|
3. At the release of the final version, have people trade in their 4.0 crap for credit to get the hardcover of <What will hopefuly be the RPG formally known as Pathfinder>. I was duped into buying that load of garbage that is 4E, and feel a little obligation to that $100 pile of worthless and defiled paper. Hey, if I can get $10 credit towards pathfinder for it, its damned worth it. Then you can make a bonfire and roast hotdogs or something.
White Wolf tried to get people to trade in D&D 3.5 for Exalted, and that was extremely poorly received. Of course, it didn't help that it was referred to as "graduating" from D&D.
White Wolf tried to get people to trade in D&D 3.5 for Exalted, and that was extremely poorly received. Of course, it didn't help that it was referred to as "graduating" from D&D.
Yeah, it stuck me as ridiculously pretentious (which is pretty surprising, considering it's White Wolf. Wait, no, sorry, that was anyone else *rimshot*). Not that I wouldn't have considered it, if I had a 3.5 PHB...
|
|
Gee, it sounds like we have a bunch of winey DM's out there. For haven sakes, it's just a game. Now stop crying and start making your game better and use the book as a guide. That's the real secret in making the game FUN! Maybe it's time the oldtimers start showing your youngsters how a dungeon crawl is really done. :)
|
I just... don't agree with any of the OP's points. o_O
I love the name, I like the line up, exchanging D&D stuff for PRPG would be a really, really bad marketing maneuver, and I like the Spells format.
To each their own, I suppose.
I agree. Worst idea is the exchanging 4e books idea. The one thing that has helped Paizo stand out (and win the best publisher award) is their choice not to stoop to such low standards. Which is why they will forever be on my book shelf.
Granted I will also venture to say that the OP's "Dislikes" have the stinking swampy smell of a Troll...if you ask me.
2. Trash that race line up sketch or nuke the gnome with the ice cream sunday on her head. It looks terrible. Its one of the first pics you see, and I would just assume to close the book and walk away than see more of that. The rest of the art is fantastic. Why is the first art you see so darn terrible and practically silly?
But I like the gnome.
That, Lini, and the fluff actually made me want to play gnome characters for the first time ever.
Gee, it sounds like we have a bunch of winey DM's out there. For haven sakes, it's just a game. Now stop crying and start making your game better and use the book as a guide. That's the real secret in making the game FUN! Maybe it's time the oldtimers start showing your youngsters how a dungeon crawl is really done. :)
This is not just a game: it's a beta test. The developers want us to offer criticism. They specifically asked for us to comment on ways we think the game could be improved. I mean, it's right there, in the Beta book, chapter 17.
|
|
Gee, it sounds like we have a bunch of winey DM's out there. For haven sakes, it's just a game. Now stop crying and start making your game better and use the book as a guide. That's the real secret in making the game FUN! Maybe it's time the oldtimers start showing your youngsters how a dungeon crawl is really done. :)This is not just a game: it's a beta test. The developers want us to offer criticism. They specifically asked for us to comment on ways we think the game could be improved. I mean, it's right there, in the Beta book, chapter 17.
Yes but they want constructive and useful suggestions. There is nothing constructive or useful that would actually improve the system in the OP's original post.
2. Trash that race line up sketch or nuke the gnome with the ice cream sunday on her head. It looks terrible. Its one of the first pics you see, and I would just assume to close the book and walk away than see more of that. The rest of the art is fantastic. Why is the first art you see so darn terrible and practically silly?
Being as that piece of artwork is reused (as is all the PRPG artwork), and we're 12 months away from the final, I'm dubious that this won't be changed to something less "rough".
|
|
2. Trash that race line up sketch or nuke the gnome with the ice cream sunday on her head. It looks terrible. Its one of the first pics you see, and I would just assume to close the book and walk away than see more of that. The rest of the art is fantastic. Why is the first art you see so darn terrible and practically silly?Being as that piece of artwork is reused (as is all the PRPG artwork), and we're 12 months away from the final, I'm dubious that this won't be changed to something less "rough".
WHAT!?! Man I really like that art! It's so different from the rest of the art work. NOt that the other artwork is bad. But this one is just neat. I really like the angles, and planes, and crosshatching. I like the roughness. It's got some texture, some substance.
I for one hope they keep it...and keep using more from this artist.
Yes but they want constructive and useful suggestions. There is nothing constructive or useful that would actually improve the system in the OP's original post.
That's unfair. I don't agree with the OP's points either (except 4; it's trickier to scan the spells than it should be), but they're clearly made in good faith. He's trying to be constructive. "Stop whining," on the other hand, is not, and it's basically the opposite of what we have been asked to do.
2. Trash that race line up sketch or nuke the gnome with the ice cream sunday on her head. It looks terrible. Its one of the first pics you see, and I would just assume to close the book and walk away than see more of that. The rest of the art is fantastic. Why is the first art you see so darn terrible and practically silly?Being as that piece of artwork is reused (as is all the PRPG artwork), and we're 12 months away from the final, I'm dubious that this won't be changed to something less "rough".
I think one of the officials already mentioned (I don't remember where, it was about one month ago, maybe more) that this thing was an early pic that won't be in the final book...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
2. Trash that race line up sketch or nuke the gnome with the ice cream sunday on her head. It looks terrible. Its one of the first pics you see, and I would just assume to close the book and walk away than see more of that. The rest of the art is fantastic. Why is the first art you see so darn terrible and practically silly?
But I like the gnome.
That, Lini, and the fluff actually made me want to play gnome characters for the first time ever.
I sooo totally agree with Valkyrie. So much so that I even used that gnome as the basis for one of my PbP Characters (except Paizo doesn't have an Avatar of her... hint, hint) and I never really liked Gnomes much before that. =)
Worse post ever.
1. Pathfinder has a great logo, and it sticks out more than the movie ever did. No need to change anything.
2. Race line up actually makes the races not look stereotypical and 30 years old. I love the artist, even if I don't particularly appreciate a certain race. It still looks pretty nice.
3. Whine. Whine. Don't like 4e? Ebay it. Don't throw words like you're using to describe 4e to us as some of us may still like 4e or play 4e. You don't like it: get over it.
4. I forget what you were complaining about. Edit: Oh yeah, I agree that the spells are difficult to read. Too many bars in each spell. Leave it at one bar per spell somewhere near the top, or do something else. Those bars make scanning hard. :)
If you have constructive criticism pertaining to the betterment of Pathfinder, I applaud your desire to continue it's growth. Do so in a positive manner, and stop trashing other systems.
Take care.
Gee, it sounds like we have a bunch of winey DM's out there. For haven sakes, it's just a game. Now stop crying and start making your game better and use the book as a guide.
Do you have anything to add besides attacks? If not, find a soapbox in some abandoned backyard and preach to the stray cats or something.
I'm sure we can treat each other with a bit of respect, even though there's all that technology between us and all that.
Change the name...why does it have to match the magazine?
Note that it's not a magazine, even though it comes in monthly installments. For one thing, it looks and feels much better than a magazine.
Anyway, they have made a name for themselves, and established the name Pathfinder. Among roleplayers, it has recognition value now.
Of course, it stands for a lot of other things besides the best adventure paths out there: Space exploration probes, cars, military elite units, internet portals, movies... you name it.
Still, I like the name, and as far as I know, it has been established in Paizo's offices (though I must say, from the names they had floating around for their projects, Morning Star had a certain ring to it).
Plus, it's in beta now, which might be a bit late to change it.
2. Trash that race line up sketch or nuke the gnome with the ice cream sunday on her head. It looks terrible.
Rest assured, it will be replaced. Just not for the beta. As far as I know, the beta has next to no new art. It's just the playtest version, after all. The final version will have lots of new pictures in it.
But the sooner you accept that Pathfinder gnomes have colourful hair in wild hairstyles, the better, since that is how gnomes will be represented: as fey creatures in contact with the First World and some fey influences on their appearance. And the fact that they're usually.... eccentric won't help any requests for more boring-looking gnomes.
And it's not a bad thing. Gnomes did have a bit of a identity problem, and defining them more clearly sure is a better way than wotc's hamfisted pandering to 12-year-old antifans by cutting the race from the PHB.
3. At the release of the final version, have people trade in their 4.0 crap for credit
Not a good idea. Beyond the fact that unless done exactly right, it will look like a low blow towards 4e, there's the issue of how much you give them:
If they only give people something like 5$ for each core book, many will feel insulted because they feel that they're being swindled out of money.
If they give people too much money, they might take losses.
In the end, I think Paizo should stay out of the mud pit and just do their own thing.
4. Format the spells a little better. It still looks a bit sloppy with the lines and such.
I must say that I like the new look. If they go and improve on it, maybe with a little colour, I won't complain, but it's actually pretty good already.
And thats it. You do these four things,and I will garantee at least ten more people who actually buy the finished book. Maybe more feel the way I do, so if I know ten people, and they know ten people...maybe you'll get thousands with a few, simple mostly cosmetic changes!
So you say that you won't buy the book unless they change a single piece of art, rename the game, buy your 4e books and change the spell format? Sounds a bit extreme.
Plus, you have to think of this: How many people will NOT buy it if those changes are made? How many people will turn away from it because they liked beta gnomes but not the final ones who went back to their boring, hidden niche? How many people will feel insulted by the low blow of offering cash back as if 4e were defective (and I'd say that there'd be people who'd stop buying anything Paizo just because of this)?
WHAT!?! Man I really like that art! It's so different from the rest of the art work. NOt that the other artwork is bad. But this one is just neat. I really like the angles, and planes, and crosshatching. I like the roughness. It's got some texture, some substance.
I must say that I like it, too. I'm not soo sure whether it should be in the core rulebook, though.
I don't know whether it's any consolation, but the art won't disappear forever, since it's already in one of the Pathfinders (#4 I think) and in the Gazetteer.
But I must say, the racial portraits from the campaign setting look so much better.
|
I just... don't agree with any of the OP's points. o_O
I love the name, I like the line up, exchanging D&D stuff for PRPG would be a really, really bad marketing maneuver, and I like the Spells format.
To each their own, I suppose.
Pretty close to my feelings too. I love the name. I love being able to say 'I am a Pathfinder' instead of 'I play dungeons and dragons'. Just sounds cooler.
The race line-up bugs me slightly.....only slightly. I would like it changed to match more of the book's art style, but it isn't awful.The exchange thing is just juvenile to me and would damage Paizo's credibility in my eyes.
And finally, I love the spell format. Easy to read, clear breaks between spells. The only thing I would add is maybe the starting letter of the spells at the page top or something. I also wouldn't mind if they were grouped alphabetically AND by level, but that would cause some funniness with spells that are one level for wizards but a different level for bards and such, so I could see that not working so well or requiring multiple printings of the spell in different sections(which is not that good of an idea).
There's my thoughts.
|
|
Yes but they want constructive and useful suggestions. There is nothing constructive or useful that would actually improve the system in the OP's original post.That's unfair. I don't agree with the OP's points either (except 4; it's trickier to scan the spells than it should be), but they're clearly made in good faith. He's trying to be constructive. "Stop whining," on the other hand, is not, and it's basically the opposite of what we have been asked to do.
Whoa...now when have I said to stop whining? Please don't put words in my mouth.
If the OP was trying to be constructive he sure made some bad choices in his words. And suggesting that Paizo do something as WT as offering credit for turning in their 4e books is crude and silly. Not Paizo's style of doing things.
Constructive would have been...
1.) I'm not entirely convinced that Pathfinder is the best choice for the name of this game. It does not conjure up visions of high fantasy adventures that are indicative of Dungeons and Dragons. This doesn't create that connection in peoples minds between Pathfinder and D&D. It may potentially confuse them and people won't realize what it s....
or Something to that effect. I personally think it's a very appropriate name considering the fluff of the game. OH and if your going to make a statement like "There are a lot of people put off by the name as well..." well how about some solid proof? This is the FIRST POST I've read by anyone here suggesting that it's a bad choice for a name.
2.) The art work used for the race line up seems, IMO, to be very rough and "Sloppy". The Hard edges, angles, and planes, along with the cross hatching are examples of this. It seems to me that there wasn't much craftmanship or attention to detail placed on the piece. It seems out of place next to the majority of artwork in the book.
Art is subjective. Everyone is going to have a different opinion. BUT making silly statements suggesting they trash it or to "Nuke the Gnome with an ice cream sunday..." are not constructive comments to make. He offers NO constructive suggestion for an alternative. I on the other hand tend to like the artwork. It's very different and an interesting take on fantasy art. I would like to see more. I like the rough sketchy look. It lends a bit of grittiness to the game, IMO.
3.) ...
A really silly idea. I've said before that this is suggesting that Paizo stoop to a level that is just not in their nature to do. IF they were to do that they would lose a great deal or respect from this customer for sure. It's Crass and just place dumb from a business sense.
4.) ...
The ONLY thing in his original post that comes close to being constructive. He again offers no alternative and constructive ideas. He also once again takes a shot at someone. Yes it's very mild compared to some of the things that the folks at WotC have been called. I'm certainly not into defending WotC. Their business practices lost me as a customer for good at this point. And yes I know that I've been guilty of posting the occasional attack on WotC. The problem is that he starts out good. He's bringing up a valid point. he's doing it in a real constructive way. no insults etc. and then bang he loses me with "Someone should teach the yahoos at WotC..."
I will however that I disagree with the layout on the spells...mostly. The only thing that bugs me is the occasional spell that starts at the bottom of the left column and then you have to go back up to the top to finish reading the entry. This is mostly because I'm reading the PDF and it's a minor annoyance to have to be reading something and then stop, scroll back up to the top and start over again. I'm sure it's not an issue in the printed copy. Once I get some ink for the printer then it won't be an issue either.
|
|
Very well said, most of you.
Still, let us not give Pathfinder an "Emperor's New Clothes" complex. Just because you like and want to support something, doesn't mean you have to be nice and avoid things that bother you, no matter how small. Especially at this phase, when things really CAN be changed. I hear a lot of "yes-men" out there, and that is very disturbing. The game doesn't need any yes-men right now. It needs overly critical jack-asses that will speak their mind on all matters. Its up to the Pathfinder design team to sort through these and use them to make the BEST GAME POSSIBLE. I am sure someone on the design team agreed with at least one of my points, perhaps even thought of it before, and if my post was the slightest push to change something, then all the better. If we all just say "hey dont sweat the small stuff, no game is perfect"...then what do we get? A game full of a bunch of little design flaws.
So I will now re-address my original post, in light of the feedback:
1. Yeah, I still don't like the name "Pathfinder" and I really do see it as a weakness for the RPG overall. Sure everyone who is ALREADY on board with the game may love it, gotten used to it, or see it as an icon. However, those that have NOT jumped on board often ridicule the name, and see it as a poor choice. Its never too late to change something, and you can keep product awareness with a just a subtitle; "Wizards & Warriors, a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" or reverse it with "Pathfinder: A dungeons & dragons roleplaying game". I don't know the legal remifications of all this. Still, the people already established on this board don't agree OF COURSE. The people who disagree are likely too put off by the current name to be interested.
2. I think the consensus is that, love it or hate it, the race line-up sketch is out in the final version. The problem with doing something really odd is that a few people really will love it, while most will still hate it. You can still be edgy without being silly. The gnome in the sketch,...
CRAP!!!! My post got eaten!!!
I HAD typed...that now I can get behind your post...mostly.
1.) I can see your point to an extent with the name. I do like the name "Pathfinder Chronicles" a bit better than just Pathfinder. I don't however think that Paizo could use Dungeons & Dragons. WotC would OWN Paizo for that one. Wizards and Warriors: A Pathfinder RPG isn't bad either but a bit wordy. I would prefer something more simple. Again I like Pathfinder Chronicles. The idea of the fluff is that the Pathfinders wander around getting into adventures and Chronicling their adventures.
2.) I still like it. Yeah the Gnomes hair and coloring is a bit odd. I think the reason is it doesn't match ANY of the other figures in the picture. Perhaps if they changed the hair style and color. Then again I haven't had a chance to read any of the CS fluff on Gnomes yet. I've read several posts saying that they REALLY like the new Gnomes and would consider playing one now. Perhaps the hair style and color have something to do with the fluff. I don't know. I think another thing that would help is having more examples throughout the book of this style. That way it wouldn't stand out so much. I can see how some would find it hard to look at. I like the sketchy hard look of the art though. Art is just too subjective. We probably won't ever agree on this one due to personal taste.
3.) The reason I am solidly a Paizo customer/Fan, Pathfinder aside, is the positive stand up way they treat their fans as well as other companies in the industry. I mean what other game publisher out there do you know that has an open message board to not only their own product but their competitors as well? Are there any Paizo/Pathfinder forums over on WotC's boards? The day they begin down that negative path is the day I stop being a customer. I just don't want to do business with a company like that.
4.) I can also see your point here. I happen to like the lines though. They do a much better job separating the different parts of the spell description than simple words in bold type. Maybe just using one line? I don't think they could shorten the line at all though. Would really throw off the layout.
As far as your last paragraph. Ya lose me again. If the community here is REALLY going to help Paizo make a superior product then we need to make sure we present our suggestions/arguments/discussions in a constructive and intelligent way. There have already been many posts from folks saying that they are upset that Paizo didn't listen to them and make the changes that they wanted made. How many of those folks though originally presented their arguments by being rude and demanding about them? I know if I were working on this project I would just skip over those posts.
NOW...please don't eat my post this time dang internet!!!
|
|
Yes but they want constructive and useful suggestions. There is nothing constructive or useful that would actually improve the system in the OP's original post.That's unfair. I don't agree with the OP's points either (except 4; it's trickier to scan the spells than it should be), but they're clearly made in good faith. He's trying to be constructive. "Stop whining," on the other hand, is not, and it's basically the opposite of what we have been asked to do.Whoa...now when have I said to stop whining? Please don't put words in my mouth.
If the OP was trying to be constructive he sure made some bad choices in his words. And suggesting that Paizo do something as WT as offering credit for turning in their 4e books is crude and silly. Not Paizo's style of doing things.
Constructive would have been...
1.) I'm not entirely convinced that Pathfinder is the best choice for the name of this game. It does not conjure up visions of high fantasy adventures that are indicative of Dungeons and Dragons. This doesn't create that connection in peoples minds between Pathfinder and D&D. It may potentially confuse them and people won't realize what it s....
or Something to that effect. I personally think it's a very appropriate name considering the fluff of the game. OH and if your going to make a statement like "There are a lot of people put off by the name as well..." well how about some solid proof? This is the FIRST POST I've read by anyone here suggesting that it's a bad choice for a name.
2.) The art work used for the race line up seems, IMO, to be very rough and "Sloppy". The Hard edges, angles, and planes, along with the cross hatching are examples of this. It seems to me that there wasn't much craftmanship or attention to detail placed on the piece. It seems out of place next to the majority of artwork in the book.
Art is subjective. Everyone is going to have a different opinion. BUT making silly statements...
Now see...if the boards had not eaten my post...and I didn't have to spend extra time retyping I could have read this post BEFORE I got on your side. Now that I've seen this attack then I'm done. We're going to just have to disagree. Bullying a company into doing something that you personally want them to do isn't going to get things done.
Later
|
|
A just because it is the first post makes it wrong? Would you like a signed petition? Is that what it will take for you to see I have a valid argument? The point was that many people are so put off by the name, they do not want to even get involved with the boards, hence no posts by those people.
How could you possibly cite that as a fact? Do you go around interviewing everyone that doesn't join the Paizo forums or something? This strikes me as "I'm right because I am."
EDIT: and I just remembered that somebody at Paizo once posted that Paizo products that don't have the Pathfinder name sell less well than those that do. That's why they changed Gamemastery modules to Pathfinder modules.
1. It would not be named "Pathfinder." I mean "Dungeons & Dragons" at least has nostalgic appeal, and nifty alliteration. Pathfinder sounds like either a crappy sport utility vehicle or a really bad viking movie, not a role playing game. What's in a name? A lot! There are a lot of people put off by the name alone...and you just don't want that! Change the name...why does it have to match the magazine? I say you hold a vote. You say this game is for gamers by gamers...then let them name it!/QUOTE]
"Ruins & Rakshasas"?
I agree that people who are put off by the name are probably not going to come onboard and try it out. Thus, not a huge hue and cry to change it. But come on now. Do you really think that leting gamers name it that we will get something better.
2. Trash that race line up sketch or nuke the gnome with the ice cream sunday on her head. It looks terrible. Its one of the first pics you see, and I would just assume to close the book and walk away than see more of that. The rest of the art is fantastic. Why is the first art you see so darn terrible and practically silly?Not the most diplomatic way to say this, but I agree.
3. At the release of the final version, have people trade in their 4.0 crap for credit to get the hardcover of <What will hopefuly be the RPG formally known as Pathfinder>. I was duped into buying that load of garbage that is 4E, and feel a little obligation to that $100 pile of worthless and defiled paper. Hey, if I can get $10 credit towards pathfinder for it, its damned worth it. Then you can make a bonfire and roast hotdogs or something.OK, you got burned on a bad purchase. The problem is that Paizo is not responsible for you buying 4e. You might try to get WoTC to give you a refund. Contact your State Attorne General and file charges against them. They claimed that they were selling D&D. You paid $100 expecting D&D. What you got was not D&D. False advertising.
4. Format the spells a little better. It still looks a bit sloppy with the lines and such. I do not personally know what would make it better (I am not an editor by any means), but something is still off with that section. The rest of the book is perfect. Someone should teach the yahoos at WotC how to format a page...even the page numbers wander off occasionally in 4E.Agree for the most part.
Whoa...now when have I said to stop whining? Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm sorry, the way your post was phrased, you seemed to be saying that. It seems like the precise phrasing of one's post can sometimes be misleading. Perhaps it has something to do with the internet, what with it's taking the inflection out of your voice and making your phrasing so important that it can determine whether or not people attack or agree with you.
Regardless, just because you don't agree with the OP's suggestions doesn't mean they're not constructive. I don't agree with them either, but they are concrete suggestions made with the stated intent of making Pathfinder better, which means they are trying to promote the development of the game, which is the definition of "constructive."
Point 1: you couldn't call it D&D because D&D is trademarked. However, he didn't precisely suggest that it be renamed D&D: he just suggested we vote on what name we'd like, which is a very fair way of doing it, perfectly in the spirit of Pathfinder. At this point in the development cycle, I don't think it's feasible to change it's name, but this would have been a good thing to do when they first announced it and just because it's a little late doesn't mean it's not constructive.
Point 2: You walk into a friend's house. Your friend has a very nice house, very well-designed, very feng shui. It screams "taste" and "elegance." All the paint is just right, all the furniture, all the art... except for a giant, loud, crash, poorly-drawn picture of Pikachu right in his living room. It's not even hung properly, though you suspect that wouldn't improve matters. It clashes so greatly with the rest of the room and the rest of the house that you can't look at anything else, nor can the other friend who came with you. Pikachu might look good in some people's living rooms, but not this Pikachu, and not here. So you tell your friend to get rid of it. He asks what else he should put there. You say you don't care. Anything. Just, for his own sake, something else.
Now me, I still consider this constructive, if not optimally so. If I'm doing something wrong, I want to be told I'm doing something wrong, even if I'm not also going to be pointed in the right direction. Because I still know better than I did before, even if I now have to go out and get another picture without guidance from that particular friend.
Personally, I kinda like the Race picture, though that they're in their underpants is a little weird. I don't think it's trying to be exploitation or titillating, but someone could think that, and it's kinda a waste of an opportunity to show the native clothing of the various races, especially since their bodies are all basically human anyway.
Point 3: This would actually good a good move for gaming stores, who could turn around and sell the 4e books used but still at a profit. I'm not sure what Paizo would do with the 4e books, or why it would even care, but I'm sure there's a percentage of gamers who bought the 4e books, read them, and decided they didn't like them (but didn't just return them to the store, for some reason). You're right, it would be a petty move for Paizo to do this, but I can certainly understand the desire to get something out of your books. (To the OP: try looking around for a used book store to take them off your hands. I know of two such stores, both of which would be happy to get some current-edition D&D books, as the rest of their stuff is mostly 3.0 or earlier. A gaming store might even consider it, depending on the manager).
Point 4: As I said, I agree with this. It strikes me as weird to be SO CAREFUL to differentiate the Casting, the Effect, and the Description (when the information is the same whether you bother to point out the difference or not, and it's not like there was really much ambiguity before...), and then have nothing to differentiate between multiple spells other than bolding the titles and *slightly* increasing their font size. I honestly think it would look better and more professional if you didn't bother telling us which part is the casting information (it's obviously), which is the effect (what else could "Range" or "Target" reasonably refer to?), and especially which is the description (since that is especially obvious), and made the name of the spell a different color. That way, you don't have those annoying bars distracting you as you look up and down a page quickly for a particular spell, and you can read just the titles with ease if you want since you'll know to just look for the color blue, for example.
For the final release, it might also be nice to have some pictures sprinkled throughout the spell section, kinda like how the Complete books tend to illustrate at least one spell every six or eight pages or so.
|
|
The only thing I would add is maybe the starting letter of the spells at the page top or something. I also wouldn't mind if they were grouped alphabetically AND by level, but that would cause some funniness with spells that are one level for wizards but a different level for bards and such, so I could see that not working so well or requiring multiple printings of the spell in different sections(which is not that good of an idea).
These are actually pretty good suggestions. I concur, including with the reservations.
|
|
The only thing I would add is maybe the starting letter of the spells at the page top or something. I also wouldn't mind if they were grouped alphabetically AND by level, but that would cause some funniness with spells that are one level for wizards but a different level for bards and such, so I could see that not working so well or requiring multiple printings of the spell in different sections(which is not that good of an idea).These are actually pretty good suggestions. I concur, including with the reservations.
Sometime me be 'mart!
;P
Still, let us not give Pathfinder an "Emperor's New Clothes" complex. Just because you like and want to support something, doesn't mean you have to be nice and avoid things that bother you, no matter how small. Especially at this phase, when things really CAN be changed. I hear a lot of "yes-men" out there, and that is very disturbing. The game doesn't need any yes-men right now. It needs overly critical jack-asses that will speak their mind on all matters. Its up to the Pathfinder design team to sort through these and use them to make the BEST GAME POSSIBLE.
Not everyone who agrees with the decisions is a yes-man, and I resent the implication (even though I don't agree with everything myself).
And bombarding the design team with tons of minimal changes would probably hurt more than it helps, especially if it's criticism without playtesting. They just don't have the time to listen to a ton of small things. So if you really want to help, always think about what you're writing before you do: Is it really something that should be addressed?
1. Yeah, I still don't like the name "Pathfinder" and I really do see it as a weakness for the RPG overall. Sure everyone who is ALREADY on board with the game may love it, gotten used to it, or see it as an icon. However, those that have NOT jumped on board often ridicule the name, and see it as a poor choice. Its never too late to change something, and you can keep product awareness with a just a subtitle; "Wizards & Warriors, a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" or reverse it with "Pathfinder: A dungeons & dragons roleplaying game". I don't know the legal remifications of all this. Still, the people already established on this board don't agree OF COURSE. The people who disagree are likely too put off by the current name to be interested.
If they won't play the game because of its name, I say good riddance.
And always consider this: For every weirdo who doesn't try the game because they don't change the name, there's probably a weirdo who will leave if they change the name, and no name change will please every weirdo.
I guess Paizo knows better than you and me what names will work (what with their experience and access to certain data), and they seem to think that Pathfinder RPG's the best name for this.
And, to be honest, I haven't seen any suggestions for names that would be better and could work.
But whatever. Maybe they could do it privately for people who ask for it.
When did eBay get such a bad name? Or nobleknightgames?
4. Well, a lot of you actually agree with this one. The spell format should be revised. THANK YOU.
Well, a lot of us do like the format and don't post in this thread.
And a final note: Don't criticize the critic!
Do criticise the critic! Any opinion that can't stand any criticism doesn't seem to hold much water.
You'll have a pretty game that only your little cliche likes, and it will die off because it doesn't have enough support.
Since I'm already criticising the critic: Don't assume that your opinion is fact, or even the opinion of the majority, and don't try to win arguments by ridiculing other people.
You may like something, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to.
Right back at you.
Fact is, the game seems to have tremendous support: Print copies of the beta being sold out in no time, thousands of downloads in short order, lots of feedback, a golden ennie for best free product.... All this suggests to me that we are, in fact, the majority, not some vocal minority. Not everyone likes the things we like, but we seem to be most, which is the best everyone can hope for.
Thousands of downloads? Like, tens of hundreds? Wow! This game is a HUGE HIT.
I just want to go on record as saying that if the name were hypothetically to have it's name changes, naming it in alliteratives would be just about the worst move possible. "Warriors and Wizards" just sounds like a poorman's knockoff D&D, which is definitely the wrong image to send. It also lacks creativity, and I have to say that I tend to be instantly prejudiced against other games that try to trade on D&D's naming convention (the exception being Treasures and Traps, but that's a card game and thus exempt).
1. It would not be named "Pathfinder." I mean "Dungeons & Dragons" at least has nostalgic appeal, and nifty alliteration. Pathfinder sounds like either a crappy sport utility vehicle or a really bad viking movie, not a role playing game. What's in a name? A lot! There are a lot of people put off by the name alone...and you just don't want that! Change the name...why does it have to match the magazine? I say you hold a vote. You say this game is for gamers by gamers...then let them name it!
I agree with you completely on this point. Worst part of Pathfinder is its name.
2. Trash that race line up sketch or nuke the gnome with the ice cream sunday on her head. It looks terrible. Its one of the first pics you see, and I would just assume to close the book and walk away than see more of that. The rest of the art is fantastic. Why is the first art you see so darn terrible and practically silly?
I don't think they are *that* bad. I think the gnome looks cute and whimsical. They do seem to be done in a different style than the rest of the book and some more consistency would be nice. I'd also like male and female illustrations for each race.
3. At the release of the final version, have people trade in their 4.0 crap for credit to get the hardcover of <What will hopefuly be the RPG formally known as Pathfinder>. I was duped into buying that load of garbage that is 4E, and feel a little obligation to that $100 pile of worthless and defiled paper. Hey, if I can get $10 credit towards pathfinder for it, its damned worth it. Then you can make a bonfire and roast hotdogs or something.
Seems an awful waste of paper and a frivolous reason to release more carbons and particulates in the atmosphere. I also have a philosophical problem with burning books.
Seriously, I don't think it would make a good marketing idea and would probably cost Paizo way too much. There are some people who do like 4e and that's fine. If you want to get rid of the 4e books, try craigslist or ebay. Or better yet, donate them to your local library so other people can check them out without buying them.
4. Format the spells a little better. It still looks a bit sloppy with the lines and such. I do not personally know what would make it better (I am not an editor by any means), but something is still off with that section. The rest of the book is perfect. Someone should teach the yahoos at WotC how to format a page...even the page numbers wander off occasionally in 4E.
Are you talking about Paizo, WOTC, or both here? It seems like you are saying both. I don't have a problem with the spells in PFRPG myself. I guess it could be improved slightly by having the title, stats, and description all in different fonts and colours but that's about it.
And thats it. You do these four things,and I will garantee at least ten more people who actually buy the finished book. Maybe more feel the way I do, so if I know ten people, and they know ten people...maybe you'll get thousands with a few, simple mostly cosmetic changes!
You could be right. It depends on how many people agree with you. I'm with you on the title but the other things are extremely minor or not a problem to me.
|
|
Thousands of downloads? Like, tens of hundreds? Wow! This game is a HUGE HIT.
Or hundreds of tens or even thousands of ones.
I would suspect though that the proper way to look at it is thousands of twenties. As in perhaps 10,000-20,000 twenty dollar bills. Thats not all profit of course but its respectable.
1) While i can not argue that pathfinder is D&D, or at least it's spiritual progenitor. And that 4e is D&D in name only. "Dungeons and Dragons" is, unforchunately, trade marked. While, I'm sure that changing the name to dungeons and dragons would help PF's cuase, getting sued by WotC most assuredly would not.
2) I'm not that fond of the art myself..the elf looks...wrong...but its gonna be changed, moote point.
3) Lol...trading in 4e stuff for PF credit.. What is Paizo going to go with that much garbage? I recomend your local blue bin if your having trouble finding a good home for your 4e stuff. I'd recomend your FLGS, but if yours is like mine, it won't take anymore used 4e stuff...has too much as is, and what it has isn't selling.
4)Spell formatting. I agree totally. Maybe soemthing less boxy, more fluid, uhmm, less like 4e's powers and more spell compendium like.
The name is a little weird, but I was able to look past it.
I am very glad they are changing the race lineup. It looks...kind of silly, to be honest. The Conan he-elf and the gnome superhero are the worst for this. I can't look at them without giggling madly.
And I agree the spells need nicer formatting. The lines look very ugly. At least change them from black to brown. And make the spell titles a different font, not all caps, and a little bigger size. (And also not black -- more like the "level 2" headers for racial traits, or class skills.)
The name is a little weird, but I was able to look past it.
I am very glad they are changing the race lineup. It looks...kind of silly, to be honest. The Conan he-elf and the gnome superhero are the worst for this. I can't look at them without giggling madly.
And I agree the spells need nicer formatting. The lines look very ugly. At least change them from black to brown. And make the spell titles a different font, not all caps, and a little bigger size. (And also not black -- more like the "level 2" headers for racial traits, or class skills.)
Frankly, they should take a look at the 4E Powers. They're really easy to read.
Frankly, they should take a look at the 4E Powers. They're really easy to read.
And ugly as all sin. The 4e powers format makes the books look like one of those video game walk through mags you buy at EB games. It really is a big turn off for me.
|
|
1. Would Pathfinder & Pegasus be better? There are already a plethora* of games that follow this format, and I applaud PF for not following that trend. *Castles & Crusades, Tunnels & Trolls, etc.
2. I happen to really like the art for the race line up, so that's a matter of personal taste.
3. I too bought the 4E books and am now sticking with Pathfinder. Why should they reimburse people for buying a competitors product before theirs? That's silly.
4. Are you complaining about Pathfinder's formatting or 4E? You seem to get a little off track here. Also again, I happen to like the spell format.
Lastly; ten people? That's your incentive? Ten frigging people? What about the 20-30 people that might up and drop Pathfinder over the changes you suggest? None of these things are world shaking changes, so whats the beef? It seems like you just want Paizo to hop to it because you said so.
I'm so tired of people assuming that just because this is an open playtest that everything they suggest needs to be included into the game. Jason and the other Dev's I'm sure have thoroughly considered all changes they have made or not made and considered the whole community's needs and desires. Plus these guys have been doing this for decades, give them some credit in knowing what they are doing? They have Monte Cook, the father of d20, so let it be already.
Heck, why not call it Mazes and Monsters?
The only thing I would add is maybe the starting letter of the spells at the page top or something. I also wouldn't mind if they were grouped alphabetically AND by level, but that would cause some funniness with spells that are one level for wizards but a different level for bards and such, so I could see that not working so well or requiring multiple printings of the spell in different sections(which is not that good of an idea).These are actually pretty good suggestions. I concur, including with the reservations.
If the idea here is to sort by level, and then alpha within the level, I am wholeheartedly against. You have to know what level it is to look it up? please, please no!
|
|
If the idea here is to sort by level, and then alpha within the level, I am wholeheartedly against. You have to know what level it is to look it up? please, please no!
If the description of spells is organized per level, then alphabetically within a level, AND you have an overall alphabetical list of spells with page references included, or vice versa, it would be easy to find any spell you want.
On issue #3, I agree with those that say seek out a store and try to trade it in there. If a game store won't take it go to a real book store, most now sell D&D products, especially WotC products and more of them are selling used books (I've doubled my 3.x books buying used at a local bookstore since 4e came out). The problem of course is if they will sell Pathfinder, otherwise getting store credit (which is what they give you pretty exclusively) might be kind of worthless unless they have other items you'd buy anyway. But I have seen Paizo products (including used Pathfinder issues at 1/2 price) in my local book store so you might get lucky there.
If the description of spells is organized per level, then alphabetically within a level, AND you have an overall alphabetical list of spells with page references included, or vice versa, it would be easy to find any spell you want.
Except that level is often different between classes, and if you knew what spell you wanted but not the level, you would have to search through potentially ten lists before you found it, more if we had different lists for each class.
I think a good idea would be to leave it in alphabetical order, like it is now, for the book, but then release web enhancements re-ordering them in terms of their level for each class. That way, the book is still just a generic spell reference, but players would also have the option of easily perusing just the spells they have access to with ease. I'll bet one intern could do this in a day. Heck, if I could make PDFs, I'd do it.
Frankly, they should take a look at the 4E Powers. They're really easy to read.
...and really fugly.
...and really fugly.
So use different colors or something. The layout makes it easy to spot what a power is and does. Color-code by class, or by duration within class, or something.
Frankly, they should take a look at the 4E Powers. They're really easy to read.
In the name of (late) Mystra, please, no...