And I'd also like to point out that specific criticisms are more useful than generalized "Pathfinder is no longer D&D and I'm not buying it" complaints. So if you want your voice to be heard, I'd suggest being specific and descriptive.
I think many people have been specific and descriptive here and there on this forum in these regards.
Do you know whether someone has converted the SRD into a PDF that can be easily printed? Someone did so for Mongoose RuneQuest's SRD and it is actually better IMHO than the official PDFs (as the free ones are bookmarked!).
Not pdf but if you have Word you could use the following link to print them up. There is even some nice zip files at the bottom to help in downloading them.
Official Revised (v.3.5)System Reference Document
what the misspellings an editing errors on the wotc SRD. fair warning
|
Not pdf but if you have Word you could use the following link to print them up. There is even some nice zip files at the bottom to help in downloading them.
Also, you can download OpenOffice and use the Word-like program (it's called "Writer"). It has a save to PDF option.
-Skeld
Didn't Mongoose, or somebody, do a pocketbook reprint of the SRD/PHB? I don't remember if it is 3.0 or 3.5. If anybody can produce a cheap reprint it would be the company that did it before.
Do you know whether someone has converted the SRD into a PDF that can be easily printed? Someone did so for Mongoose RuneQuest's SRD and it is actually better IMHO than the official PDFs (as the free ones are bookmarked!).
Also at RPGNOW; Cartography Unlimited for RPGs has the 3.5 SRD for $2.50 (On Sale Now) and Creative Mountain Games has the 3.5 SRD by class and spells and stuff. Bundled CMG is $20. Search by SRD though, I may have missed somebody else. I have no knowledge as to the quality of the editing/publishing. But for $2.50, go for it.
what the misspellings an editing errors on the wotc SRD. fair warning
There is something ironic there, but I'm not exactly sure what. ;)
I might point out that Paizo has been able to continue producing 3.5 products for 1.5 years AFTER the system was no longer supported. That is about 19% of the time entire 3.x line was supported or 30% of the time that 3.5 was supported. By the end Paizo will have continued to make products using 3.5 for 2 years after the system was no longer supported which is 25% of the time the entire 3.x line was supported or 40% of the time that just 3.5 was supported. Also Paizo has just been able to produce these products but has been able to expand while doing it.
What is my point? My point is that there is no evidence to suggest sticking with strictly 3.5 rule set would harm Paizo's long term goals, as long as rule books were kept in print some how. There is no need for a revised system at all. In fact there may be reasons not to revise it since not everyone that is currently purchasing 3.5 products from Paizo is going to switch to a revised system.
Now how to keep the rule set in print is the problem. Pointing people to the SRD is a good stop gap measure, but people will want a professional product (even it is paperback and just black and white) in the long run. Also as pointed out there are some information that are not in the SRD that would be useful for players in the long run. As has been pointed out, you could do work arounds on those rules to still give the same information but in a different format and still be legally ok.
Now by re-printing the 3.5 rules Paizo could keep their current base just as active as it is now for the most part. The problem is they wouldn't make alot of sales initially on those books, just from the new players that trickle in. On the other hand by making a new revision they could lose a potentially large portion of their long term customers that will not convert. So doing a direct reprint involves short term loss but potentially long term gain, while doing a revision gives short term gain but potentially long term loss.
=
There is something ironic there, but I'm not exactly sure what. ;)
It is ironic however i have used it and sent it to someone and they just thought they was all my errors.
I dont mind it it was however i spellcheck stuff normal but cut and pasted alot. 90% of the 40 or more errors they found was not mine but came from the SRD.I thought it be nice to warn folks
Mongoose Pocket 3.5 Player Handbook on eBay Buy-It-Now for $7.50 plus $4 Shipping!
I repeat my comments. If you think there is a market for a re-print, go talk to Mongoose as they can probably do it cheapest. Second, there are 3.5 SRD PDFs available through RPGNOW.
Absolutely. I'll certainly buy the hard cover Pathfinder book as well as their new Monster book. I'm already playing their modules.
I see the choice as:
A) Keep playing the 3.5 books knowing that there is no longer any support for that system from Wizards and that players will have an increasingly difficult time finding the 3.5 books.
B) Go to 4E and completely change the game that you've grown to love. You're now playing a game that can barely be called "D&D".
C) Play Pathfinder, get new modules, watch new products being released, get support from Paizo, have fun.
Yeah, sadly that is true. It didn't have to be that way. A and C could have remained joined as they are right now, but unfortunately that is not going to happen.
|
Not pdf but if you have Word you could use the following link to print them up. There is even some nice zip files at the bottom to help in downloading them.
Official Revised (v.3.5)System Reference Document
yeah but the formatting would be crap. I was hoping that someone had done a nicely formatted PDF that was deisgned to be printed.
Didn't Mongoose, or somebody, do a pocketbook reprint of the SRD/PHB? I don't remember if it is 3.0 or 3.5.
I had wondered about this but wasn't sure whether it was 3.0 or 3.5 either.
Also at RPGNOW; Cartography Unlimited for RPGs has the 3.5 SRD for $2.50 (On Sale Now) and Creative Mountain Games has the 3.5 SRD by class and spells and stuff. Bundled CMG is $20. Search by SRD though, I may have missed somebody else. I have no knowledge as to the quality of the editing/publishing. But for $2.50, go for it.
There were no examples of the latter, but the former is more what I was potentially after, though the formatting was adequate rather than great. But it is always better to have a professionally printed hardcopy available - PDF SRDs are a stop gap really.
B) Go to 4E and completely change the game that you've grown to love. You're now playing a game that can barely be called "D&D".
For me, 4e does change the game system I enjoy in 3.5 - but then so does Pathfinder to a certain degree - both require purchasing core ruels and readin them. And 4e to me is definately still called D&D - it has the iconic classes, its has the concepts of levels, abilities, skills and feats that I am familiar with and more importantly it will support the setting I have grown to enjoy - Eberron. Better still it gets rid of vancian magic, yay! :)
C) Play Pathfinder, get new modules, watch new products being released, get support from Paizo, have fun.
Do i detect a little bias in your post? :) For me I will be able to get new modules, watch new products being released, get support and have fun with WOTC and 4e. Hell, i may even give DDI a go once the game table has gone live.
I have a question that I hope will not poke the bear to much, but I think it is a valid notion. For those of you who are starting to lose enthusiasm for PFRPG, How much do you think being involved in the creative process via this message board has created that situation? You see the impression I am getting is that perhaps the proccess of giving feedback has gotten your hopes up that the finished product will be a nice glossy hardcover of 3.5 with your house rules added in, creating what is to you an ideal product to which the actual result cannot hold up too. Its food for thought. Personally I love the idea of being involved in the process no matter how little of my ideas actually make the cut, but I can see in the tone and popularity of certain threads that some people are trying to create their perfect system, not a system that can be flexible enough to work for everyone with minimal changes to suit different tastes. To be clear this question isnt targeted at those who are upset at the amount of rules conversion that must be done to make the switch. I can see that as a very valid arguement(though I disagree). Its more aimed at the folks who sight things like ( insert my fav class ) is not powerfull enough, or "they need to nerf the chain fighter before I will buy it".
|
|
Mongoose Pocket 3.5 Player Handbook on eBay Buy-It-Now for $7.50 plus $4 Shipping!
Got a link? I can't find it (maybe its not available to the UK).
I repeat my comments. If you think there is a market for a re-print, go talk to Mongoose as they can probably do it cheapest. Second, there are 3.5 SRD PDFs available through RPGNOW.
Unfortunately, if there had been a chance of a straight reprint having a market Pathfinder RPG has probably scuppered it. :(
Its easier for (lazy git that I am) to go with the flow or the market and 4e.
|
|
too many threads abour "i am losing my interes in pathfinder" and similar... there is a nice thread for those who support pathfinder, i would better make that one grow than this...
just last comment:
1) staying the same (just re-printingthe SRD or something like that) would do nothing but just stagnate the game we play... the game need tobe fixed, maybe it took a turn not just to fix but to actuallychange, some people would like it, some would not... some argue ttaht just printin the SRD is a better marketting option i digres... many of us arrived when they told us they were fixing old problems (ok some old ones are kept) i arrived with Alpha 2... and from the on i have mostly seen good change and interesting things... i am less happy about things that Jacobs has decided to keep for sake "of gamability" (yes the word don't exist) or "backward compatibility" such things i can fix, i am as bussy as anyone else... but giving me 5 minutes while i read an adventure to fix the things i think digress from the new rules is good for me.
2) Does pathfinder is a new alternative rules? maybe yes, but i don't think so... alternative rules move away from what makes D&D be D&D... classes & races... everything is an added on... but D&D is that because you can recognice the old Human Fighter or the Elven Wizard... its not a Warlock or a Hexblade... those are just new mosre powerful classes that havee been created 1) to please a niche of players, 2) to sell more. since 3.5 i havefound more interesting things in Alternate Rules than in D&D, they keep the feeling of things, the level of fantasy, the utility of characters outside combat... Pathfinder have brought me back my favorite classes and races a 2nd look that not only make them attractive... they revive the fantasy with which i began playing years ago...
3) yes... whining about "i am not buying it if they keep changing things" or "i my group won't buy pathfinder if you don't return to the old SRD"
ok people can complain, people can give their opinion... after more than 3 threads of "i don't like pathfinder" and the sames repeating again and again that if changes are kept they won't buying
it stopped being a complain or critizism and became just whining
4) yes old SRD doesn't have things complete, but people want it, they can play with it
the frist time i didn't buy 3.5 books because i had 3.0 in good conditions and most changes were explained somewhere... so i was not throwing my money in something that i still had... and i am sure 90% of players and DM won't buy a "new edition" just for the shiny new covers and new paper...
5) yes PF is not perfect and have my issues with it, but thisare much less than the things i like... and actually the things i dislike come from 3.5, so for me the more 3.5 is lost, the better... a few fixesform 3.0 were good... all the nerfing... well just no, and the magic items high dependance... is worst than drugs... but this is topic of other thread... HOW TO MAKE THE SYSTEM BETTER
PS: don't bother answering to this post... people who don't care about actual PF condition can be moved to care... that is how things are... people who agree with me have better things than increasing this thread
also... i am not cheking this thread anymore, and i am not interested in increasing it anymore than this last post
Mongoose Pocket 3.5 Player Handbook on eBay Buy-It-Now for $7.50 plus $4 Shipping!
Got a link? I can't find it (maybe its not available to the UK).
I found another! I will try my first attempt at LinkFu.
For me I will be able to get new modules, watch new products being released, get support and have fun with WOTC and 4e. Hell, i may even give DDI a go once the game table has gone live.
So why don't you go do THAT instead of engaing in a prolonged back and forth about a system that you have all of these issues with. If all you care about is playing the game "Called D&D" then that's what you should go do.
Although I find comparing the changes made in Pathfinder to the changes that were made in 4E to be similar in scope to be well...bunk. Also if you want to play the game that supports Eberron and gets rid of Vancian Magic why were you even looking at Pathfinder to begin with? And in the same breath you complain about backward compatibility? Huh? What?
I repeat my comments. If you think there is a market for a re-print, go talk to Mongoose as they can probably do it cheapest. Second, there are 3.5 SRD PDFs available through RPGNOW.
Unfortunately, if there had been a chance of a straight reprint having a market Pathfinder RPG has probably scuppered it. :(
I don't think you are giving Lisa and the Paizo team credit. I would bet a Soda Pop that they did look at the success of products like Mongooses Pocket PHB when they decided not to re-print the PHB. They evaluated staying with 3.5 and just publishing adventures, they looked at making their own system improvement and publishing adventures and they looked at supporting 4e. The result is PfRPG.
Could they have made a mistake? Sure. But I trust their industry knowledge and instincts better then anyone else in this industry.
I don't think you are giving Lisa and the Paizo team credit. I would bet a Soda Pop that they did look at the success of products like Mongooses Pocket PHB when they decided not to re-print the PHB. They evaluated staying with 3.5 and just publishing adventures, they looked at making their own system improvement and publishing adventures and they looked at supporting 4e. The result is PfRPG.
Could they have made a mistake? Sure. But I trust their industry knowledge and instincts better then anyone else in this industry.
Well sticking with 3.5 was good enough to keep them in business during a 2 year period of time when it was not even being printed and that decision has not only made them survive but to thrive. Why abandon a proven system when you don't have to?
|
Well sticking with 3.5 was good enough to keep them in business during a 2 year period of time when it was not even being printed and that decision has not only made them survive but to thrive. Why abandon a proven system when you don't have to?
I would imagine that, firstly, they are looking ahead and secondly they feel that the promise of a new game is helping keep the APs going in the meantime.
It's just not going to please everyone. Personally, I was getting a bit bothered by the things I didn't like about 3.5 and I think that PFRPG is a better game whilst still, in my opinion, being similar enough to use 3.5 material with. That last issue is the one that divides us, I guess.
Also, what two year period of time? 4e came out in, what, April 2008 (and until then 3.5 stuff was available)? Or are you backdating to the 4e announcement and forward to the PFRPG release? In any case, I suspect that their concern was about long-term sustainability rather than a two, three or four year timescale.
Well sticking with 3.5 was good enough to keep them in business during a 2 year period of time when it was not even being printed and that decision has not only made them survive but to thrive. Why abandon a proven system when you don't have to?I don't think you are giving Lisa and the Paizo team credit. I would bet a Soda Pop that they did look at the success of products like Mongooses Pocket PHB when they decided not to re-print the PHB. They evaluated staying with 3.5 and just publishing adventures, they looked at making their own system improvement and publishing adventures and they looked at supporting 4e. The result is PfRPG.
Could they have made a mistake? Sure. But I trust their industry knowledge and instincts better then anyone else in this industry.
Evolve or Die. Few businesses survive without improvement. I challenge you to find businesses that stay afloat and do not evolve. (Just ignore Legos. Those guys got it right the first time.) The flip side is that when trying to improve, many businesses screw up and fail. Both WotC and Paizo decided to leave 3.5 behind. Actually several others did also (Conan, Trued20, AE). You can say they were all wrong. I think they all had the right idea. I just think Paizo is doing it better.
Also, what two year period of time? 4e came out in, what, April 2008 (and until then 3.5 stuff was available)? Or are you backdating to the 4e announcement and forward to the PFRPG release? In any case, I suspect that their concern was about long-term sustainability rather than a two, three or four year timescale.
Right, I was talking about GenCon 2007 (when 3.5 was killed) to GenCon 2009 (when PfRPG will be launched).
|
Also, what two year period of time? 4e came out in, what, April 2008 (and until then 3.5 stuff was available)? Or are you backdating to the 4e announcement and forward to the PFRPG release? In any case, I suspect that their concern was about long-term sustainability rather than a two, three or four year timescale.Right, I was talking about GenCon 2007 (when 3.5 was killed) to GenCon 2009 (when PfRPG will be launched).
But then you're ignoring the entire year long period (probably more than that with the alpha) with the beta rulebook.
But then you're ignoring the entire year long period (probably more than that with the alpha) with the beta rulebook.Also, what two year period of time? 4e came out in, what, April 2008 (and until then 3.5 stuff was available)? Or are you backdating to the 4e announcement and forward to the PFRPG release? In any case, I suspect that their concern was about long-term sustainability rather than a two, three or four year timescale.Right, I was talking about GenCon 2007 (when 3.5 was killed) to GenCon 2009 (when PfRPG will be launched).
Which had how many APs written for it? Modules? Anything besides the rulebook itself?
|
|
So why don't you go do THAT instead of engaing in a prolonged back and forth about a system that you have all of these issues with.
Yes, I guess I must apologise. I thought I had made my peace with PF but obviously not.
I was posting in this thread in commiseration with the OP, and maybe with the hope that Paizo would understand our feelings. I don't expect Paizo to make PF just 3.5 now, too much work has gone into it, now.
At best I could expect PF supplements & scenarios to be dual statted for PF & 3.5, or to have web enhancements with 3.5 stats, but I think even that is unlikely.
However I hope that Paizo will make it clear in their marketing exactly to what extent their products are compatible with 3.5. For example a new Golarion supplement may have very little crunch, and what crunch there is might actually be 100% compatible. Such products might still be a possible purchase for me.
Although I find comparing the changes made in Pathfinder to the changes that were made in 4E to be similar in scope to be well...bunk.
I don't dispute 4e has made more extensive changes,
but PF has got enough changes that I would need to purchase & read the core books - so to me the effort is the same.Also if you want to play the game that supports Eberron and gets rid of Vancian Magic why were you even looking at Pathfinder to begin with?
Because I wanted to see if it would keep the 3.5 community going (not a 3.75 community) and because my gm is running it.
And in the same breath you complain about backward compatibility? Huh? What?
I was hoping for a continuance of 3.5 - which I know and enjoy, despite my dislike of vancian magic. Also 3.5 does support Eberron :)
I will try to keep my comments constructive in future, apologies for whining :)
Creative Director
|
We need to have a rulebook in print if we're going to continue publishing RPG supplements and adventures. Having 3.5 books available in the used book store circuit or having the SRD online is great, and I personally suspect that there'll be a LOT more folks using Pathfinder products for their 3.5 games than folks using the Pathfinder RPG itself. I'm okay with that. But that doesn't change the fundamental fact that we still need to have rulebooks in print for new customers to be able to purchase if they're coming to the game for the first time, or perhaps returning to the game after a period of absence in which they may have lost or sold or otherwise divested themselves of their 3.5 books.
Now, further complicating this is the fact that the SRD is an incomplete game in and of itself. It's got MOST of the rules in there, but it's missing rules for generating ability scores and rules for advancing characters. The versions of the rules you see in the Player's Handbook aren't open content. So, if we were to simply print the SRD, we'd have to make up new (if very similar) rules for these two parts of the game anyway. And while we were at that, we decided we might as well look at addressing other issues that folks have had with the rules as they stand.
The current result is the Pathfinder Beta. And it DOES go further from 3.5 than it needs to. That's what a beta does; it tests boundaries. We're as much using it to test out new rules as we are using it to test how far our customers want us to go with the rules, and to find out what parts of those rules we shouldn't change much from the 3.5 rules. Well over 30,000 people have downloaded the Beta PDF so far, and not all of them agree. One of our goals is to look at all of your feedback and produce the game that the most of you (and us!) want the Pathfinder RPG to be.
I realize that a fair amount of folk won't like the end result. All I can ask is two things: 1) check the final game out in the store and maybe give it a try, and 2) if it's not your thing but you still love 3.5, check out the adventures and supplements we'll be continuing to produce—If we do our job right, those supplements and adventures will still work fine for 3.5. We'll be producing a conversion book to ease the process of converting back and forth, in any event, be it converting 3.5 stuff to PF RPG rules or PF RPG rules to 3.5.
If the game's different enough that we need to consider dual-statting... I'd call that a failure on our parts to produce a version of the 3.5 SRD that's too incompatible with the 3.5 rules.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
With respect, I think that this thread is drifting into less productive territory.
We began with statements like: "I think this set of changes to the D&D 3.5 rules, or that design philosophy, has made Pathfinder less attractive to me than sticking with the D&D 3.5 rulebook." or "I think Pathfinder will be the version of the game my group with play."
The thread began with personal statements about individual preferences. And it often included "Your mileage may vary" disclaimers.
It's drifted from that. Several posts --including one by the Original Poster, I'm afraid-- have gone on to say that Pathfinder isn't going to be as good as 3.5, that the design team has made errors in deciding what rules to change and how to change them. (Sometimes, they cite reasons, like Bagpuss has done; sometimes they just state their position as a given.) I don't think this is the right thread for that. There are plenty of other places on the boards for that kind of discussion.
There are posts discussing whether market forces compelled Paizo to make these kinds of changes to the game system. That's fine, so far as it doesn't try to convince anybody that they should or should not adopt the company's version.
A couple of posts have come close to saying that people who are sticking with 3.5 are somehow disloyal or faithless in Paizo's work. If someone were to come out and say that, I would strongly disagree. I would think that almost everyone who is sticking with 3.5 is wishing Paizo best of luck with the Pathfinder rules, and is looking forward to spending the years to come reading the Adventure Paths and Chronicles, and seeing what kind of cool things we can slip into our 3.5 Golarion campaigns.
That wasn't disloyal last year. I don't imagine it would be disloyal next year, either.
|
Creative Director
|
A couple of posts have come close to saying that people who are sticking with 3.5 are somehow disloyal or faithless in Paizo's work. If someone were to come out and say that, I would strongly disagree. I would think that almost everyone who is sticking with 3.5 is wishing Paizo best of luck with the Pathfinder rules, and is looking forward to spending the years to come reading the Adventure Paths and Chronicles, and seeing what kind of cool things we can slip into our 3.5 Golarion campaigns.
This is an interesting point. I absolutely do NOT consider those who stick with 3.5 disloyal at all. Nor do I think that of those who play 3.0, 1st edition, Castles & Crusades, True20, Hackmaster, 4th edition, or any of the other numerous variations on the game we all love in one form or another. Heck; there are groups running Pathfinder Adventure Paths using d20 Modern! The rules you prefer are incidental to a certain extent to the games you prefer to run. And even AFTER we switch to using the PF RPG, the types of adventures and supplements Paizo produces won't be changing. If you're a fan of things like Rise of the Runelords and the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and Gods & Magic and Crown of the Kobold King... the things you love in those books and their kin will still be there to love next year come August.
The thread began with personal statements about individual preferences. And it often included "Your mileage may vary" disclaimers.
It's drifted from that. Several posts --including one by the Original Poster, I'm afraid-- have gone on to say that Pathfinder isn't going to be as good as 3.5, that the design team has made errors in deciding what rules to change and how to change them. (Sometimes, they cite reasons, like Bagpuss has done; sometimes they just state their position as a given.) I don't think this is the right thread for that. There are plenty of other places on the boards for that kind of discussion.
I see your point but I think it is missing a fundamental issue. When someone says "I do(n't) like product/system/version X" the most natural follow up question is "why?" To think that the "why?" should not be discussed is not very realistic I would think.
I would like to point out that either Jason or another Paizo staffer has stated on several occassions that the Beta is supposed to test the boundaries in how far the changes can go. It is, therefore, reasonably likely that some of the changes will be rolled back in the final product, which will thus be closer to 3.5E than the current rules.
As much as I like 3.5E, however, I wouldn't want the new rules to be identical. I think there is potential on improvement without any enormous impact on compatibility. The boosts to the fighter class, for example, pose very few compatibility problems, yet help the fighter remain competitive. As another example, various bonus types could be consolidated into fewer categories for greater simplicity of play at higher levels, without causing any major compatibility problems.
In some cases, though, apparently greater simplicity can actually lead to more confusion and hidden complexity. That might be the case with some of the consolidates skills. Perception would be one example. Sure, it is neat how Perception can now be used for any sense, but the conflation of Listen and Spot (though not so much Search) can cause gameplay problems. If a rogue is sneaking up on some guards during dusk/twighlight, but the guards are Elves, so get sight bonuses, and the distance is such and such... do you use the sound modifiers or the sight modifiers to the Perception roll to detect the sneaking Rogue? Ouch! Obviously, this is solvable, and indeed I address the issue here: Link to Threa But ultimately, it would be much simpler to simply keep Listen and Spot (or Hearing and Sight to name them as senses) separate and avoid the entire calculation/comparison/confusion headache by simply rolling for both separately, while also having better backward compatibility. It's not as if the Spot/Listen skills were somehow underpowered anyway.
I realize that a fair amount of folk won't like the end result. All I can ask is two things: 1) check the final game out in the store and maybe give it a try, and 2) if it's not your thing but you still love 3.5, check out the adventures and supplements we'll be continuing to produce—If we do our job right, those supplements and adventures will still work fine for 3.5.
I've been one of the naysayers on this thread with regards to the direction of the some of the beta rules, but I will definitely give you guys the benefit of the doubt and check out your final product (due to the excellent products you've produced so far).
I think what is most discouraging to me is when there is no feedback given in regards to what seems to be good ideas and also when there's a large amount of dissenting views in regards to a particular rule and the feedback says "Sorry, but it's staying". This leaves me skeptical that things will change especially since similar conversations occured between the Alpha and Beta versions.
|
|
It's drifted from that. Several posts --including one by the Original Poster, I'm afraid-- have gone on to say that Pathfinder isn't going to be as good as 3.5, that the design team has made errors in deciding what rules to change and how to change them. (Sometimes, they cite reasons, like Bagpuss has done; sometimes they just state their position as a given.) I don't think this is the right thread for that. There are plenty of other places on the boards for that kind of discussion.
I was merely mentioning that (about PA, for example), in my case, by way of illustration of my position regarding the thread topic and I hope it was clear that it was just my opinion. As for the stuff about commercial viability, it seems to me to be inevitable that it'll appear when the feelings of some are that a virtual dupe of the SRD in hardcopy would be commercially viable.
And yes, no one's disloyal. Paizo's a business and they are trying to hit their market; if one is in that market one year and not the next, that's hardly being 'disloyal' so, indeed, no one should imply that.
We need to have a rulebook in print if we're going to continue publishing RPG supplements and adventures. Having 3.5 books available in the used book store circuit or having the SRD online is great, and I personally suspect that there'll be a LOT more folks using Pathfinder products for their 3.5 games than folks using the Pathfinder RPG itself. I'm okay with that. But that doesn't change the fundamental fact that we still need to have rulebooks in print for new customers to be able to purchase if they're coming to the game for the first time, or perhaps returning to the game after a period of absence in which they may have lost or sold or otherwise divested themselves of their 3.5 books.
Agreed - without a rulebook in print, you would be catering to an ever dwindling market. That might work initially, but it would be disastrous for you in the long run.
Now, further complicating this is the fact that the SRD is an incomplete game in and of itself. It's got MOST of the rules in there, but it's missing rules for generating ability scores and rules for advancing characters. The versions of the rules you see in the Player's Handbook aren't open content. So, if we were to simply print the SRD, we'd have to make up new (if very similar) rules for these two parts of the game anyway. And while we were at that, we decided we might as well look at addressing other issues that folks have had with the rules as they stand.
Also agreed - if you have to change these things, and you do, than you might as well address some other issues with 3.5E, though always taking care not to alter the system too much.
The current result is the Pathfinder Beta. And it DOES go further from 3.5 than it needs to. That's what a beta does; it tests boundaries. We're as much using it to test out new rules as we are using it to test how far our customers want us to go with the rules, and to find out what parts of those rules we shouldn't change much from the 3.5 rules. Well over 30,000 people have downloaded the Beta PDF so far, and not all of them agree. One of our goals is to look at all of your feedback and produce the game that the most of you (and us!) want the Pathfinder RPG to be.
Haha, I was just typing a post where I refer to "Jason or another Paizo staffer" saying repeatedly that the Beta is there to test the bounderies and there might be some reversion to 3.5E rules in the final product and you posted this in the meantime essentially saying the same thing! Quite a coincidence! :)
Just out of interest, can you give us any hint of some of the rules you might consider reverting back to how it was in 3.5E? Perhaps an example or two might be nice and might provide some 'hope' for those posters who want the game to remain closer to 3.5E.
|
Creative Director
|
Just out of interest, can you give us any hint of some of the rules you might consider reverting back to how it was in 3.5E? Perhaps an example or two might be nice and might provide some 'hope' for those posters who want the game to remain closer to 3.5E.
I'd rather not; I'd rather not influence things even in such a small way. I do have my own personal things I'd like to see not make it out of the Beta, and while I've mentioned them (and will mention more) to Jason, in the end I trust him to make the best decisions for the game. One thing I learned working on Dungeon is that not every adventure I love will be well-loved by the readers, and some adventures I hate and almost didn't publish will end up being well-loved by everyone else. The game's not just for me, in other words, it's for everyone. And in some cases, things I might not like in the Beta should go in there anyway. What's best for the game as a whole is what's important.
3.5 rule --> PFRPG rule --> user feedback --> ... (silence)
or this:
New PFRPG rule --> user feedback --> Paizo feedback --> user feedback --> ...
He's right. Here's a perfect example of the issue. Notice the sheer volume of incredibly detailed, thoughtful, insightful novels of posting that went into the thread, with no feedback whatsoever after an initial bit on page 1.
-Matt
|
Creative Director
|
I've been one of the naysayers on this thread with regards to the direction of the some of the beta rules, but I will definitely give you guys the benefit of the doubt and check out your final product (due to the excellent products you've produced so far).
I think what is most discouraging to me is when there is no feedback given in regards to what seems to be good ideas and also when there's a large amount of dissenting views in regards to a particular rule and the feedback says "Sorry, but it's staying". This leaves me skeptical that things will change especially since similar conversations occured between the Alpha and Beta versions.
That's actually another thing that's worth mentioning...
The Beta's a massive playtest, not a massive design. The actual DESIGN is being handled in house. While it's great to see all these different alternate rules and suggestions and stuff, and some of it IS really innovative and cool... that's not the goal of the beta. The feedback should primarily be coming from the playtesters to us, not the other way around.
This is mostly because of necessity—the playtesters outnumber us here at Paizo about 6000 to 1, and we've also got to keep publishing about 200 pages of product a month on TOP of managing the playtest itself. So if we don't give feedback to everyone, it's not because we don't value the feedback you're giving us... it's just that there aren't enough hours in the day to give everyone's comment a personal reply.
But again, in the end the process isn't about us replying to you. It's about you replying to us. It's easy to forget that, but it's important to remember.
|
Creative Director
|
He's right. Here's a perfect example of the issue. Notice the sheer volume of incredibly detailed, thoughtful, insightful novels of posting that went into the thread, with no feedback whatsoever after an initial bit on page 1.
Again... see my recent post. We don't have time to reply to everything. We do when we can, but just because you don't see a reply to a post that doesn't mean no one here sees it and no one here is thinking about it. Remember: what we're asking for is feedback, not asking for opportunities to give feedback to the feedback.
Just out of interest, can you give us any hint of some of the rules you might consider reverting back to how it was in 3.5E? Perhaps an example or two might be nice and might provide some 'hope' for those posters who want the game to remain closer to 3.5E.I'd rather not; I'd rather not influence things even in such a small way. I do have my own personal things I'd like to see not make it out of the Beta, and while I've mentioned them (and will mention more) to Jason, in the end I trust him to make the best decisions for the game. One thing I learned working on Dungeon is that not every adventure I love will be well-loved by the readers, and some adventures I hate and almost didn't publish will end up being well-loved by everyone else. The game's not just for me, in other words, it's for everyone. And in some cases, things I might not like in the Beta should go in there anyway. What's best for the game as a whole is what's important.
Reading your response prompted me to reread my question and it is clear that I misphrased it, which perhaps stems from my thinking that although Jason is the lead designer you are also involved in the design process of the Pathfinder RPG. I did not mean to ask what 'you' personally would like to revert back to the 3.5E way of doing things. By 'you' I sort of meant the 'design team' in general - sorry for not being specific. So the better way to phrase the question would be:
Would it be possible to give us some hints (perhaps just one or two examples not to give too much away) as to what rules are being considered, or perhaps have already been decided upon, for reversion from the Pathfinder RPG Beta back to the 3.5E way of doing things? If you are not familiar with it in person, would it be possible to ask Jason to give us a hint or two?
But again, in the end the process isn't about us replying to you. It's about you replying to us. It's easy to forget that, but it's important to remember.
Ok, but many of the 'good ideas' are replying to changes the Beta has made to the core rules, then we get '...' as a response.
Edit: Ok, I saw your next response after posting this and I believe we're at an impasse. I'll continue to give feedback when I feel I should and hope for the best come next year with the final version.
|
|
I'll continue to give feedback when I feel I should and hope for the best come next year with the final version.
I tell you, if I'm not listened to, James Jacobs and Jason Bulmahn had better be watching out for flaming paper bags on their doorsteps come August.
Because I believe in mature resolution of issues that vex me.
|
|
If you expect personalised responses, you are bound to be disappointed. Creating the new rules set (plus lots of other stuff, I expect) is Jason's responsibility, not stroking the egos of contributors. You get a remarkable level of feedback on this site from Paizo staff - whining that it still isn't enough seems somewhat churlish.
|
Creative Director
|
Reading your response prompted me to reread my question and it is clear that I misphrased it, which perhaps stems from my thinking that although Jason is the lead designer you are also involved in the design process of the Pathfinder RPG. I did not mean to ask what 'you' personally would like to revert back to the 3.5E way of doing things. By 'you' I sort of meant the 'design team' in general - sorry for not being specific. So the better way to phrase the question would be:
Would it be possible to give us some hints (perhaps just one or two examples not to give too much away) as to what rules are being considered, or perhaps have already been decided upon, for reversion from the Pathfinder RPG Beta back to the 3.5E way of doing things? If you are not familiar with it in person, would it be possible to ask Jason to give us a hint or two?
Yeah; I realized you were talking about the Design Team, which is why I said you outnumber us about 6000 to one. If I were to compare just Jason to the playtesters... they'd outnumber him like 35,000 to one.
Anyway, it's not really possible to give out hints about what rules are gonna be in the final game yet, since we're still many weeks away from the end of the playtest. And even after that, things will be in flux. I'd rather not set false expectations—the Beta itself is already doing enough of that! :-)
In any case, it'll probably not be until February or March before we know for a fact what rules are sticking for GOOD and what ones aren't. We might start doing some previews then, maybe a "Countdown to PF RPG" on our blog or something. But again, that's months away.
Again... see my recent post. We don't have time to reply to everything. We do when we can, but just because you don't see a reply to a post that doesn't mean no one here sees it and no one here is thinking about it. Remember: what we're asking for is feedback, not asking for opportunities to give feedback to the feedback.
James, unfortunately, I think that Paizo's Pathfinder RPG is the victim of something I posted earlier:
To some extent, although I think the open playtest is helping Paizo make a better game, the playtest may harm the popularity of the game for some users. Ihe open playtest, I think, created an unrealistic expectations among playtesters regarding the degree to which they can shape the outcome of the final product. When their individual preferences were not met to the degree they expected, some people have inevitably reacted with disappointment that leads, in some cases, to the wholesale rejection of the game.
I hope that the lesson learned for Paizo is not that it should avoid open playtests in the future. An outcome like that would be something that would really disappoint me. Although Paizo may lose some people because of this factor, the ultimate quality of the game will be higher due to the open playtest.
Yeah; I realized you were talking about the Design Team, which is why I said you outnumber us about 6000 to one. If I were to compare just Jason to the playtesters... they'd outnumber him like 35,000 to one.
Since 6 misses going into 35 but just a hair, I'll assume someone on the design team is missing a body part.
|
Creative Director
|
Ok, but many of the 'good ideas' are replying to changes the Beta has made to the core rules, then we get '...' as a response.
Edit: Ok, I saw your next response after posting this and I believe we're at an impasse. I'll continue to give feedback when I feel I should and hope for the best come next year with the final version.
You get "…" as a response because that's the sound of us thinking about the good ideas.
Absolutely keep giving us feedback. That's the whole point. We asked for the feedback, and we're using it to educate ourselves and allow us to make the right decisions for the game. But at a certain level, you'll have to just trust us that what we're building is a game that will be fun, and will let us continue to do the same kind of adventures and supplements that we've been doing for the past few years. We're not trying to build the PF RPG rules so that we can suddenly use the new rules as an excuse to blow up Golarion or suddenly produce an entirely different line and type of game supplements, after all!
Well sticking with 3.5 was good enough to keep them in business during a 2 year period of time when it was not even being printed and that decision has not only made them survive but to thrive. Why abandon a proven system when you don't have to?
I would suggest that a good deal of Paizo's "thriving" during this interim is, in fact, due to the imminence of PfRPG. I, for one, had never visited the Paizo website and had only heard of Paizo in passing in relation to the Dungeon & Dragon debacle. When PfRPG was announced, a mention on another site's forum sent me here. Alpha 1 and the free PDF of "Hollow's Last Hope" kept me here. Our group has never used published adventures, due to some very dissatisfying experiences back in the TSR days. Paizo revealed to me that high-quality pre-generated adventures actually exist. But I never would have come here to find that out if not for PfRPG. The new ruleset generated the excitement that attracted customers.
|
Creative Director
|
Yeah; I realized you were talking about the Design Team, which is why I said you outnumber us about 6000 to one. If I were to compare just Jason to the playtesters... they'd outnumber him like 35,000 to one.Since 6 misses going into 35 but just a hair, I'll assume someone on the design team is missing a body part.
That... or when I divided 35000 by 6, I rounded to the nearest whole number. Tricksy Math!
|
Creative Director
|
Again... see my recent post. We don't have time to reply to everything. We do when we can, but just because you don't see a reply to a post that doesn't mean no one here sees it and no one here is thinking about it. Remember: what we're asking for is feedback, not asking for opportunities to give feedback to the feedback.James, unfortunately, I think that Paizo's Pathfinder RPG is the victim of something I posted earlier:
To some extent, although I think the open playtest is helping Paizo make a better game, the playtest may harm the popularity of the game for some users. Ihe open playtest, I think, created an unrealistic expectations among playtesters regarding the degree to which they can shape the outcome of the final product. When their individual preferences were not met to the degree they expected, some people have inevitably reacted with disappointment that leads, in some cases, to the wholesale rejection of the game.
I hope that the lesson learned for Paizo is not that it should avoid open playtests in the future. An outcome like that would be something that would really disappoint me. Although Paizo may lose some people because of this factor, the ultimate quality of the game will be higher due to the open playtest.
It's true. You'll note that very few companies do huge Beta playtests like this. Had we known the mayhem that it would have caused, we might not have done it; we certainly didn't expect 35,000+ playtesters, for example (I was anticipating a number along the lines of 5,000 at the highest myself). And to be totally mercenary, if half of the 35,000 playtesters are disgruntled with the way it's working out, that still leaves us with a LOT more customers than I thought we'd get.
Of course, I hope that the number of customers we retain from the Playtest is as close to 100% as possible... but I know that's not gonna be the case.