hmarcbower's page

PS: It would be nice if there were "next entry" and "previous entry" links for the blog... just in case the webmonster is looking in. :)

@Anorak - same here, just reading up about Magnimar (going to start Shattered Star soon, and want to spend several sessions in Magnimar before the adventure path proper begins).

I have Blood of the City in my cart to buy once I've picked out a couple of other things (and, thanks to the teaser at the bottom, the next blog entry looks useful for my purposes as well as it relates to the remnants of the Grey Maidens).

Could someone please tell me how to add an review to this module? I cant seem to find that function.

On the reviews tab, directly under the rating, there is a link to "Write a review".

They don't look good....

hmarcbower wrote:

Then accept Paypal for in-stock PDF and in-stock items only with the warning that if you choose to pay by paypal your account will be charged immediately even if the item doesn't ship right away (which is kind of what people assume anyway when using Paypal).

The issue with this is that it would require an entire rewrite of the backend of the system. Even for in stock items, if you order in the middle of a subscription shipment, it could take up to 4 business days sometimes to have something ship. Since Paizo currently makes the authorization when you place the order, and the actual charge is tied to closing the transaction (when the item is shipped and/or you get access to your PDFs) This can still be 7 days (4 work days plus a 3 day holiday weekend) apart during Con season or a particularly big subscription, which is more than paypal allows. For Items they don't have in stock, they need to wait for the distributor to ship the item to Paizo which would add 3-4 days to that estimate.

No, I don't think it would.

if (item_type == PDF)
{
include_paypal_as_payment_option();
}

Lots of places use paypal, and they make it work just fine.

And perhaps you missed the part about me saying that they just need to tell people that their paypal account is going to be charged at the point of checkout rather than at the point of shipment (if they even wanted to tackle using it for physical items - which I don't necessarily care about). Instead of running an authorization through paypal, run the payment through paypal.

Anyway, I didn't expect my post to actually change their minds - they are stuck in the idea that it just won't work, and can't be made to work. It was really just me expressing my frustration that I want to give Paizo money but they won't take it from me unless it's via credit card. :)

(and thank you for finding the old post, Digitalelf!)

Then accept Paypal for in-stock PDF and in-stock items only with the warning that if you choose to pay by paypal your account will be charged immediately even if the item doesn't ship right away (which is kind of what people assume anyway when using Paypal).

I would love to spend money at the Paizo site when I want to buy a PDF, but you don't accept Paypal. I'm in Canada (you know, that far-away country), so don't tell me the Paypal Debit Card will work, because it won't. Also you don't accept money order or cheques for non-domestic shipping (not a problem for PDFs) or for things that are not physical (there's the problem with PDFs).

So... I guess I ask again - a question that was asked probably in the first week of you guys starting to sell things from your website and several times since, all those years ago... why the heck can't you figure out the Paypal thing? Or find a third-party vendor who has figured it out (like, say, drivethrurpg).

hmarcbower wrote:

Sorry, you completely lost me with Rich Baker in the mix.

Not sure if serious, or meta in-joke...

If it's a joke, I get it, and it's funny :)

Not a joke. I, personally, won't be interested if Baker is involved. I'm not speaking for anyone else, just me. :)

Great to see the amount continually rising, though!

Sorry, you completely lost me with Rich Baker in the mix.

hmarcbower wrote:

It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

I'll clarify that I'm only espousing the virtues of popular MMOs as far as they remain relevant to the sort of game the designers have proposed creating. I'm not here to try and get PFO made into a WoW-clone (whatever that is); I want it to be unique and compelling, and I think a lot of people are sort of running wild with the "unique" side of that equation and not really considering how compelling the play experience will be as a result.

Absolutely - and I probably could have worded it better (of course, in the context of the discussion, I think it was more a problem with inferring than implying). I wasn't suggesting that you are a "WoW fanboi" as someone else put it... simply that you were pointing out that what works in WoW works for a reason (compelling). Your clarification is exactly how I understood your position so sorry if I contributed to anyone else's misunderstanding of your purpose. :)

@GrumpyMel (I won't quote, it was a long post... just read back... it's not that far!)

What you say makes sense - I don't think that the PFO guys are even considering challenging WoW for the top spot... it doesn't sound like their goal (which is good, as it would fail - Blizzard has had many years now of bringing in $100M every month, over a billion dollars a year).

I guess the question partly comes down to what their goal really is. Is it to find something new that hasn't been done before? If so, then that's great. Will it be financially viable? Unknown as nobody has done it before. :) It's like the iPad... one of the best descriptions I heard of it early on was "it's a solution looking for a problem." It was totally unnecessary at the time, but look at what it's created - a whole new market. Can PFO be the iPad of the MMO world? That would be awesome if it could.... but as you pointed out it would likely take a LOT of money, not a shoestring budget. I am willing to bet that Apple put a crapload of money into developing their product... a product that they didn't even know had a market when they started.

More likely "success" (which would have to be defined by Goblinworks) would come from using tried-and-true methods that will be "good enough" to get the level of player buy-in that they need to be financially successful. I'm totally on-board with you - I would love to see an MMO that actually caters to a different crowd than the WoW crowd. I don't play WoW - I fiddled with an emulator a few years back, and even for free (and most of the content had been replicated at that time - it was just the vanilla, I think... before Burning Crusade came out) it didn't hold my interest that much. I can only do so many inane quests that have no reason or story behind them beyond "oh noez, my flugelcabbage is being eaten by the snorfers! Bring me 10 snorfer heads and I'll give you a whifflebanger!"

Do I think that there are enough of us around who would be willing to pay for this to keep it up and running? I don't really know.

hmarcbower wrote:

...

I, personally, want the latter for myself but realize that it won't be around for long if they don't do the former. It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

There's no right answer.

problem with going for "standard" MMO is that is direct confrontation with WOW. and Blizzard has money, expertise and experience that Goblinworks don't have and can't afford. besides, anything Goblinworks manages to do better than WOW, Blizzard can just copy into their own game.

imo, Goblinworks best chance is to design something that Blizzard can't copy back into WOW.

That is a very good point.

But what could that be which will also be financially viable and of enough interest to get the user base that will be required to make the sandbox fun to play in?

I'm telling you that any service with millions of people paying for it must be offering something compelling.

QFT.

However, I think what we're running up against here is the classic struggle: do we give the most people what they want (which is often diluted to the point of uselessness but that they find enjoyable and fulfilling on some level which is all that matters) or do we give people what we think they *should* enjoy (a rich game that does away with or minimizes level/achievement-based progression in favour of something more cerebral or spiritually awesome)?

It's the same reason democracy sucks: do you trust the majority of people to actually make decisions on your behalf? I don't (maybe that's just me, though :). But when you're trying to make money, you appeal to the lowest common denominator (which, by definition, will appeal to almost everyone at some level) and make money hand-over-fist (i.e. WoW). You can try something else, but it's considered "niche" - and when you're talking about a MMO set somewhere that is already "niche", you're greatly reducing the possibilities of its financial success. It's been established that this isn't being done for charity - it's a business and needs to make money.

So the question is this: do they give the most people what they want (which causes the self-appointed "true" fans to be pissed off) or do they cater to the narrower, nichier market to make them happy but produce something that isn't widely popular or profitable?

I, personally, want the latter for myself but realize that it won't be around for long if they don't do the former. It appears Scott is espousing the virtues of the standard MMO (and, as he quite rightly points out, there is a huge popularity to it and it does cater to the vast majority of players) while others would like to see something original in its implementation despite the likelihood of its financial unsustainability.

There's no right answer.

I'm initially resistant to the idea of the MMO not using the PF rules... much like I was not initially happy with the changes to character mechanics from Oblivion to Skyrim. Now that I've been playing Skyrim for way more hours than I care to admit it's dissolved into the background. So, while my preference would be that the ruleset is well represented in the MMO (some things must change... NWN was close to 3.0 rules, but some things are still different for very good reason), I suspect that as long as the world is compelling and the game is fun the rules shouldn't matter that much (I mean *which* rules are used shouldn't matter... they have to be sensible and consistent no matter what rules are used in the background).

Seeya Rich. Too bad it was too late for the Realms.

Gravefiller613 wrote:

CunningMongoose wrote:

Talynonyx wrote:

And don't forget that one of your domains will increase with your inquisitor levels.

In fact, you get tree domains, two (first level) for cleric, and one (without the spells) for Inquisitor.

Incorrect. One of your cleric domains must be the same as your inquistor domain.

Where is this limitation stated?

APG Page 38 under Domain:

"If the inquisitor has cleric levels, one of her two domain selections must be the same domain selected as an inquisitor. Levels of cleric and inquisitor stack for the purpose of determining domain powers and abilities, but not for bonus spells."

So cleric/inquisitor would get two domains, the 1st level powers and spells of both (thanks to cleric) and full cleric+inquisitor levels for the domain powers (not spells) of one of the domains.

Once upon a time I recall Greg mentioning that he tought it possible to place the Desolation and the Temple City of Tsar just off the east end of the map next to Taldor and Galt on the other side of the mountains. Others have suggested using the Worldwound for the Desolation.

Personally I am going to place it where Greg suggested along with Bard's Gate as a now independant city just outside the boundaries of Taldor on the great east trade road that should eventually connect Taldor with the Great Keleshite Empire. Once Bard's Gate was a part of Taldor but as Taldor has lost its grip on Cheliax and others in its long decline so has it lost control of Bard's Gate. The Camp, as mentioned in the Slumbering Tsar introduction, is located just north and east of my version of Bard's Gate.

Excellent - thank you for that information. Sounds like that will work great!

So I'm liking the idea of this mega-adventure but I'm wondering if someone else has already done some work to fit it into Golarion? If so I would love to hear what you've done to make it work in. :)

I'm setting up something like that for a future time (the next DM is all primed and ready to go, and we need a break from these characters for a while, plus some time has to pass in Korvosa for roleplaying purposes). At least one of the players will quite enjoy this because he's always very interested in making sure his characters are fully levelled up at the end of any campaign and ready to be played again at a moment's notice. :)

To that end, I had Laori take Serithtial back to her masters, and while it still has all of its listed abilities, it also causes any Relic of Kazavon it comes into contact with to be whisked away to a pocket dimension the Zon-Kuthonites have set up for collection of said Relics. The goal of the adventure is completed, and the Zon-Kuthonites continue their march toward returning Kazavon to (un)life. I've never run anything Epic, either, so I will have to check up on my high-level rules before I take that on.

EDIT: Which is why that article about the Relics is absolutely fantastic - thanks to whoever wrote it. :)

I, too, will be running this soon - this coming Thursday, in fact. We're using full PFRPG rules (which means I need to spend some serious time sitting down and reading the Bard class and converting what needs to be converted before then). The party (Cleric, Paladin, Wizard, and Fighter) are kind of ridiculous in combat - well, just the Paladin and Fighter (even after nerfing Smite to a half-way reasonable level) - so I have no problem giving her a 40+ AC. It still means an insta-hit from each of them, but the rest will actually require a roll, at least. With the high saves, the Wizard's spell choice will be cut down a lot. Fortunately, I do have one character in the party without a silly high will save (the fighter) who, if he gets dominated, could cause some serious issues for the others in the party. There is always the high-level balancing act, of course... this could be a slaughter on either side in a matter of a couple of rounds.

Having never played a Bard, I am thankful for the tactical advice someone provided earlier.

(As an interesting aside, I had Laori abscond with Serithtial and only meet the party again to return it - properly "enhanced" by Zon-Kuthon, of course :) - as they approached The Sunken Queen. In the hands of the Paladin it would have made any encounter I could provide nearly useless as entertainment for anyone.)

So as it turns out I managed to take the Paladin to about -7 (I am an out-in-the-open DM... my dice hit the table where everyone can see them) without having foreknowledge of how many hit points he had left - so no accusations of pulling punches or of fudging for extra damage.

When the Paladin went down the others gave their head a shake and actually took Bahor's final offer of "collecting the corpse" and leaving his home immediately (not to mention they had kicked the living snot out of Bahor - PRPG Paladins are stupid... but I'll go find the appropriate forum for that particular gripe). The cleric gave it some thought and decided that as long as they had Neolandus and Vencarlo safely out of there that the mission was a success and agreed, stepping forward to stop the Paladin from bleeding out. Vimanda was, of course, gone when they turned around to look for her, having now broken their bargain with her. She'll be back, somewhere - not sure where, yet, but she won't be happy with the party when she finds them again. :)

The Paladin was most disgusted with his failure when he woke up - good roleplaying all around and I'm happy to see that.

Yah... so it turns out that my lawful good Paladin and my lawful good Cleric of Torag are not willing to go against the deal they made with Vimanda (that they kill Bahor in return for the safe release of Neolandus, Vencarlo, and their lives are spared by her) and as such they will both likely die at the hands of Bahor tonight. Last week they were given ample opportunities to surrender or to turn on Vimanda, but they constantly refused. I had the straight-up Rakshasas pop out (since they all knew what was coming up the stairs from the Vivified Labyrinth)... having a group of 7th level sorcerers around can really dish out a lot of damage in a round (Scorching Rays and Lightning Bolts everywhere!). Especially when they focus on one character...

Anyway, perhaps their new characters will be more... morally ambiguous? :)

I actually tricked out Bahor a little differently... I chose a bunch of Swift and Immediate spells for him so he could really do some craziness in melee (which is a little different than his writeup says, but I've found that the module writers for Paizo seem to think that a spellcaster is going to have several rounds of spell use before the characters are on top of him... it NEVER works that way, guys, so stop assuming it does...). His first spell cast: Persistent Blade. It can provide a flank partner for him, while its damage is near negligible. Very nice spell for a Sorcerer/Rogue.

Anyway... the interplay between Vimanda and Bahor has been such that they haven't faced off against each other directly - both were trying to use the characters to do in the other.

I've been having some fun with this one with my players. Although, now that I've started really looking closely at Bahor's stats... wow, I think even my band of ubercharacters might have trouble with this one. ;)

In any case, I had Eries Yelloweyes actually be Vimanda. She's been sort of following them along (thanks to her little friend) and helping at various points where it was needed. She favours one of the characters over the others (half the party are lawful-good nutjobs - a paladin and a priest of Torag), and he's the one with which she always made contact (had her just appear out of nowhere from behind a building at Trail's End whenever he showed up). Now that they've horrifically butchered Sivit, I had Eries hanging from the other set of shackles in the throne room beside Vencarlo. She opted to reveal herself as a rakshasa and proceeded to convince the party that Bahor was the greater threat and they should work together to dethrone him as head of the family (it helped that she told them he sent them down here for her to kill them).

I don't know how it's going to happen, but it will be gory I think. We'll find out tonight as they're on their way back up from the labyrinth (with which we had great fun once they got separated - I had the map all printed out and was actually spinning the pieces as they pulled levers. Some of them actually ended up totally trapped at one point, just waiting for the other group to pull another lever so they could get out.)

Anyhow, just Pathfinderizing Bahor and Vimanda now in anticipation of something truly scary for tonight's session. :) With Bahor as truly overpowering and nigh untouchable as he is he might just toy with them until he can convince them that Vimanda has lied to them and that they should actually finish her off and be on their way (likely to come back when they're about 15th level and try again, of course... but for now... :)

OK, the running blog is cool, but someone has to take Lisa's camera away from her, adjust the settings, and hand it back to her. Every picture she's posted is somewhere between badly out of focus and nearly unrecognizable. :)

Excellent idea and well executed for the blog during GenCon - congrats to all involved!

I know I'm practising some serious thread necromancy here, but I am just now running CotCT and, as such, am searching through the messageboards for posts relating to it.

I was very disappointed with the art for Laori. I've actually been printing out the NPC portraits for my players (we post them on the wall of the gaming room), and I had to tell them that I refused to provide a portrait for Laori. Starting from the beginning, I think the art for the rest of the NPCs has been stellar quality-wise but isn't really my favourite style. Even though I'm not a fan of the style, I can at least recognize the quality of it. The image of Laori was... well... subpar, let's say.

So I was happy to see this thread come up in my search! Did you ever find the time to craft something James? I'd love to see it if you did (and you're willing to share, of course).

My party negotiated - more or less.

I don't know about the intl shipping from Paizo, but when I checked Amazon today to compare the price of getting the hardcopy from Paizo with the sub to the price of getting the pdf from paizo and the hardcover from Amazon, they have the release date listed for September 2. So while it might have free shipping and a lower price point, it doesn't look like they'll even start shipping them out until over two weeks after GenCon.

I have ordered mine through Chapters (in Canada) and they list the release date as August 19th. With the heavy discount for members (37% - which I think one could also get in the US through Amazon) and free shipping (since I ordered enough to get it), at $10 I still am saving money buying both separately. I'll just have to deal with the PDF for a week or so before the hardcover comes along - which isn't a problem since I primarily use PDFs anyway (CTRL-F is just not possible with the print version!). I think it's an *excellent* idea to have the low-priced PDF for all the great reasons already cited by Lisa, Erik, and others. This is the theory the music industry started operating under with the legalification (probably not a word) of Napster and the later iTunes - make the item inexpensive and easy to get and it will sell and not push people to less legitimate (or illegal) sources. Of course, Paizo also, thankfully, doesn't use intrusive DRM - just a simple watermark (or perhaps a more complex watermark than we know? Either way, it doesn't interfere with the transferring or use of the PDF).

So thanks, and consider me to be one more PDF customer who will also have the treeware version.

I am a big fan of this book. :) I like NPC stat blocks, chase rules, and would throw my voice behind the movement for mass combat rules.

How about additional class tradeoffs (as we've seen in the Campaign Setting)? Those are neat, and allow further customization of a class.

I think this would be an opportunity to add in a lot of the great suggestions found on the boards that didn't exactly fit the final ruleset parameters as optional rules (a la Unearthed Arcana).

<tangent>

Because our group is prone to running long campaigns, the save or die thing is a bit of an impediment to enjoyment. Not like the good ol days where we'd go through some kind of meatgrinder (read: Temple) and have a few characters go down every session or two.

What we developed many years ago (and have evolved since) is an Edge, Fate, Karma system.

Edge and Fate regenerate with each session. Edge is a reroll (the full outcome of the failed roll is allowed to be known before deciding to "edge" it). For example, beastie gets a critical hit on your character, which is likely to do a horrific amount of damage or kill him. You can find out the critical effect (we use the Paizo critical hits deck for nat 20 crits) and the damage before you decide to force the reroll with the edge. You can only force a single die reroll, so if, for instance, the beastie rolled a 20 then confirmed with a 17, you can just make him reroll the 20. If the reroll is a 20, then the 17 still stands and the critical goes through the same way it would have. Can also be use to reroll failed saves, critical failures (we also use the Paizo critical miss deck for confirmed natural 1 failures).

Fate is a single point on a die of any size (or 5% on a %-ile roll). You can use it to push your save up by 1, your initiative roll up by 1, your to-hit up by one (or the attacker's roll down by one...) anything that is a die roll and affects only you and your attacker you can adjust by 1 (e.g. no modifying the bad guy's initiative). If you declare its use ahead of time, you get double (+/- 2 instead of 1). This is handy where you absolutely, positively have to make the save/hit/reduce damage to avoid being pulped, etc.

Karma is gained only through natural-20, confirmed, critical successes at *something*. For fighting classes this is generally attacks. Rogues and skilly classes, for using their skills. Casters generally get screwed in this particular resource since they have less opportunity to roll the dice, but it works out OK. Karma are used exactly as Fate except they do not regenerate. You have to be out of Karma before you can spend your fate.

Big-time bad guys can also end up with these benefits, depending on how important they are and depending on the DM's feelings on the subject.

Anyway, that has saved our butts many times and made for some very spectacular cinematic scenes. :) When I DM I take the approach that I'm there to tell the story of the characters. If they survive a fight they maybe shouldn't have, but they needed to use all of their special resources to do so, then I am satisfied with that (and so are the players).

</tangent>

Ah, but don't mix up storage capacity with the amount of storage actually used and with processing power. When I first heard the number I thought "OK, who dropped the ball on this one... if anything they should have made it seem ridiculously large."

I'll add my "two thumbs up" for this pilot. It looks like it could really be a neat series. Although... I wonder if it would be as interesting to someone who didn't already watch BSG....?

Similar thread:

Over here

I'm confused about about Part Six: The Queen's Scapegoat. The text from Cressida implies she isn't convinced of Trinia's involvement. She mentions interrogating her with magic to determine the truth of things. However, the end of Part Six (Trinia's Fate) does not mention at all what happens if the PCs return her to Cressida. It mentions turning her over to the guard, but I'm not sure that's the same as handing her to Cressida. Also, if the PCs hide her, are the PCs just assumed to lie to Cressida about what happened? It just really seems like Cressida's speech at the beginning is at odds with what the guard actually does with Trinia if she's handed over, which makes no sense. I don't mind filling in gaps as a DM, but it seems the wrap-up section should have been a little more clear, or the opening speech a little less open about Cressida's own thoughts/opinions.

I know this is an old thread, but people are going to come back again and again as they run this AP in the future (for instance, I just finished running my group through EoA).

That situation was a bit odd for me to work in, as well. Cressida did, indeed, sound like she was going to try to shield Trinia from potentially corrupt "justice" by first determining the truth for herself before handing her over. This is how the text read to me, and how I presented it to the players. I had the Sable Company riders flying about looking for Trinia as well, so for the chase on the shingles they were aware that the party had captured Trinia. Trinia was NOT happy to be captured, especially when it became clear that, despite all the words of "we're trying to help you - if the mob catches you they will kill you!" the party was still going to turn her over to the guards. She had no idea that the party had a special arrangement with the Field Commander - Trinia just knew that if she got turned over to the guards things would not go well for her. The party had an expectation that they were actually doing something good (and lawful... I have a Paladin and a LG cleric of Torag in the group... fun stuff :) by turning her over even though they had become convinced of her innocence - because Cressida had said she would determine the truth using magic.

Of course, when the party arrives at the Citadel, they hear the unfortunate news about the guard who confessed to helping Trinia gain access to the King and saw her poison him having thrown himself out of a very high window in the tower. As they enter the Field Commander's office (Trinia is wrapped up in a carpet at this point - she didn't want to come willingly), there are two Sable Company riders - Lieutenants, I said, to impress upon the party how powerful and important they must be - waiting for them. They demand that Trinia be handed over (as they are aware that the party did capture her). There is a tense standoff, all the while Kroft is silently fuming at having been overruled and unable to proceed with her plans to verify the guilt or innocence of Trinia before handing her over. The Paladin nearly threw his character away by threatening the Sable Company riders - who would have carved him to pieces.

Then the players threw an additional curve at me... they had promised (well, the paladin had promised) that he wouldn't leave her. So after she gets thrown into a prison cell at the castle, the guard agree to allow him and one other of the characters to wait outside her cell (they are, of course, weaponless). I let them spend a couple of days waiting while she was taken to somewhere deeper into the castle to be interrogated - always returning with a defeated, blank expression but never with any physical abuse visible. I never expanded on what kind of interrogation techniques might have been employed.

Anyway, as relates to the timeline, the things that were supposed to be happening in the background seemed to require a lot more time to have passed than my players allowed. It's all good, though. :)

A subscription option to the Core Rules Books at 37% off the cover price...and free shipping...and a free PDF...OK, I'm pushing it, aren't I...

Perhaps just a touch... :)

As it turns out she was just as happy to order it from Chapters (the Canadian version of Barnes & Noble) - she's never sure what the discount might be from Diamond (and we don't generally order from that distribution agent, I guess - any comics/graphic novels/whatever that we buy I think come from a local comic shop). The Chapters discount was the same as the Amazon discount (37%).

In any case, I'm now the proud future owner of the Bestiary and the Core Rulebook (once they are released...) and I need to talk to the selector who looks after that section (he usually gets the D&D books that come out - I need to impress upon him how swell Pathfinder will be).

For some reason this isn't showing up in Bowker's BooksInPrint catalogue.... it needs to be in there for me to get it ordered at my library... :) Well, technically it doesn't have to be but it makes life so much easier for our acquisitions department.

A fellow librarian... your acquisitions department might use Amazon, for example, for reference.

BTW, didn't they tell you that all librarians are expected to join the Cheliax revolution? And we *do* have the best parties... ;)

They can source it from just the ISBN, of course, but they like to collect things into several lists (there are a dozen or so selectors) that they can then just import to the order system. Makes it nice and tidy. I actually thought the Bestiary was coming out after the core rules, but if it's coming out before that might explain why it's in there but the core rules aren't - it may just be too soon to expect to see the Core Rulebook on GBIP. Either way, I hope that they give the same discount to libraries as they give to Amazon!

Librarians... not known for their partying, but perhaps the foul outsiders have corrupted you. Sifting through an endless sea of sand for a grain of knowledge, however... :)

Here's a thought... it might not be a good one, but it's a thought nonetheless... :)

Have a portal for approved vendors to access. Through this portal they buy x number of coupon codes. Paizo charges $2 less than the normal price they would charge a non-vendor (or $3, or whatever... enough that there is a very small profit for the store), and the vendor can then sell these coupon codes at the store for a very small profit (perhaps even undercutting Paizo by $1 to bring people in, or selling it at cost just to get people to come into the store... or they offer it at cost if the person buys a print book, or $2 more if they don't, or something... I'm sure they can be creative). It costs Paizo only a little bit (a couple of dollars off every PDF - only Paizo knows what kind of hit they would take for that), the LGS gets something to value-add to the package, and there is little chance of fraud since the store has already paid for the coupon code. The worst that happens is a whole whack of coupon codes get sold for less than they could be obtained directly from Paizo - but that's why you keep the profit margin very small for the LGS and just let them use it to entice people into the store. You could write off the difference in price as marketing expenses, honestly. There might be people unwilling to drop the money on a print book that might be interested in a deal on the PDF to have a look at it first. Anyone who buys the PDF instead of the print book would only have done that from anywhere else anyway, so you aren't losing a sale of the print book.

When the vendor is approved (through whatever method Paizo determines is appropriate - maybe they could work with their distributor to see who buys the print versions, as you wouldn't want these to get to an online-only place that has no hope of ever doing anything but selling the PDF), then they pay for the coupon codes just like they would any other stock. The assigned coupon codes are keyed to the vendor - of which he is made very aware, in case there is a large case of fraud involved somewhere. The coupon code is transferred to the customer, who then comes to the Paizo site, sees all the awesomeness that is here, and dumps the rest of his paycheck on cool stuff while he's buying his PDF (well, OK, that might be a little more optimistic than realistic). Paizo could even then take advantage of it further by offering something else (a reduced price on an older product PDF, for example, or a mass coupon code like the current PDFLove one) for people who redeem these vendor-supplied PDF codes for the Core Rulebook to be used on Pathfinder Chronicles material, or some other subset of available material.

For those shops that have an internet connection it could even be done live (once the shop is an approved vendor) for customers. For those that don't, they go in and buy their stock from home (or from the public library, or something - anywhere with an internet connection) and take the codes to the store. A template could be made that has a nice printable coupon or something... 10 to a page so printing is not a cost factor, for example (if they buy 10 at a time, of course - otherwise there could either be multiple templates, or just blanks where there is no corresponding coupon). This would provide the opportunity to give instructions on how to redeem the PDF coupon at the Paizo website.

Duplicate codes would have to come from the same shop, so make the vendors responsible for any duplicate codes with the same vendor code. Duplicate codes with different vendor codes... well that either means a system error or someone scammed the codes from a different shop and sold them at their own place multiple times. Chances are good that you could include some kind of licencing agreement as part of the vendor approval which precludes selling codes for resale.

Anyway... off the top of my head... I won't even feel bad if you poke it full of holes. :)

The smvrfing specifically doesn't offend me, but it's no different than any other form of threadcrapping. Even at its worst this thread maintained a pretty high level of civility compared to what happened in the 4e forums when 4e was announced. There was actually some useful information in this thread.

Now I come back and check every however long and there are 20 new posts, with 18 of them being people who can't keep their smvrf in their pants. How is that different from any other form of threadcrapping? It doesn't keep the discussion light at all, it just gets in the way of people actually being able to use the thread for the topic for which it's intended. If there's nothing left to say then it won't be said and the thread will drop off the top of the messageboards. Who made the smvrf brigade into the roaming saviours of the boards so they could come along and *decide* when a thread has run its course and it's time to make it nigh unreadable?

It's no different from Vomit Guy, and he was politely and insistently asked to stop by the mods - except now anyone who can type the special word gets to crap in the thread, too. Just because it says 'smvrf' instead of 'blarrrrrgghghhhhhh!' doesn't change the fact that it's useless and a waste of time to sift through. There is no reason for Gary to leave it in if that's how people are going to abuse it.

Seriously - if you want to have smvrf wars, make a thread for it. No need to pollute other threads with it.

And I've left no bait out there to be bitten on, for the person who suggested such.

For some reason this isn't showing up in Bowker's BooksInPrint catalogue.... it needs to be in there for me to get it ordered at my library... :) Well, technically it doesn't have to be but it makes life so much easier for our acquisitions department.

But in case you have missed it: I consider you a hypocrite, since you tell others to do (ignore posts they do not like) what you won't do yourself. I do hope you will amend your behaviour.

Just so we are clear, I only responded to your original comment because you singled me out for a personal attack. Otherwise I would have ignored your comment like I have so many others in this thread. This thread really needs to go bye-bye.

The thread doesn't need to go away - perhaps some people need to step away, though. Including those who are smvrfcrapping it. If you don't want to participate in the conversation, then go create a whole thread in which you can invoke the name of the three-apple-high blue freaks and giggle yourself silly.

Maybe the toy should be taken away if you can't play with it responsibly...

FWIW, the example I laid out? Not theoretical. Conglomerate A eventually spun off Division D so that it could focus its business on Divsions B & C.

We can only hope.... and if my pre-4e-release prognostication comes to pass, Conglomerate A will sell off Division D sometime later this year or early in 2010 - once it has had a chance to milk all it can from the DD (Division D, of course) name and major products.

Also, contrary to what Scott inferred,this poll had more respondants than the first

Well, that *is* interesting. Scott?

And for those who want to take a look at the polls, I've screencapped them for you. The top one is the old poll, the bottom is the new poll.

EN World Poll Results

For a quick analysis....

Those playing any amount of 4e (from Slight Changeover to Complete Changeover) went from 50.59% down to 44.83%.

Those who tried 4e but left it behind for an older edition went up from 22.17% to 29.12%.

Those who have never tried 4e dropped slightly from 27.24% to 26.06%.

The biggest move seems to have been people who tried 4e then decided not to continue playing it. All of the "partially 4e" options went down, with those choosing not to play 4e anymore going up 31% and those choosing to play only 4e going up about 8%.

Overall, on a website seemingly quite dedicated to D&D4e, surprising results (to me, at least).

No, I was pointing out that this poll isn't an accurate representation of ENWorld gamers because of its self-selected nature.

So you're not disputing the results of the poll (that show a drop in percentage of respondents who play 4e, presumably), but questioning the validity of the results because people have to choose to answer the poll? I think you're going to find that an awful lot of polls wouldn't meet your criteria for being legitimate in that case. I doubt Decima or Nielsen is going to be doing a D&D 4e poll any time soon, so the best you could do is analyze the questions, the most likely kind of people to self-select, and then sore-thumb the results.

Regardless, though, when comparing one poll to another, as long as the methodology remains the same the imprecision is likely to carry from one to the other, thus a statement can be somewhat reliably made when comparing the results relative to one another. The actual percentages (whether it's 50%, 40%, or 60%) could be questionable, but if the same poll is given later then a trend could be seen.

And having fewer people answer a poll doesn't change percentage outcome.

Let's assume hundreds of thousands core books really means hundreds of thousands player handbooks. If we limit the range to 200,000-900,000 (thereby excluding "just over 100,000" and "nearly a million"), we end up with 302,000 - 1,356,000 book equivalents in use.

That assumption is probably the biggest stumbling block to actually figuring anything out from the phrase "The core 4th edition rulebooks have sold hundreds of thousands of copies are are now in their third printing." Is he talking about each book of the three core rulebooks, or the core rulebooks as a whole? The language would lead me to believe he's speaking of the collection of books known as the core rulebooks since it's consistent with earlier language in the filing:

Excuse me hmarcbower, for quoting your post. This isn't directed at you, but it does refer to assumption of core books sold.

I can't refute anyone's analysis of the numbers, even if I don't believe the results. The math is solid.

But as far as the assumption of how many "hundreds of thousands" results in, I'd think all of you were assuming too high.
If we assume the filings aren't exaggerated (and 101,000 doesn't equal hundreds of thousands) then I would put the number of core books between 200,000 and 400,000. With 260,000ish being my uneducated guess.
Once you start to break 300,000 I'd expect the speaker to want to say "half a million," "nearly half a million," or "about half a million," to strut their stuff and/or brag about it.

But that is just my take on it.

Not a problem at all - and I agree entirely. I actually had a lengthy post that said the same thing as you just did but used three times the words (which I abandoned before posting). ;) Essentially the company is going to use the most flowery language it can to *imply* (or cause the reader to infer) the greatest number of sales possible without actually lying.

According to the last poll, taken in January I believe, the total percentage of 4e players was only about 50%. A good percentage of us had never even tried it and an increasing number had tried it and dumped it. Tellingly the percentage of 4e players at Enworld had decreased between July and January.

No, the percentage of ENWorld forum-users who chose to respond to the poll decreased between July and January.

Are you saying "no" to Wicht's statement, or trying to provide a reason for the outcome of the poll?

Since nobody provided links to the polls, I can't check for myself the actual situation.

If you're providing a lower number of respondents as a reason for a lower percentage... I'm sure you know that math doesn't work that way. :) If Wicht was quoting a wrong stat (drop in percentage versus drop in respondents) and that is what you were correcting, please do enlighten.

Can't this be done through the paizo store? You do it with the subscriptions. I don't see an easy way to transfer this to other stores, so I guess this could be a benefit of getting the book here instead of through Amazon.

As you said, it's already done with purchases through subscription - but that's because Paizo has total control over the product at all levels and can verify the purchase of a print copy before allowing the PDF download. Once the book leaves their warehouse, though, bound for a LGS, they have no reliable way of confirming it actually gets sold to the person who is now coming to the site to get the PDF.

Let's assume hundreds of thousands core books really means hundreds of thousands player handbooks. If we limit the range to 200,000-900,000 (thereby excluding "just over 100,000" and "nearly a million"), we end up with 302,000 - 1,356,000 book equivalents in use.

That assumption is probably the biggest stumbling block to actually figuring anything out from the phrase "The core 4th edition rulebooks have sold hundreds of thousands of copies are are now in their third printing." Is he talking about each book of the three core rulebooks, or the core rulebooks as a whole? The language would lead me to believe he's speaking of the collection of books known as the core rulebooks since it's consistent with earlier language in the filing:

In 1978, the original publisher of the game, TSR, released Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, with its comprehensive and elaborate rules contained in the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide core rulebooks. Since that time, the game's rules have principally been detailed in updated versions of those two rulebooks along with the Monster Manual core rulebook. These three core rulebooks have been revised and released in highly anticipated updated editions over the past two decades. TSR released 2nd editions of the core rulebooks in 1989.
16. In 1997, Wizards acquired TSR and began development of 3rd editions of the core rulebooks. This substantially revised set of core rulebooks was released in 2000. Updated to reflect fan feedback, in 2003, Wizards released revised versions of the 3rd edition core rulebooks (version 3.5). These editions enjoyed worldwide success and formed the basis for hundreds of supplemental D&D role-playing game products over the ensuing decade.
17. After years of additional development, and again inspired in part by player feedback, Wizards released a 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons in 2008. The 4th edition provided for more streamlined game play, plus new options for character creation and interaction. Again, the rules were detailed in the three core 4th edition rulebooks. Release of the rulebooks was highly anticipated, and Wizards sponsored a Worldwide Dungeons & Dragons Game Day and coordinated release of the 4th edition with D&D events held around the globe. The core 4th edition rulebooks have sold hundreds of thousands of copies and are now in their third printing.

Sounds to me like every previous reference to "core rulebooks" was to the collection of books known as the core rulebooks and not each one individually. If this is the case, you can basically take all of the numbers guessed at (some with greater mathematical backing than others) and divide by somewhere between two and three (as it's probably not appropriate to assume that everyone who buys one of the books will buy all three, but most likely will buy two of the three, and some will buy all three... again, wild guessing on my part as I bought none and don't know anyone who has bought them).

As an aside, to anyone who has seen these kind of filings before... are they always filled with marketing spin like this one?

It's appreciated that the brains at Paizo have directed some thought toward it, though (and glad I was on the right track as far as the "least bad" method :)

Alas, I doubt there will be an "all-win" situation.

(Didn't want to resurrect that old thread Vic pointed to)

So if I understand the situation correctly, the criteria for having a way to offer a free/reduced price PDF when purchasing a print book would have to be as follows:

• 1. unique to each print book
  
• 2. not easily removable while browsing the book in the bookstore (and shrink-wrap is not an option)
  
• 3. no reliance on the LGS to distribute (for two reasons: one being that it is an extra burden on the store employees and two being that there is nothing to say that one or more of the employees wouldn't abuse the trust placed in them)
  
• 4. can't be redeemed by having a friend's book or a library book (I intend to make sure my library buys all PRPG books starting with the Core Rulebook, btw!)
  
• 5. Can't be too onerous for Paizo to manage - either time-wise or money-wise
  
• 6. Can't be static information that can be leaked/passed on to another person who didn't buy the book and still be used
  

Hmmmmmm.... How about this: Send every print book out with a cardboard envelope that has to be "destroyed" to be opened (so it's obvious that it has been tampered with if such occurs). Inside the envelope, which is securely attached to the inside back cover (similar to how many computer manuals are shipped), place a unique coupon code. Get your web guys on making a fairly simple "gateway" page that people can go to, enter in their coupon code (which then gets compared against a simple database of the codes that exist), verifies the code has not been used before (in which case you notify the user that the code has already been used and they should contact their Paizo customer service for resolution - by this point you have the user's information as they need to register on the site in order to access the PDF code entry page, let's say, so you can stop them from trying an unreasonable number of codes), and generates a cart item with the reduced price (free might be too generous... and you'd have to recoup the increased costs of including such a device in each print book) for them to personalize at their leisure once payment is received.

I think that satisfies the criteria I came up with above (but I really have NO IDEA about how much it would cost to have a small cardboard envelope stuffed with a unique code glued to the inside back cover of each print book) - but I don't know if I've covered all the criteria to satisfy the people who need to be convinced. :)

I did a little comparison of what it costs me to buy from Paizo, FLGS, and Amazon in another thread. For the price of just the Core Rulebook at my FLGS I can get both the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary at Amazon with free shipping and no tax. At my FLGS I also have to pay tax. If I buy from Paizo, I have to pay shipping charges to Canada.

As has been said many times before: blame Amazon for the demise of the FLGS, not the producers of the material who also make it available as a PDF.