to. Yes, it's just game stuff - but I never like when escapism hobbies remind one of what they're trying to escape.

I know it's just business but - the idea of "if you can't spend $750 in a year - you can't even get the opportunity to get something" just is not something I'd expect in an incentive program from you guys.

Why the distinction between people who are black and people who aren't black in calling the NAACP by its abbreviation?

fwiw, growing up (I am black American) I've only heard everyone use the abbreviation and the only time i've encountered it said in full is academic settings when defining for people what the abbreviation stand for. As django also pointing out, "colored people" is a very dated term. At best, it would be considered very odd, awkward, and old fashioned term, and at worst - insulting- and this varies across countries.

But back to my main point, colloquially, I think almost everyone just says N-double A-C-P. (literally double A - not A-A)
---

@Maya I appreciate the write-up and the title made my heart lift. I have found memories of singing this song in elementary school.

So relieved! I feel like companies burn customers/community so often - i never take for granted that they’ll be listened to.

One of the few companies that always comes through when concerns are expressed. Idk if I’ll ever get to a point where I automatically trust a company to always do the right thing, but if I had to stake money on it - I’d choose Paizo.

I just found out about the change because of the concern conveyed from a creator whose tools I use to play PF2.

I don’t have much to add that hasn’t been already stated except I could’ve gone another decade without hearing anymore licensing drama.

I’m saddened that this time it’s potentially connected to my fav rpg company. I’m reading through trying to understand the changes but….i don’t know just having another potentially limiting licensing headache/discussion is exhausting and I really wish it wasn’t connect to PF/Paizo. Gonna wait on sidelines and observe and see.

Hope what’s best for the community works out.

I hate to be pedantic, but this part of the article had me afraid something happened to James.

“ Luis Loza, Creative Director of Pathfinder”

I thought Luis was creative director for rules and lore not over the whole system? Not that that title and Luis aren’t awesome, I just freaked for a minute cause I was like “what I was just talking to James last weekend - what happened!”

He is okay, right?

I don't know if James will see this, but I read his response re: the drow and I just wanted to thank him for being honest and clear and vulnerable about what went into the decision.

I'm sad a lot of things I like are going away all at once - but it made all the difference in my coming to peace with it in reading what he had to say. I just appreciate the transparency and I can tell how much the game and setting means to you and the team.

For me, that's enough to realize it'll be okay even if I'm sad about some of the losses.

Looks really interesting, but far too many spiders for me to be able to handle it T-T

Hope the kickstarter campaign goes well, though!

Yea, I saw the spider and squirmed a bit. Maybe they’d consider an arachnophobia mode if they get enough extra resources from the KS. I know a couple of games started doing that.

I was hoping for a Crpg too, but am open to giving this a shot - especially since doing an AP via couch coop sounds pretty fun and chill

Viviolay wrote:

I stated multiple times included in your quoted post of that I saw it.

If you watched Paizo Twitch stream with Jason Bulmahn and Logan Bonner, you will remember that they said several times that there would be a two-hour presentation during Paizo Con with more details.

Today's announcements and Twitch presentations are only the introduction. There will be information that won't be available until the actual release date. There will be information that won't be available until Paizo Con.

There's a lot more information that Paizo has already said they aren't yet revealing, which they repeated several times during both presentations.

You'll get your specific answers. But the specifics will arrive based on Paizo's timetable, not your frustrations.

Yes, I do recall that. Which is why I stated in an earlier post 'people asked this question re:X multiple times, and the answers were paizocon.'

Viviolay wrote:

Thank you at least trying and also acknowledging there was only something towards the end. I know the portion you are speaking about - it was something alog the lines of keeping the players ability to tell their stories the same- The lore stuff was glazed over in the stream I watched. That’s why I’m frustrated people keep saying it was addressed when it really wasn’t- at least not in that one.

I’m not outright upset about change- I just want more specifics because I care about those details and am frustrated there aren’t any so far beyond “not much”

Yes, the details of exactly what alignment is being replaced with has not been specified very much.

And in this case you are also getting a lot of pushback from people such as myself that is not really directed at this particular point you are asking about. It is more directed at the people posting that the sky is falling and that they are going to abandon the game because everything is changing and they will have to buy new books and ...

Chill. The core rulebooks are not changing that much.

I can understand that for sure. I can see why it'd be easy for actual unaddressed concerns to be mixed in with something that's been actually answered re: the books.

I just ask maybe people parse through more carefully which are which. It sucks I'm basically being told something was addressed multiple times in the thread that really wasn't because people assume everyone is losing their head I guess.

Thanks for at least acknowledging my point/frustrations and taking the time to differentiate it from the other concerns people are raising - I appreciate it.

Viviolay wrote:

graystone wrote:

Viviolay wrote:

My frustration comes from the fact all the people saying it's not changing don't seem to be paizo ppl

The streams LITERALLY stated it and people are repeating that... So, you are wrong about paizo ppl not mentioning it: they just didn't mention it in the blog. Maybe watch the streams and/or just take the word of people that have?

In that same post you quoted from - I stated I did watch the streams and asked if I missed it and if so around which portion so I can go back and watch that bit again.

Don't appreciate you assumed I just didn't watch.

Why would I assume anything else? Was I wrong in assuming you are a fairly perceptive person and as you are interested in that question and you'd recall when it was mentioned? IMO, it would have been rude to assume you did watch it and are still asking the question. But fine, I'll restate it as "Maybe [re-]watch the streams and/or just take the word of people that have?"

Your response comes off as hostile and dismissive to me in that it assumed the worst (that I’m just asking a question/expressing concern over something without being willing to do research myself). It also directly ignored the fact I stated multiple times included in your quoted post of that I saw it.

Viviolay wrote:

I'm not really concerned about existing books mechanically. Idk why its assumed I'm worried about it being a cash grab - I understand it's not and isn't what I'm asking about.

There have been several other people on this thread that have stated things to that effect. I am speaking to them as well.

Viviolay wrote:

I'm curious lore-wise what alignment removal means and was hoping for more specific answers watching the stream besides "not much is changing" because "not much" means different things to different people.

It does mean different things, that is true.

The main mechanics of the game are not changing much.

Alignment by that name is being removed. That much has been stated outright.

As for the stream and the changes to the lore and cosmology, the best I can remember is towards the end where they were summarizing (and I am paraphrasing here): They are wanting to keep the stories the same. Golarion isn't changing, the planes aren't changing. It is just being repackaged into different mechanics.

Thank you at least trying and also acknowledging there was only something towards the end. I know the portion you are speaking about - it was something alog the lines of keeping the players ability to tell their stories the same- The lore stuff was glazed over in the stream I watched. That’s why I’m frustrated people keep saying it was addressed when it really wasn’t- at least not in that one.

Viviolay wrote:

My frustration comes from the fact all the people saying it's not changing don't seem to be paizo ppl

The streams LITERALLY stated it and people are repeating that... So, you are wrong about paizo ppl not mentioning it: they just didn't mention it in the blog. Maybe watch the streams and/or just take the word of people that have?

In that same post you quoted from - I stated I did watch the stream**(the initial one with Logan and Jason) and asked if I missed it and if so around which portion so I can go back and watch that bit again. I was participating in the chat for that stream with questions.

Don't appreciate you assumed I just didn't watch.

Viviolay wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

So just to check because I'm now confused of what people are talking bout. From what I understood, they are basically doing erratad changed version of classes and core options, but its not like they are changing rules or skill math or monster math?

So like post remaster and pre remaster versions are still working on same rules and same math and this is more of glorified errata with more changes than normal errata?

I want to be clear: This is exactly what I understand is happening. I can forgive people for being apprehensive and alarmed because "Nothing is actually changing" was the story that One D&D started with, too, right before ripping open the OGL debacle that provoked this change. I can see why people might reflexively flinch.

That said, for all intents and purposes it appears that most of these changes are either errata that was coming in a few months anyway, or changes that are made specifically as a ripple effect of the OGL debacle previously mentioned. Alignment seems to be the biggest single change and it suits that the reason for the alignment change is partly rooted in both those reasons.

I think, at least for me, I really want to feel like it's all going to be fine. I want to not be worried and to trust paizo.

But I feel like not enough information was given to make it clear how lawful/chaos and lore would be handled. Saying "not much will change" isn't clear. Hearing other not-employed-by-paizo people saying that also doesn't help.

Clear answers to questions people kept asking over and over would be better and would go farther to allowing people to chill out.

Till then, can you blame people for being anxious?

I feel like it's come up several times in this thread that nothing about the overall cosmology or setting is changing. They're just going to express those through terms that don't have the stink of the OGL on them.

My frustration comes from the fact all the people saying it's not changing don't seem to be paizo ppl - just other community members. I'm not sure if I just missed this during the stream I watched (if so please let me know around when and I'll go back and rewatch that portion) or if people are just assuming?

I do know a lot of people (at least 7 times in the last 10 mins of the first stream) asked about the lawful/chaos terms/replacement and there was no answer.

CorvusMask wrote:

So just to check because I'm now confused of what people are talking bout. From what I understood, they are basically doing erratad changed version of classes and core options, but its not like they are changing rules or skill math or monster math?

So like post remaster and pre remaster versions are still working on same rules and same math and this is more of glorified errata with more changes than normal errata?

I want to be clear: This is exactly what I understand is happening. I can forgive people for being apprehensive and alarmed because "Nothing is actually changing" was the story that One D&D started with, too, right before ripping open the OGL debacle that provoked this change. I can see why people might reflexively flinch.

That said, for all intents and purposes it appears that most of these changes are either errata that was coming in a few months anyway, or changes that are made specifically as a ripple effect of the OGL debacle previously mentioned. Alignment seems to be the biggest single change and it suits that the reason for the alignment change is partly rooted in both those reasons.

I think, at least for me, I really want to feel like it's all going to be fine. I want to not be worried and to trust paizo.

But I feel like not enough information was given to make it clear how lawful/chaos and lore would be handled. Saying "not much will change" isn't clear. Hearing other not-employed-by-paizo people saying that also doesn't help.

Clear answers to questions people kept asking over and over would be better and would go farther to allowing people to chill out.

Till then, can you blame people for being anxious?

Is law and chaos conflict still a thing? Concept of souls being attracted to specific planes?

(I'm feel downer on them saying they are making sure "my" story doesn't change when I like the aspect of the cosmic forces and being aligned to them. So I'm confused if they mean that you can still be aligned to forces by taking up edicts/anathema and they are just saying "no alignment" for pr or if they removed it completely)

A ton of people were asking about this in the stream’s chat and I still don’t know the answer after watching the whole stream. Except for “stay tuned for paizocon” essentially…

...reconsider whether not purchasing any new Paizo products should be a permanent thing vs the temporary thing it is now - especially if no alternative effort to take actual action (vs 1 poorly written blog post) to remedy the situation happens.

Just popping in to say I support the workers and the union! Knowing the workers have more protections and can bargain collectively would make me feel better about purchasing from Paizo again (assuming management doesn’t try to block it. That would be a bad look)

https://youtu.be/K5PzJhU8iI0

Time for management to put their money where their mouth is.
We’ll see if Paizo stays true to it’s progressive veneer or if that crumbles.

Either way, I support the union and the workers!

Bet whoever kicked off the firing weeks ago didn’t expect this domino effect.

How To Solve This Mess in 5 Not So Easy Steps:

1. Fire the manager who was dumb enough to get you here. This appears to be that whole Tonya person.

2. Offer Sara and Diego to return to their jobs coupled with some cherries on the top.

3. Issue a statement that's a slightly modified copy-paste of what that smart chap with actual skills in crisis comms drafted earlier.

4. Announce an investigation into any allegations and that you're bringing some external consultancy on this. You've just fired one manager, so there's your money for that.

5. If any accusations are established, beyond pale, to be untrue, sue.

Really not that hard- good steps. But that requires more than lip service so we’ll see how things are handled over the next coming days.

I appreciate Aaron speaking up but sorry- I don’t think people continuing to use their dollars to support while they wait for trust to be rebuilt is a good way to go- at least for me.
Everyone is at liberty to do what they want with their $$ but if the issue is with management- they’re often the people who only listen when their money is messed with. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be this issue of poor employee-management relationship in the first place.

Ripley Riley wrote:

Better plan would have been to remain silent. Let the internet rage machine tire itself out. Twitter will move on to the next nontroversy in a week.

If I may guide your gaze over to the large upticks in cancelled subscriptions that are rolling in with every passing hour...

That’s not even counting those of us who typically buy via LGS and now are second-guessing if we will in the future.

To think that some people in management would be against that today because they don’t want to be “the company known for diversity” is a real gut-punch and heartbreaking for me. I want that addressed. I want to know if that’s true. I want actual answers vs the empty statement currently released.

I’m pretty concerned about how several of the accusations brought up were not addressed in the statement. Paizo was a company I always counted as “one of the good ones.” But now I feel naive and I’m painfully aware what it feels like to fight as an employee for certain ideals to better your company in spite of management rather than because of it.

I want the following addressed.

1) Did the company prevent trans employees from attending cons/have an issue with trans employees rooming with cis employees despite all parties saying there was no issue?
2) did the marketing lead really say that “maybe we don’t want to be the company known for diversity?” (Paraphrasing)
3) Did Tonya take credit for the inclusiveness pushes led by other employees once they received positive attention?
4) was it really stated that there should be not be a blog on Juneteenth because it would draw attention away from pride month? (Which is a troubling zero-sum perspective on equity and ignorant of intersectionality of communities).
5) what *concretely* are you going to do to look into and address these concerns? The “we’ll do better”, as others already stated, is not enough.

I’m very conflicted regarding my continued support monetarily of the company if these accusations are not properly addressed.

Also, is anyone moderating this forum thread or is it purposeful that someone trolling and arguing to the point this discussion is no longer on topic purposeful to obscure the many calls for a better and more thorough statement people have stated earlier in thread? If you don’t care about this topic I don’t understand why there’s a need to keep cluttering it up to let us know how much you don’t care. But a good portion of Paizo’s customers do as we expected more from the company than the next- thats how they represented themselves.

Thanks for these. They look gorgeous :)

Viviolay wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

It seems like her skin is lighter in the new art, and I'm not a huge fan of that :(

I also noticed this and was disappointed. As a black female, seeing someone with my skin tone as a younger girl was so impactful to me when I opened up the original rulebook.

In my community, being a darker tone individual can come with its own set of struggles (I remember being called ugly because of my skin).
Seeing someone like her in an rpg book being a hero and amazing means a lot. To see her skin get lightened here disappoints me a lot. :(

Sorry to hear that you're disappointed with this rendition of my favourite Iconic character.

However, Doktor Weasel is correct with regards to his assessment of the lighting used in the artwork.
the model I used is of African descent with a darker skin colour. When viewed under warm bright light (That I wanted for this image) her skin took on a warmer hue. As soon as she put on my cuirass (breastplate) her skin tone brightened even more due to the reflected light from the metal.
Everybody's skin hue changes as the light changes. It also changes depending upon temperature, what they're wearing and what they've been doing......
Though some of it can depend upon the camera taking the photograph too.

You may notice that in an upcoming rendition of Seeleh, her skin looks darker due to the environment that she's been depicted in.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment. It means a lot that the artist is willing to address my concerns cause it shows me that you care about what I’m saying enough to address it.

I hope you understand the context of my own concern. Colorism is a very real issue in communities of color and I’ve grown up seeing magazine covers and other media purposely lighten women of color skin tones toward the goal of making them more “acceptable” or beautiful. This is extremely common and is a pretty hurtful practice overall for a multitude of reasons.

I’m glad to get re-assurance directly from you that this was not the intent (but rather the specific lighting of the piece is at play here) and that Seelah’s skin tone will be preserved across editions.

It seems like her skin is lighter in the new art, and I'm not a huge fan of that :(

I also noticed this and was disappointed. As a black female, seeing someone with my skin tone as a younger girl was so impactful to me when I opened up the original rulebook.

Also will add to the chorus. I'm looking to run a RotRL campaign and these are prohibitively expensive second hand. Print on demand would be great.