Not sure why native Mac should be a deal breaker (nor am I sure where this post should go).
I use FantasyGrounds for 4E with no problems. The software is very good and very professional (though I do have one or two minor gripes about it).
With all the hype surrounding Pathfinder and the online content, as well as Paizo's embracing of technology so far, surely this is a little short-sighted?
Anyone got any comments?
Probably because the vast majority of Paizo's staff use Macs and would like to be able to use the program. :)
While I appreciate their use of the Mac, as they are a publishing company (I used to work in Pre-press where the Mac is God), I also use Fantasy Grounds for an on-line game I'm involved in, and am frustrated that it isn't going Pathfinder because there is no FG for Pathfinder ... please relent, guys, most of us have PCs and want to play your wonderful game on them!
Hoped for a different result, but what can you do. FG runs through Wine though, so you CAN use it on a mac!
We play rather well with modifying existing rulesets, but it would of course be better not having to do that...and having a bestiary that you wouldn't have to modify would be nice.
It's not a VTT, but Herolab has Pathfinder capabilities and is Windows only. ;)
I'm a big fan of Fantasy Grounds. For me Fantasy Grounds creates the need for material and Pathfinder (mostly homebrew) fills it. For Paizo I think its a case of there being no bad publicity.
I think that its not just a question of platform choice. It also impacts their ability to push a system by using it, understanding it, and helping to shape its audience\future.
Its not a decision that can't be returned to.
Nobody is burning bridges - they're just choosing their immediate path.
This is a real bummer, as the only way I game these days is through Fantasy Grounds. I had anticipated getting my cadre of players to purchase Pathfinder once an official ruleset was available for Fantasy Grounds but that might not be so attractive now.
Cobbling up the amount of material I would need to run campaigns on my own doesn't sound attractive at all.
I think we will probably end up migrating to 4E.
|
Newton, you might consider a program that isn't game-specific. I'm thinking of MapTool, of course. Visit http://rptools.net/ and click on the Launch link to start it right away, or the Download link if you'd prefer to unpack a ZIP first. The software is free (not demo, not shareware, not nagware, or any of those other "fake free" models). Check out the Tutorials link in the toolbar for some short screencasts that demonstrate the major features.
MapTool is written in Java and is therefore platform-neutral. Any platform can host a game and any platform can be a client. Multiple GMs can connect and have full access.
MapTool has a sight system for tokens (meaning PCs and NPCs). The GM defines a sight name and the distance at which that sight type works. Then each token can have a particular type of sight assigned to it.
It supports a vision blocking feature where the GM can draw walls on the map and the players can't see through the walls!
Light sources actually radiate light and work in combination with the sight system. Imagine two parties at opposite ends of a hallway that is dark in the center but lit where the parties are -- that's what MapTool would actually show you!
Tokens can radiate auras as well. These can be used for threat ranges or spell effects that move with the token. (The next build of the software will include GM-only auras; as of 1.3.b63 auras are visible to all clients.)
Tokens can have data attached to them (called "properties"). Macros can be written to manipulate these properties. A user on our forum has written a fairly complete D&D3.5/Pathfinder framework. Simply start MapTool and load the template campaign. You now have most combat options included. Conditions and modifiers are being added all the time, but the basic ones like Shaken, Prone, and Blind are all included.
Tokens can have states attached to them. States are user-defined images that appear as an overlay on the token image. Common states are tied to the conditions and modifiers mentioned above and include spell effects such as "mage armor" and conditions like "grappled".
There are built in spell templates for bursts, cones, and lines. Since MapTool is game-system agnostic the bursts can be square (as in 4e) or the more realistic 3.x/PF style.
MapTool allows you to create multiple maps and save them as part of the "campaign". Each map can be square grid, hex grid, or gridless. Each has its own unit of measure and its own resolution. The fog-of-war layer defaults to a 60% transparent black, but any texture can be chosen from the user's library instead.
Speaking of maps, each map is of unlimited size and you can zoom in so far that a single pixel fills the screen or zoom out so that an entire city is just a single dot on the screen. (There may be memory constraints on this, as the image must be in memory in order to be scaled and rendered. We're working on an automatic image tiling system that will allow images larger than available RAM to be displayed.)
MapTool creates an index of all images that you use on your maps and automatically saves them when saving the campaign. This means that the campaign can easily be moved to another computer and all assets (i.e. images) go with it; it is entirely self-contained.
Different parts of the application are shown in separate panels which are dockable into the main window. Panels include an image explorer, initiative tracker, network connections, various macro panels, and so on. These panels can be set to "auto-hide" which is very handy when operating in full-screen mode. When used with a second monitor, the full-screen mode can be activated on the external display as a client while the GM uses the primary display to run the game! This is excellent for in-person games using a large screen TV or projector.
MapTool has a mini initiative tracker built into it. It's not as complete as the separate InitiativeTool application, but it's very functional for running an encounter.
Speaking of the other tools, there's also DiceTool, CharacterTool, and TokenTool. A new application is in the works called CommunityTool. One of the things people miss about MapTool compared to OpenRPG is the lack of a "Lobby Area" and CommunityTool will correct that.
Check it out. I use it every Tuesday night and have been doing so for about 4 years now.
(Standard disclaimer: I'm the forum admin over at RPTools.net and a code contributor as well. As a community effort, we have many people that donate their expertise in producing the tools.)
Hoped for a different result, but what can you do. FG runs through Wine though, so you CAN use it on a mac!
Absolutely! One of my players runs Fantasy Grounds under CrossOver Games, and reports it as being completely smooth.
I appreciate the suggestion azhrei_fje. I have looked at MapTool before and while it and the accompanying tools are certainly more than capable enough I am afraid that my group is fairly committed at this point to utilizing the FantasyGrounds virtual table top. Too much vested in it so to speak.
|
Not sure why native Mac should be a deal breaker (nor am I sure where this post should go).
I use FantasyGrounds for 4E with no problems. The software is very good and very professional (though I do have one or two minor gripes about it).
With all the hype surrounding Pathfinder and the online content, as well as Paizo's embracing of technology so far, surely this is a little short-sighted?
Anyone got any comments?
I was hoping to use Fantasy Grounds II to deliver Pathfinder content to my players, many of them would be introduced to the game via my sessions, however, it looks as though I will be forced to use Savage Worlds as my medium as they allow for official 'legal' support of the system on FG II.
Though you can 'get pathfinder to work' via FG II with community made mods and such, it would be too much technical work to ask my players to go to to make it successful. Were it to have an 'officially sanctioned' outlet, I'm sure that the current techniques would become polished enough to allow for easy entry for new players.
Most recently, Doug from FG II has stated that Paizo is looking to their lawyers to come up with something that would allow FG II to move forward on work, in a 'limited capacity' which sounds encouraging. (the quote.)
I just want to put my voice out here as another member of the community that would love to have access to PathFinder via FG II. I really think that I'd be able to evangelize the wonderful game that Pathfinder is to my players, which would in turn, hopefully develop into new sales for Paizo as players would gravitate towards purchasing the books to have when they are not in the game.
anyway, that's my 12 cents.
Wade Hone -out.
|
I'm actually glad to hear Paizo is insisting on a Mac version. While it is true there are more PC's than Macs out there, the number of Mac users is still a HUGE number (and the number is steadily growing).
Honestly, it's not a good business practice to alienate any large group of potential customers.
Kudos to Paizo!
I wanted to add in that I'm disappointed by hearing this.
I love what Paizo has done with PRPG system,but at this time the only way I'll be able to play any RPG is thru VTT. I just don't have enough people in my circle of friends that would be interested in table top RPG gaming.
I'm currently not playing anything,but I've been still purchasing AP and PRPG products hoping that I'd get a chance to play once Fantasy Grounds got an official Rule set.
I don't even care about Official adventure conversions, its the rule set, bestiary, That I want.
Btw mac works thru wine.
I'm actually glad to hear Paizo is insisting on a Mac version. While it is true there are more PC's than Macs out there, the number of Mac users is still a HUGE number (and the number is steadily growing).
Honestly, it's not a good business practice to alienate any large group of potential customers.
Kudos to Paizo!
There is zero chance of FG being native to Mac OS its built from the ground up on DirectX. This isn't being developed by some big Publisher like Electronic Arts, theres a limit to what can realistically be expected from a developer like this.
To applaud denying support for a platform you don't use, because some users would be alienated? Alienated how? Again this program can work on Mac's thru emulation.
What kinda inferiority complex mentality is that? WOW!
Yeah, it's bad when your favourite hardware isn't supported.
What sorts of mobile phones will that quasi-official Paizo mobile phone application run on again?
And wasn't it limited to this because that phone is apparently more widespread then the rest?
So why this insistence that this software supports something other than the most wide-spread operating system?
To applaud denying support for a platform you don't use, because some users would be alienated? Alienated how? Again this program can work on Mac's thru emulation.
What kinda inferiority complex mentality is that? WOW!
They're alienating Fantasy Grounds users with this decision. But that's okay. If the mac users cannot have this, nobody should have it.
Yeah, it's bad when your favourite hardware isn't supported.
What sorts of mobile phones will that quasi-official Paizo mobile phone application run on again?
And wasn't it limited to this because that phone is apparently more widespread then the rest?
So why this insistence that this software supports something other than the most wide-spread operating system?
Excellent point, well made. Makes Paizo sound just a tad hypocritical. Seriously, this is a very short-sighted decision. Paizo doesn't have the resources to create their own multi-platform VTT so they should probably support *all* VTTs.
This attitude just doesn't sit well with all the good work Paizo have done in including the players in their beta and alpha playtests.
Here's hoping they add support for kLoOge or RPTools, both of which *are* cross-platform.
|
|
I own several of the pay VTT packages and have used some of the free ones. I think FGII looks like the most "consumer friendly" of the programs. It's pretty and easy to use. Lets face it, I don't want to spend time figuring out how to play a game, I want to spend time playing the game.
Where I am disappointed that they aren't going to work with FGII, I am more disappointed that we don't know who they are going to work with. They have been saying since the Beta that they were working on something. Ok, tell me what it is so I can buy it.
Creative Director
|
Yeah, it's bad when your favourite hardware isn't supported.
What sorts of mobile phones will that quasi-official Paizo mobile phone application run on again?
And wasn't it limited to this because that phone is apparently more widespread then the rest?
So why this insistence that this software supports something other than the most wide-spread operating system?
Excellent point, well made. Makes Paizo sound just a tad hypocritical. Seriously, this is a very short-sighted decision. Paizo doesn't have the resources to create their own multi-platform VTT so they should probably support *all* VTTs.
This attitude just doesn't sit well with all the good work Paizo have done in including the players in their beta and alpha playtests.
While it's true we use macs here in the office, and that most of us at Paizo prefer using macs at home, we DO understand that the market share is PC based.
Personally, I think that Fantasy Grounds is looking VERY interesting, and I've been tempted to give it a try for a while now. Of course, the fact that I use a Mac has stymied this so far (I'm not a big fan of emulating PC stuff). I would LOVE to be able to play Pathfinder via something like Fantasy Grounds, but I also keenly understand the frustration that mac users have in not having as wide a range of software choices to run. This might just be a case of the reverse happening, I guess.
Where I am disappointed that they aren't going to work with FGII, I am more disappointed that we don't know who they are going to work with. They have been saying since the Beta that they were working on something. Ok, tell me what it is so I can buy it.
+1
Is it QT based, or what? That kind of seems the way to go for something like this if you want cross platform.Though the latest news of Apple banning programming LANGUAGES it doesn't like from iPhone/iPad could cast a chill over this as well. (C++ QT/Game Engine seems the safest bet in that regard... though I don't know what can be considered 'safe' with arbitrary shifts like that)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll put my 2 cents in here and say I'm also very dissapointed Paizo won't be allowing official support for Pathfinder in Fantasy Grounds. I currently play in 2 campaigns and DM another on FG and it's a terrific gaming platform.
|
|
I'll add my 2 cents as well. I'm also disappointed. Enough that it will probably push me into cancelling my AP subscription at the conclusion of the current arc. Not really to be vindictive, I'll still buy the PDF's as they come out.
Most of my friends I play RPG's with have moved away now. We had started using FG II as a record-keeping tool several years ago, and it's only gotten better since then. I had been hoping to use Pathfinder as our "Engine of choice", and that was what had prompted me to purchase has much hardcopy and PDF material as I have from Paizo.
We'll probably still use Pathfinder; but seeing as I'll have to code the Ruleset myself, as well as copy over all the AP materials and construct them all, rather than simply purchase them from Paizo... well, I'm not throwing away MORE money on hardcopy.
Wow... I made a true hash of those last several sentences. That'll teach me to type tired. Oh, well, hopefully everyone gets the point I'm trying to make.
Personally, I think that Fantasy Grounds is looking VERY interesting, and I've been tempted to give it a try for a while now. Of course, the fact that I use a Mac has stymied this so far (I'm not a big fan of emulating PC stuff). I would LOVE to be able to play Pathfinder via something like Fantasy Grounds, but I also keenly understand the frustration that mac users have in not having as wide a range of software choices to run. This might just be a case of the reverse happening, I guess.
I'm sure I must misunderstand things here: This Fantasy Grounds dataset for Pathfinder wouldn't mean a lot of trouble and effort for Paizo, would it? I mean, you just give those guys the green light and they develop it.
But that can't be right, there must be a lot of effort involved on Paizo's side, otherwise you wouldn't put the kibosh on it just because it doesn't support macs.
|
I'm sure I must misunderstand things here: This Fantasy Grounds dataset for Pathfinder wouldn't mean a lot of trouble and effort for Paizo, would it? I mean, you just give those guys the green light and they develop it.
But that can't be right, there must be a lot of effort involved on Paizo's side, otherwise you wouldn't put the kibosh on it just because it doesn't support macs.
Maybe it involves some exclusive licensing (since some of the stuff is question IP and/or copyrighted).
I've thought about bringing this up before, but decided against it. It's funny how Paizo doesn't want to license to Fantasy Grounds or some similar company because they don't support the Mac platform, but will license (or develop) an iphone application. On the one hand, refusing a product that doesn't support 10%* of users, while one the hand insisting on a product that's only used by 25%* of users. It seems contradictory until you take into account James' statement about most of Paizo's corporate and personally owned computers being Mac and that James or Erik has said in the past that most of the Paizo guys have iphones.
If I were developing software, I'd probably build it for PC (since I don't give a flip about Macs and don't have any friends that use them) and Android (since that's the kind of phone I use). It would be short-sighted on my part and it's probably short-sighted on Paizo's part, but "meh."
-Skeld
* - I saw these numbers a couple months ago. I don't know how accurate they are, but I'll regurgitate them. The 25% was the iphone share of the "smartphone" market. I'm too lazy to find the article, but it came from some organization that tracks this stuff for marketing/trend purposes.
Maybe it involves some exclusive licensing (since some of the stuff is question IP and/or copyrighted).
As far as supporting the rule-set itself, anybody can do that and indicate Pathfinder-compatability, the rules are OGL after all, and *even if they weren't* game rules are not patent-able so a 'compatible implementation' would be legit in any case.
As far as Golarion IP /pre-formatted AP material, if it's Paizo's IP, why COULDN'T they licence it to multiple software vendors? There's no reason it needs to be an exclusive licence... Clearly an iPhone/iPad product is not going to be competing for the same customers as Fantasy Grounds, anyways.
I've thought about bringing this up before, but decided against it. It's funny how Paizo doesn't want to license to Fantasy Grounds or some similar company because they don't support the Mac platform, but will license (or develop) an iphone application. On the one hand, refusing a product that doesn't support 10%* of users, while one the hand insisting on a product that's only used by 25%* of users.
There's no reason it needs to be a 'one or the other' choice. Plenty of games are developed with multi-platform tool-sets. Why not support both? Like I mentioned, QT is a multi-platform library used in apps like Skype, Google Earth and Ableton Live.
|
|
Maybe it involves some exclusive licensing (since some of the stuff is question IP and/or copyrighted).As far as supporting the rule-set itself, anybody can do that and indicate Pathfinder-compatability, the rules are OGL after all, and *even if they weren't* game rules are not patent-able so a 'compatible implementation' would be legit in any case.
As far as Golarion IP /pre-formatted AP material, if it's Paizo's IP, why COULDN'T they licence it to multiple software vendors? There's no reason it needs to be an exclusive licence... Clearly an iPhone/iPad product is not going to be competing for the same customers as Fantasy Grounds, anyways.
They could. However, exclusive agreements seem to me to be more the norm than the exception. And that's better for the guy buying the license because he gets to offer a product he can claim no one else gets to sell. Also, i was specifically talking about IP as opposed to open content. Things like maps which aren't open and would need permission for reproduction (and that permission might come with a price tag).
I've thought about bringing this up before, but decided against it. It's funny how Paizo doesn't want to license to Fantasy Grounds or some similar company because they don't support the Mac platform, but will license (or develop) an iphone application. On the one hand, refusing a product that doesn't support 10%* of users, while one the hand insisting on a product that's only used by 25%* of users.There's no reason it needs to be a 'one or the other' choice. Plenty of games are developed with multi-platform tool-sets. Why not support both? Like I mentioned, QT is a multi-platform library used in apps like Skype, Google Earth and Ableton Live.
I realize that. However, if what Icrebreaker said is true (and I have no idea, but I'll take their word for it) that Fantasy Ground is built using DirectX, which is a microsoft-exclusive API, then it's very likely not feasible for them to go back and produce a Mac-friendly version. That's kinda the trade off with using these types of APIs. The API provides a nice set of functions for you to use, which cuts waaay back on your development cycle. The other option is to build your own code from scratch. I would imagine if Fantasy Grounds doesn't have a Mac version, it's not because they don't want to support Mac or hate Mac, but that they made a conscious design decision to go with an API exclusive to the more popular platform. Whats more, it's probably not financially viable for them to go to another platform (or another API) as it likely invalidates all the code (ie work) they've generated up to this point and forces them to start over to capture maybe another 10% market share.
I'm no expert, but this strikes me as a possible reason why they haven't gone Mac already.
-Skeld
I realize that. However, if what Icrebreaker said is true (and I have no idea, but I'll take their word for it) that Fantasy Ground is built using DirectX, which is a microsoft-exclusive API, then it's very likely not feasible for them to go back and produce a Mac-friendly version. That's kinda the trade off with using these types of APIs.
Depends on what you do. Our software, for example, only runs on windows. There's literally no downside to it, because none of our prospective customers would buy a mac.
In other instances, even if mac users are among your prospective customers, there aren't enough of them to justify the extra cost.
On the other hand, you could probably sell the mac version for twice the PC version's price. Apple users expect to pay extra. ;-)
They could. However, exclusive agreements seem to me to be more the norm than the exception. And that's better for the guy buying the license because he gets to offer a product he can claim no one else gets to sell. Also, i was specifically talking about IP as opposed to open content. Things like maps which aren't open and would need permission for reproduction (and that permission might come with a price tag).
Sure, I just thought it would be silly to restrict one's self to simply what the norm is rather than what could be possible. I have no idea which approach would bring more licencing income to Paizo, but I imagine they would look at it as much as promotion of their product line (i.e. appealing to more gamers who would also need the APs to run games with FG maps, etc) and not just thru a one-dimensional profit-maximization perspective, like LucasArts who doesn't care about Starwars RPG per se. (obviously nobody turns down money)
Anyhow, it seems reasonable for Paizo to write an exclusive WINDOWS licence to Fantasy Grounds and still allow another (Mac) software vendor to make AP-tie ins compatible with their own software. In doesn't seem a technical issue, since it's mostly about "scavenging" the licenced art and text assets to plug into appropriately formatted containers, and supporting the (OGL) rule set, and Windows-only and Mac-only game software are not really competing directly.I realize that. However, if what Icrebreaker said is true (and I have no idea, but I'll take their word for it) that Fantasy Ground is built using DirectX, which is a microsoft-exclusive API, then it's very likely not...
Sure, I think somehow the frame of discussion (Paizo working on their own developments) suggested to me they were developing their own system from scratch (not FG), in which case choosing a multi-platform solution is a very viable option. Obviously pre-existing products like FG aren't going to be re-written over-night.
On the other hand, you could probably sell the mac version for twice the PC version's price. Apple users expect to pay extra. ;-)
This isn't really the case at all, software prices are equivalent. Though perhaps it may be the case that the mac software market is larger than you'd expect because it's customers do buy more software than those who get $500 windows computers and never buy any software period.
From the FG forums link
A Mac version is definitely on the list of items we would like to accomplish. However, the application is fairly tightly tied to DirectX which makes it a little more complicated. Based on what I've seen in the code up to this point, an absolute port to the Mac would probably set back development by 4-6 months.
We have started to evaluate different options for wrapping the application for deployment on Mac/Linux natively, but we haven't found anything that will work for FG yet. We plan to keep our eyes open for options, and continue to keep an eye out for something that will work for us.
Cheers,
JPG
This isn't really the case at all, software prices are equivalent. Though perhaps it may be the case that the mac software market is larger than you'd expect because it's customers do buy more software than those who get $500 windows computers and never buy any software period.
Who would buy a software period? Women already have the hardware capability and men certainly don't want to emulate this with software. It's not that popular with women, either.
This isn't really the case at all, software prices are equivalent.
Hardware prices, on the other hand, sure aren't.
|
|
So why this insistence that this software supports something other than the most wide-spread operating system?
With regards to a virtual table top, is it not more about ensuring either platform can access the facility equally? Otherwise you're splitting what should be one market.
I don't think it's fair to say Paizo are catering to Windows / Mac / Linux / Ubuntu / Vic 20 users. They're catering to gamers, gamers who happen to use a variety of platforms.
Obviously it means users need to wait longer, which is pretty frustrating when you as a user can see a potential, relatively immediate, solution.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that they're not actually obliged to take on a project like this, and the fact that they are exploring these options and not just taking what might be a convenient way out is really indicative of how they do care about their game and their customers.
I'm predominantly a Mac user, but I certainly don't begrudge anyone's choice in operating system. I'm pretty damn excited about a potential Pathfinder app (even though I don't have an iPhone or an iPad), and pretty excited about the VTT solution Paizo might come up with, that we can all hopefully use to play a game together.
|
|
Agreed. Paizo is simply saying that they use Macs, they like Macs and they understand that there are a lot of Mac users out there - Mac using gamers. They simply want the app to run equly well on Mac and Windows (not emulation etc)
That doesn't seem that unreasonable.
And it looks like the Fantasy Grounds folks see the merits of a Mac version as well ...
So why this insistence that this software supports something other than the most wide-spread operating system?With regards to a virtual table top, is it not more about ensuring either platform can access the facility equally? Otherwise you're splitting what should be one market.
It is already more than one market, as there is more than one virtual tabletop around.
I don't see why they wouldn't allow all of them to support the game, especially in this case, where the solution in question seems to be great.
In fact, limiting the game to a single solution does split the market. You force people to choose between their preferred virtual tabletop and their preferred roleplaying game ruleset.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that they're not actually obliged to take on a project like this, and the fact that they are exploring these options and not just taking what might be a convenient way out is really indicative of how they do care about their game and their customers.
Don't give me the "they're not obliged" line. Nobody is obliged. But Paizo always seemed the kind of company who voluntarily makes it an obligation.
Agreed. Paizo is simply saying that they use Macs, they like Macs and they understand that there are a lot of Mac users out there - Mac using gamers. They simply want the app to run equly well on Mac and Windows (not emulation etc)
They don't impose a similar limitation to their mobile phone application. That's iPhone only.
Plus, as I said, why should they limit support to a single solution?
From what I hear, Fantasy Grounds seems to be really good, and really wide-spread. But since it doesn't support all operating systems (without emulation), they don't support the system. That means they're leaving all those Fantasy Grounds users in the cold.
Go on, Paizo, support Fantasy Grounds. And when something else comes along, something that is good, too, and that supports other operating systems, support that, too.
Don't go all exclusive on one potential system and snub your nose on those who want to use another system. After all, you say you don't want that sort of thing, or you'd support Fantasy Grounds.
|
|
Okay... I've been reading a bit on this topic and figured I'd weigh in. To start - I'm a Fantasy Grounds user and PC owner. I personally thought that WotC was the only company to make a mistep on the electronic gaming strategy (now infamous DDI virtual gametable & encounter builder), but now I've concluded that Paizo is following close behind. Come on guys... seriously... don't make business decisions that cater to a very small segment of the population. I thought you guys were progressive and all inclusive. Just license to everyone!
Life is busy and many of us gamers are no longer highschoolers with plenty of time on our hands to RPG with our friends. Rather a large proportion have jobs, families, etc that we have responsibilities to and electronic gaming via VTT is our alternative to traditional face-to-face tabletop games.
Life is busy and many of us gamers are no longer highschoolers with plenty of time on our hands to RPG with our friends. Rather a large proportion have jobs, families, etc that we have responsibilities to and electronic gaming via VTT is our alternative to traditional face-to-face tabletop games.
I second that sentiment...
I have been a consistent subscriber to Paizo since they took over Dungeon magazine and made the decision to go with Pathfinder instead of 4e based on the direction of open support that Paizo showed. I was really hoping for some official support for the VTT market as that seems to me to be a natural evolution of the previous decisions and directions taken by Paizo.