![]() ![]()
![]() Colette Brunel wrote:
Actually no. You are leaving out the critical part that says "no greater than." Which means the top end is level + 1. It could be just level. ![]()
![]() "John wrote:
It's not that fire isn't exciting, it's tgat fire is overdone in comparison to the other three planes- there are 4 different city of Brass done. Fire was the main opponent in temple of elemental evil. And so on.......folks have wanted more ofvthe other planes. ![]()
![]() SMNGRM wrote:
Besides many of the other items that folks have already said in this thread about items in giantslayer.....the answer is yes, actually. There is a segment that does feel that way. To quote another person in this very forum: "It's the most boring Paizo AP to date. I mean, it's not badly written or with structural problems, but it just doesn't have a single theme, NPC, location or idea which grabbed me. It feels like if after Iron Gods Paizo decided to put out a super turbo conservative AP to placate the grognards and compete with WotC in the field of traditional adventures." ![]()
![]() Misroi wrote: I think the problem is that some posters on this thread are expecting Paizo to go to places that they don't feel comfortable going on a mass basis. To them I must reply: Paizo is not writing for your group; they're writing for all groups. The corollary is that if you're writing for all groups, you're really not writing for any groups then. You really cant please all people. ![]()
![]() spectrevk wrote:
I'm on the other side of the fence. I've long since canceled my subscriptions because piazo has gone on "wacky" encounter design and adventures. (among other reasons) SO this will be the first paizo product I buy in a long time. I like traditional adventures. But that might just be the old player in me. So giants, orcs and dragons sound like fun. ![]()
![]() Don't think its that troubling. Sounds much more reasonable then the debacle of the OGL/GSL process back in 4e days. He's not promising a license is coming, materials son, keeping folks hanging on but nothing forthcoming. Its a slower, reasonable approach. Quality is a problem with OGL. OGl had great freedom, and openness, but lets be honest, there was a ton of crap produced as well. And no one wants to see anther book o erotic fantasy again.... ![]()
![]() thejeff wrote:
Depends. when one dresses up "greedy" as paying their bills and paying employses....how is it any different. It depends on points of view. I've seen ones posting WOTC marketin the new edition as greedy, but some how paizo is not? A flip sie view could be, paizo is just as greedy, look at all the products paizo is pushing, how much splat paizo releases.....how I that not greedy in another's opinion, any different from WOTC? Dressing it up as how it was characterized earlier in the thread doesn't make it any different. ![]()
![]() Auxmaulous wrote: Anti-Paizo Mini-Rant, spoilerd for the sensitive *snip* Thank you for that. That pretty much sums up the "jump the shark" comment I made earlier, and why I dropped all my subscriptions a while back. I didn't feel like arguing with s or mods. I've seen too many devolve once dissenting opinions of anything that someone doesn't like. I just vote with my wallet. FGG looks good as does a few others. ![]()
![]() shallowsoul wrote:
I'm going to pick up the books and see. It looks promising, unlike what I saw coming out with 4e. And while I like the core pathfinder game, in many ways its jumped the shark with me, and I no longer subscribe as I was once a charter subscriber. paizo of today isnt the same paizo of 5-6 years ago, for me. So looks promising, and since I'd be DMing, I'll give it a shot. ![]()
![]() Steve Geddes wrote:
Its a really good way to look customers. Playing devils advocate, one could notice that the paizo of 2014 is not the same one back in 2008, both in actions and deeds. ![]()
![]() Deanoth wrote:
You do know that its not a zero sum game right? The real easy cure for that is if you decide to participate, someone else should moderate. Therein removing ay conflict of interest and preserving even handedness ![]()
![]() Deanoth wrote:
If you passionate about something, you're not impartial. Moderation has to be applied EQUALLY. If you're siding with one side, it can be implied you might be applying rules equally. As per the OP xample, its not being applied equally. So lets not go down the slippery slope of pretending things are beng applied equally. ![]()
![]() Berik wrote: I pretty strongly disagree with the idea that Paizo staff should stay out of moderating threads in which they are conversing. For me it's one of the great features of the board that we get to interact with Paizo staff as people and not just in their capacity as Paizo staff members. Its a conflict of interest, or a perception of such. If your arguing passionate about something and then moderates the opposing view with warnings, time outs or pot removal, its hard not to draw that conclusion. I've seen much worse over at sat the battletech boards of CGL. Their moderation is HORRIBLE, with mods getting into arguments and other mods slapping you down for responding. Its THE reason I left there and will never return, nor buy a single BT product EVER. EDIT: That applies to just mods, not staff I should say. ![]()
![]() Story Archer wrote: I'm getting a little concerned that Paizo might be trying a little TOO hard to shoe-horn in a socially progressive message..... and its starting to feel really forced and really gratuitous, to the point that I know it'll be a distraction to what looks like to be a superbly written story. Yes. It feels that way to me frankly. I really don't care what two consenting adults(or three or four) want to do as far as a relationship. Its none of my concern or business. But when I compare it to say Oleg and Silvet? from Kingmaker. The later felt like a married couple, with his wife, her husband, Oleg and silvet intermixed. Where as the perception in Wrath is "her wife, her wife, her wife, her wife" repeated en nausuem as if their trying in big bold letters to get the message across this IS A LESBIAN COUPLE (in big bold letters)if feels rather forced and rather not as interested to pick up the next installment as its detracting from the story. But that's me. ![]()
![]() Pathfinder has too many fiddly bits in the various player companions that have been released to get bonuses. Example: (I was an andoran sheep herder who juggled at a young age so you character gets +1 to survival from herding and +1 Dex based skills because you practiced at a young age) I like parts of the pathfnder settle, but overall I think its a terrible setting, feels way to patchwork(here be priates, here are vikings, here is the land of the lost, here be technology) ![]()
![]() Skeld wrote:
If your spouse is demanding you stop something that you like/enjoy/is rewarding to you, that's not causing harm either financially or eating up an inordinate amount of time, then your marriage still has problems. ones that have nothing to do with gaming. Substitue playing pool, working on cars, motorcycles, Hiking or any other hobby for gaming and its STILL a marriage issue that's not about whats more important, but rather respect of your spouse(or lack there of) of things that are important or dear to you. Lets reverse it- Lets say he grips, b!@&@es, moans and complains every time she gets together with her friends. Every time. Doesn't want her to hang with them. But doesn't give a specific reason(haven't seen a real reason why she doesn't like gaming). Would you say the same thing about being more important then your marriage then? Its not about what he's doing or it being more important. Its on her being jealous or immature or something that's not "fair" would be the best word to her spouse. ![]()
![]() John Robey wrote: It just hit me today, kinda out of the blue, but I really miss Dungeon magazine. The adventure paths have their moments and all, but what made Dungeon so great was its variety. That. A thousand times that. And not only the AP's, but with their module line doubling in page count but shrinking in release, it becomes another, well, mini-AP rather then a drop in adventure to fill out a game like Dungeon of old. Missing a couple issues, but I'll fill it out soon. Dungeon had a lot more ideas you can plumb then Paizo currently. ![]()
![]() xevious573 wrote:
Irrelevant to the argument, whether the customer knows whats best for the product line. That wasn't the other gentleman's argument- it was what the customer WANTED. And in this case wanting more modules was what was wanted.....just like gamers wanting AP's and they got it and so on. Instead we got something not really wanted- longer modules that are less likely to be dropped into a game, and released on a longer schedule that's not helpful. Generic is what some folks wanted- which was why Dungeon magazine was very popular(ell besides 3-5 adventures at a great price). ![]()
![]() TriOmegaZero wrote: How do you know they are good enough? How do you know if any Paizo product is good enough, by your logic? Are the AP's good enough? Some are and some are not, and they usually don't know until after the fact. If it fits what it does and provides a complete city plus adventure hooks, similar to Ptolus. There's a reason folks talk about Ptolus even though its 7 years since its release and no one talks about WotC's 3.5 cityscape and dungeonscape books, or AEG's world's largest city. The former was way past good enough and the latter not nearly enough. ![]()
![]() Vic Wertz wrote:
The counter argument is I and many other folks paid $120 for Ptolus brick of a city. So.....yes, people will buy them IF they are good enough. If fact they would pay more then that. ![]()
![]() Odraude wrote:
Unfortunately, they don't sell them in print form. Which makes them useless to me. I'm not a PDF person. I like dead tree form. I've got every module they put out, but unless they start publishing PFS scenarios in other then PDF, wont do me any good. ![]()
![]() Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Sorry, but no. The only elitiest right now is you. Those are not the only reasons why folks would stick with physical books. ![]()
![]() magnuskn wrote: Not all comic book companies reset their setting. That's a DC thing, Marvel still is running the same main continuity since the 1960's ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY FALSE. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. The X-books alone have changed continuity- stryfe/cable and the overmind thingy reset things radically. Spiderman has changed a bit over the years, and punisher has gone through various incarnations. Does marvel have less resets then DC? Yes. But please peddle your nonsense elsewhere if you thing marvel hasnt reset things from time to time. ![]()
![]() Brox RedGloves wrote: I'd like to hear some of the funny stuff said/done at the game table (in game please) that made the whole table laugh. I was playing a NG cleric, who healed anyone in need regardless of circumstances. Looked after orphans, did all sorts of good stuff in game. goodly, heroic character.... But as a player I asked every other player what their max HP's were as they leveled and wrote them at the top of my spell list so I could sudo track their damage and see how hurt they were. As as we hit 12th level or so, and as everyone ws getting something to eat and someone had leveled I asked said player his HP's and wrote them down.....said: "Thanks. Now I know how many HP's you and everyone have just in case I want to kill you off. what, you didnt think I did all this out of the goodness of my heart did you?" Every stopped what their doing and looked at me and the DM just laughed and laughed and laughed.....and then they joined in. it was so out of left field no one really considered the fact that that might have been what I was doing, nor were they too sure whether I was kidding or not. ![]()
![]() Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Which is why I called it the social contract- its both DM and players working together to ensure a fun game. Sometimes the DM has to give in, sometimes its the players. My last game lasted 5 years before I had moved away. I loved my old DM and he loved us as players- because we all worked together to ensure a fun time- when the DM came to us to ask us to scale back one aspect of the characters beacuse he was starting to throw harder and harder monsters at us that might result in a TPK, but it was also making it less fun for him to design encounters- we did. When the DM wanted changes to skills and rules, he didnt do it by fiat, he sat down, explained by and waited for feedback or objections. When players wanted spells or stuff from outside the set of books he set down at the beginning, he listened and discussed. Social contract- give and take. Working together to ensure a fun game. Thats what its about. Personally I see the OP as a breakdown between the players and DM. ![]()
![]() shallowsoul wrote:
actually they do. Its called firing your butt and finding a new DM. The game is a social congratct that runs both games. You as the DM can do whatever you want. WE as the PLAYERS can decide whether we want to put up with the attitude above. ![]()
![]() ub3r_n3rd wrote:
Uhm no. Pulling the "its not your game, isnt yoru GM, not your campaign so leave the poor DM alone" crap doesnt fly. Dont want to take the heat? Dont post your questions to the general public. Once you put it in public domain, it becomes discussion fodder. Its complete BS to fall back on "dont critize since its not your game" when you come onto a forum and post your campaign up and ask questions about it. Thats just a flag on the play. ![]()
![]() alientude wrote:
So basically, in context, in an encounter thats +4 to their level you didnt give them the piece of useful information that MIGHT have given them a chance to stay alive, and your complaining that yoru players are b@#t$@ing at you? No offense, but I think you deserve it. Knowing its a tough AND brutal campaign, you could have thrown them a bone and lifeline. I was with you in the first post, but knowing the rest I think you're wrong. ![]()
![]() Kobold Cleaver wrote: Actually, I feel like not complaining was more a sign of a guilty conscience. I guess we might be over-analyzing. OR it could be that its not a big deal with him and he rerolled. You could be very well over analyzing it. To me, no protesting is a bigger sign that its probably not cheating. cheaters usually protest alot more. ![]()
![]() Scott Betts wrote:
I'd think revamping and rereleasing the game every 3-5 years like has been happening since 3.0 release is much more of a danger to FTG then his attitude is. You burn out your player base and their good will much faster that way. ![]()
![]() Count_Rugen wrote:
You realize of course, with a little bit of changing, that ALSO applies to customers speaking to FLGS, right? To FLGS I say this: give me a reason to turn me in toa loyal profit base for you. You exist to serve me. I do not exist to provide free money for you. You need to provide me a reason to frequent your store." ![]()
![]() Scott Betts wrote: and that is solely responsible for the "This isn't D&D!" reaction we see. The rationale is that it looks different, therefore it must play different. No not really. Your memory is a bit short on 4e's rollout, and how much the developers were trying to divorce and lesser extent, put down things before. Power system is more icing on the cake then the main complaint. |