Why did you choose Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 426 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

@DigitalMage:
I think you may have missed the point.
I wasn't defending "me", I was defending the "fair number of Pathfinder fans who come off as elitists". I can be included in that group or not, but that's not important.

I also think that this bad impression is purely a problem of language, but I didn't choose my words without reason. I wanted to make an example, and I think that's the part you missed.
I mean that it *is* possible to strongly dislike something and it *is* possible to give factuality to that personal dislike (whether this factuality is, in reality, correct or not, mind you) without coming off as an elitist.
When I say "That's not a proper pizza", well, that's exactly what I mean. It can be inferred that I think a pizza with pineapple topping is not a real pizza, and that's exactly my intent. I could also say that 4E is not a proper roleplaying game (I don't think so... 4E is definitely a roleplaying game, I just think it's a *really bad* roleplaying game!) and, inferring the same thing, you would be correct.

The whole point of my reasoning is this: does this attitude make me an elitist? My answer is: no, it doesn't. It *can* be a part of elitism, of course, but alone it's not sufficient. Elitism means that I feel myself (or the group of people I belong to) superior to others, and I don't value other people opinions because they are inferior.
This is not something I have seen in this board.
Even if I sit here and say "I refuse to accept D&D 4E as a roleplaying game, it's nothing more than bad rules and game-ism!" it doesn't mean I'm feeling superior to people who enjoy it. They will probably not be the first ones I'll ask an opinion about a roleplaying game I'd enjoy, but otherwise they are perfectly fine people who only happen to have a different set of likes and dislikes. Does this change my opinion that "pineapple pizza" is not a real pizza? Nope. But they can go and eat it, whatever that thing is, and there's no reason why I shouldn't go with them while I enjoy my pepperoni pizza.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Achilles wrote:
For me, 4E is empty. The enjoyment isn't there. WOTC gives me the impression that they don't care about what they put out. All they care about is money (at least that's they way it seems to me).
memorax wrote:
Once again can we stop with the "Wotc only cares about money" comments. Paizo also wants to make money along with quality products. Unless someone can post a link to a thread where it says Paizo is a non-profit organization. Seems like the OP request to not turn this into a 4E vs PFRP request has largely been ignored imo.

In fairness, he did indicate that it was that WoTC "seems" to care more about the money. Yes both Paizo and WoTC are interested in making money, but Paizo does a much better job at giving the appearances of being in it for the fun which for some of us, is a perfectly legitimate reason for liking one company (and therefore system) over another. When it comes down to it, when customers are involved, perception is reality.

There are a ton of reasons I prefer Pathfinder (all indicated here in other threads), but I can't ignore that my feelings about how Hasbro has run Wizards has also influenced my desire to play Pathfinder over D&D.


People are trying to make the word "elitist" insulting? Pshaw.

Good tea really is better than Orange Pekoe, Belgian Ale really is better than American Pilsner, and some RPGs really are better than others. You want me to feel bad about myself for having superior taste? HAH!

Grand Lodge

cause of Golarion, and the artwork

the rules never bothered me

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Wicht wrote:
I would hazard a guess that making a general and derogatory accusation against a "fair number" of a given population without actually specifying individuals is a recipe for misunderstandings as those of us who are not being accused feel lumped in with the ones who are.

I suppose "fair number" is an ambiguous term that some people may interpret differently, but I think the point was fair. He didn't say "all" or even "most", whether "fair number" is accurate or not is perhaps debatable so perhaps it would have been better phrased as "some". Also, I need to check the T&C of these forums again, but on other forums specifying individuals could be considered a personal insult and against the board's code of conduct, so I am not surprised names weren't named.

Interestingly, whenever such comments are made about the fans of a game, if I don't feel myself to exhibit that attributes being talked about (i.e. elitism in this case) I would not feel lumped in.

Personally, I do think "some" PF fans display elitist attaitudes, but then I think that some 4e fans dotoo, and indie game fans too, and... I am coming around to PF, I run 4e and I have a few indie games, but I don't consider myself elitist so I wouldn't lump myself in with those people I myself label as being perhaps a bit elitist.

Azrael Lukja wrote:

When I say "That's not a proper pizza", well, that's exactly what I mean. It can be inferred that I think a pizza with pineapple topping is not a real pizza, and that's exactly my intent.

[...]
The whole point of my reasoning is this: does this attitude make me an elitist? My answer is: no, it doesn't. It *can* be a part of elitism, of course, but alone it's not sufficient.

It can however be indicative that you may potentially be elitist, because by saying "That's not a proper pizza" referring to pizza with pineapple on, then to me at least, you do sound as though you might be elitist, because you aren't just saying you don't like pizza with pineapple, you are using your own personal taste to try to tell everyone else what is a proper pizza and what is not.

It is comments like that when applied to the arena of roleplaying games that result in memes like "onetruewayism" and "BADWRONGFUN".


Arrgh must not comment.... Said what I had to say to the cat... She looks confused.

Doh urge to keyboard rage is undeniable

I missed the Edition wars because I didn't give a crap, still don't!

If you are happy playing your game don't trash people for being happy playing theirs, that goes for BOTH sides. The passive aggressive bull-crap sniping is just boring now. The wallowing in victim-hood is pathetic, stop it and grow up.

Now to answer the original question

I chose Pathfinder because of the quality and the community.

Quality:
The stories that Paizo allowed me to tell with their APs are amazing.
The fact that the people who run the company love RPGs and Play RPGs builds an extra level of quality into the game.
The open playtesting is a way to iron out any major imbalances. I get that feeling of wonder from games that I used to get from when I was playing OD&D 20 something years ago.

The Community
Aside from crotchety old grognards like my self the people on these boards and the staff at Paizo are supportive, friendly, funny and occasionally educational.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The Edition Wars live on in the hearts and minds of nerds everywhere. :)

Azrael Lukja wrote:


When I say "That's not a proper pizza", well, that's exactly what I mean. It can be inferred that I think a pizza with pineapple topping is not a real pizza, and that's exactly my intent. I could also say that 4E is not a proper roleplaying game (I don't think so... 4E is definitely a roleplaying game, I just think it's a *really bad* roleplaying game!) and, inferring the same thing, you would be correct.

The whole point of my reasoning is this: does this attitude make me an elitist? My answer is: no, it doesn't. It *can* be a part of elitism, of course, but alone it's not sufficient. Elitism means that I feel myself (or the group of people I belong to) superior to others, and I don't value other people opinions because they are inferior.

So if I were to say 'You are not a proper human being' I may not be an elitist? The attitude isn't enough?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

- I'd played 3.x since it came out. I liked it a lot--I liked its complexity and the modularity of the skills/feats/class system--but I did feel it needed some changes, especially to the skill system and felt some spells needed to be tweaked, etc. Pathfinder made I think nearly all the fixes I felt the system needed and I've been very happy with the results--it's made gameplay at my table even more enjoyable.

- I designed a campaign world with the assumption of the presence of 3.x core races and monsters, and an assumption about how certain magical things and the planes worked. As Pathfinder uses many of the same assumptions, I could convert my campaign to Pathfinder with absolutely no houseruling, retweaking or reskinning of monsters, etc.

- Vs. 4e: 4e is a fine fantasy adventure game that focuses on dungeon exploration, but it neither suits my homebrew world without tweaking I am not willing to spend the time doing, nor do I feel the system suits my preferred play style.

- I was extremely impressed with how the Pathfinder beta playtest was run, and while I can't say I agree with every word that's ever come out of the Paizo staff's mouths, their responsiveness and availability to their customers is beyond all expectations or the call of duty.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So if I were to say 'You are not a proper human being' I may not be an elitist? The attitude isn't enough?

That is not a proper example. ;)

Your logic falls when you do not consider (not because you don't understand what I mean, but simply because you want to create an hyperbolic example) that we are still talking about likes and dislikes, not the essence of human beings. I understand that this argument, as it is, may seem weak. Allow me to be more specific: with your example, you are comparing one's attitude in saying "4E is less than a roleplaying game" to another's attitude in saying "TriOmegaZero is less than a human". This is blatantly false, unless you guys take your discussions about RpGs *waaaay too far*.
So, the attitude behind a sentence *can* be enough, yes. And, in fact, I do not disagree when DigitalMage says:
DigitalMage wrote:
It can however be indicative that you may potentially be elitist

It doesn't mean, however, that the implied attitude behind a sentence is always the same nor that it always carries the same weight. Pragmatics in linguistics teaches us that context is important. I do not feel that, talking about a light-hearted argument like roleplaying games, the attitude behind a certain expression of like/dislike *can* be enough.

And, to get back to what DM said at the beginning of this side-argument, it is a matter of how people read things, yes. For this reason I think we should stick to what is written. If someone says "Meh, 4E sucks" or "Meh, PF sucks", I do not jump immediately to conclusions about that person, regarding it as inferior/superior. I find this to be a reasonable reaction. I see that not everyone thinks the same, and someone feels entitled to say "Ehi, look at this guy here, he must be an elitist/a prick/an ass/a whatever!"
That's fine, I won't die because of someone's judgement on the internet, and I'm clearly not special in this. I was just warning people that no, usually what you read on a messageboard is *not* a clear indicator of that person's behaviour. Not like 5 minutes of real conversation can be.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm unable to take the time for a proper response here on my phone, but well said, friend.


Full respect to you! :)

Also, to reinforce this, I think there are also some cultural values at work here. Some cultures value honesty (sometimes blunt) and being direct, some others value the "politically correct". It would be helpful to know other posters' cultural background, but it's really difficult on the internet.
I just stick with the "no one's a prick here, we're on the Paizo boards after all!" and live with it.
But I think it's about time to stop the OT flow.

Liberty's Edge

MisterSlanky wrote:

In fairness, he did indicate that it was that WoTC "seems" to care more about the money. Yes both Paizo and WoTC are interested in making money, but Paizo does a much better job at giving the appearances of being in it for the fun which for some of us, is a perfectly legitimate reason for liking one company (and therefore system) over another. When it comes down to it, when customers are involved, perception is reality.

I had an uncle visit from Europe recently and he cannot understand the atrtiude here about profit. Over there it's assumed that when you start a company that makes a product you strive for two things. A quality product and to have as profitable a company that you can. To say that a company is greedy for wanting to be priftable will get you laughed all the way out of Europe. Imo deservedly so. One does not have to exclude the other. And really who in his right mind starts a buisness without the goal of making it profitable. Sure Wotc is greedy but at least their honest about it and I think the Developers that work for them are also in it for the fum.

This company still has bills and employees to pay. I can understand not liking the rules or the game. No one will ever convince me that any business trying to be profitable is a bad thing. By that logic anyonme that makes a profit with a business is a bad person.

MisterSlanky wrote:


There are a ton of reasons I prefer Pathfinder (all indicated here in other threads), but I can't ignore that my feelings about how Hasbro has run Wizards has also influenced my desire to play Pathfinder over D&D.

I can respect that. Yet it bothers me that some will say that Wotc is greedy while Paizo does the same thing. Not for any good reason because they hate Wotc but like Paizo. Sure Paizo may hide it better than Wotc yet you can bet they want to be as profitable as possible. Consideriing that their main competitor is the 800 pound gorilla that is Wotc they want to be as successful if not more. Since they do not have as much money or resources a Wotc.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Azrael Lukja wrote:
And, to get back to what DM said at the beginning of this side-argument, it is a matter of how people read things, yes. For this reason I think we should stick to what is written. If someone says "Meh, 4E sucks" or "Meh, PF sucks", I do not jump immediately to conclusions about that person, regarding it as inferior/superior. I find this to be a reasonable reaction. I see that not everyone thinks the same, and someone feels entitled to say "Ehi, look at this guy here, he must be an elitist/a prick/an ass/a whatever!"

Calling anyone a prick, ass, or even arse is never good etiquette, however indicating that someone might be displaying an elitist attitude about their RPG is a different thing.

Also, calling someone out for what might be considered an elitist attitude is rarely in response to someone simply saying "Meh, 4E sucks", I find it more likely to occur when someone says something to the effect of "I chose PF because I wanted a roleplaying game not a miniatures wargame" (with the inference that 4e is not a roleplaying game).

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
memorax wrote:
This company still has bills and employees to pay. I can understand not liking the rules or the game. No one will ever convince me that any business trying to be profitable is a bad thing. By that logic anyonme that makes a profit with a business is a bad person.

I don't think this issue is as black and white as you're making it. I don't think anybody will argue that making profit is a bad thing. We understand that making money is what allows people to be employed and pay their mortgages. The complaints, rather, are based on how one goes about making that profit. There's a reason why companies such as Comcast, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and <insert your big bank name here> have the level of loathing directed at them that they do. It's that they do (or have) let their desire for profit influence the quality of product that they produce and how they go about doing business. Whether it's by offering a sub-standard product at a lower price, or finding ways to bilk the system through monopolistic or outright illegal actions (just to name the most egregious activities), some companies let their desire for profit get the better of them to the determent of their customers. A lot of time that disgust over how the company is run turns into a "they're just in it for the profit" attitude, because frankly, that's how it comes off to the customer who isn't receiving the level of service they expect.

This attitude is something that Paizo has vehemently explained over time that they do not wish to succumb to, and by their very own actions one can give them credit for not desiring to compromise the quality of their physical product or their customer service in the process of running their business. Other "customer-friendly" organizations have done similar things. They're not alone either. There's a reason some people shop at Target over Wal-Mart, or try to support a satellite provide over Comcast. In the world of business, how you appear to do business is often as important as how you actually do business. In the end, this attitude of not seeming to wanting to compromise their quality is seen as "willing to sacrifice profit in order to produce a superior product".

In the case of why I chose to play Pathfinder, in addition to the significant laundry list of gameplay reasons (argued elsewhere so I'm not going to cover them), I'll admit not desiring to support how WoTC chooses to do business (the GSL and pulling support of the PDFs are two examples of such actions). Paizo on the other hand exemplifies how I want my game company to be run. They believe in quality products, which are well supported by a corporate community which actively seems to support their players and the game itself (their continued commitment to the OGL for example). I know Paizo needs to make money to stay in business, and I'm more than happy to help them make a profit because I like they way they go about making that profit.

For the record, I do not believe the ground-floor game developers at Wizard's do believe in their product and really want to make good games; I just honestly believe that Hasbro itself has expectations of the level of profit they expect to see, and often Wizard's is put in the situation that they have to do things they might otherwise not have done in order to meet those expectations. None of what I've said is a direct attack on any of the game developers or the games they develop, merely my perceptions on how that business is conducted.


Kthulhu wrote:
Have you ever been to WotC's forums?

Douchebag behavior by others does not excuse douchebag behavior by ourselves. This argument is a red herring.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Have you ever been to WotC's forums?
Douchebag behavior by others do not excuse douchebag behavior by ourselves. This argument is a red herring.

Agreed and seconded. And its not like these boards were any different before the Mods had to crackdown on the anti-4E posters. So if your going to accuse another forum of bad behavior make sure yours does not engage in similiar behavior.

MS your argument about Wotc being greedy with their business basically amounts to "their not giving me what I want and how I want it so they must be greedy" Not exactly a valid or logic reason for considering anyone greedy imo. An a moral or emotionally sure yet not beyond that imo.

And I think your giving Wotc way too much influence. If you had the power to look at what the people purchased in your block you might see most computers with Microsoft software and purchases from Walmart. Your not going to see rpgs in every home. As you may have to purchase wndows software and the closet reatial store is Walmart you do not need or are forced to buy rpgs.

And I never said Paizo was greedy. All I said was like most business they want a successful and proiftable business. If it is neither the company goes under and you have no new Pathfinder material. Posters and gamers seem to forget that. Their all ready with the pitchforks and torches against Wotc yet they cannot possibly beleive that Paizo will ever go uinder.

And I repeat a rpg company that is successful and proiftable is not a bad thing nopr can it be used as a flaw against the system. Business and life is not fair. I learned the hard way with the second. Your not owned anything at all.


Quote:
MS your argument about Wotc being greedy with their business basically amounts to "their not giving me what I want and how I want it so they must be greedy"

Then I should read it again, because it didn't seem like that to me. ;)


Azrael Lukja wrote:
Quote:
Thirded, seems a fair number of Pathfinder fans to come off as elitist at times heh.

Disliking a game doesn't make you an elitist.

While I feel that Pathfinder is a superior game compared to 4E, I do not feel superior to those who play 4E. That would be very stupid. They simply like different things.

It's like saying I'm elitist because I don't like my pizza with pineapples. Sure I think a proper pizza should never see a pineapple on the same table, but this doesn't mean I feel superior to the hundreds who seem to like that thing.

+1

Dark Archive

Why would I point out specific people? At that point it comes across as a personal attack.

In any event, like I said I dig both systems. I won't bother to dig through the board to find the comparison, but someone did mention how it was the "overhaul" mentality or the "tweak" one that explains the reasoning and fans of the 4e and PF. I thought that was a pretty succinct and well stated commparison.

Sorta off topic, but even though I like 4e more I would have loved to have seen Paizo-made modules and material for it. I really do feel that they're putting more care and attention into their materials =)


From now on, I want it known that I like orange-flavored chocolate.
If ANYBODY says they like strawberry-flavored chocolate, instead, it is a personal insult and a claim that I'm less than human.
I WILL be offended!


memorax wrote:
pres man wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Have you ever been to WotC's forums?
Douchebag behavior by others do not excuse douchebag behavior by ourselves. This argument is a red herring.

Agreed and seconded. And its not like these boards were any different before the Mods had to crackdown on the anti-4E posters. So if your going to accuse another forum of bad behavior make sure yours does not engage in similiar behavior.

MS your argument about Wotc being greedy with their business basically amounts to "their not giving me what I want and how I want it so they must be greedy" Not exactly a valid or logic reason for considering anyone greedy imo. An a moral or emotionally sure yet not beyond that imo.

And I think your giving Wotc way too much influence. If you had the power to look at what the people purchased in your block you might see most computers with Microsoft software and purchases from Walmart. Your not going to see rpgs in every home. As you may have to purchase wndows software and the closet reatial store is Walmart you do not need or are forced to buy rpgs.

And I never said Paizo was greedy. All I said was like most business they want a successful and proiftable business. If it is neither the company goes under and you have no new Pathfinder material. Posters and gamers seem to forget that. Their all ready with the pitchforks and torches against Wotc yet they cannot possibly beleive that Paizo will ever go uinder.

And I repeat a rpg company that is successful and proiftable is not a bad thing nopr can it be used as a flaw against the system. Business and life is not fair. I learned the hard way with the second. Your not owned anything at all.

Making a comment against something does not make one a douche bag.

This isn't kindergarten. It's okay to have an opinion and it's okay to not like something and it's okay to say you don't like something.


memorax wrote:
*Just jumping into the discussion

I personally don't think that it's a matter of Paizo looking like they aren't doing what they do to get my money, I understand that such a reason is, at the very least, a part of their logic as a game company.

The difference for me, and I think a lot of other players is how each company has acted towards their customers when trying to convince us that we should buy their product. If I was to make a guess, I would say that someone, or a group of someones, over at WotC or Hasbro looked at games like WoW and LotRO and said, "hey, people love those games, I bet we could make D&D like that" And when a lot of gamers uttered protest that such a game isn't the kind of game we want to play, WotC basically seemed to say, "Yes. you do".

I say this because of products like the Forgotten Realms, a campaign setting that has been around for ages and they had to blow it up to make it work in their new rules system, an act that also flew in the face of their own press releases saying you could play any kind of game in 4e. Add in that they pushed the realms timeline ahead a 100 years, and then started publishing articles like "Ways to wrap up your 3e FR campaign" Personally I didn't want to wrap up my campaign, I just wanted to keep going.

I can list tons of examples, and all of them most likely have a very valid counter point to them, but it is still how I, and a lot of people, feel WotC has shown they aren't interested in what we want from a game.

And before I continue, I want to say that I do not hold any of what I just said against Wizards or Hasbro. There are a lot of people who love playing 4e and they probably think WotC has been doing a great job with their fanbase, but at least personally, I don't feel that I am what that company considers as their target audience.

Paizo on the other hand has been very open to finding out what their customers want, from asking fan opinion on whether they should go 4e or 3e, to the open playtests on their core rules, their APG classes and now their new magic sourcebook. To things like giving new talent a way to get into the business with the RPG superstar contest. to the simple fact that almost any times that someone has had a question about an adventure or product, you could post a question on these boards and get an answer in a day.

So I guess its not that I don't realize that Paizo wants my money, though I do honestly believe they actually care about this community as well. I think it's that I feel Paizo has said to me, "So we want your money... what would you like for us to make for it?"


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
memorax wrote:
Yet it bothers me that some will say that Wotc is greedy while Paizo does the same thing. Not for any good reason because they hate Wotc but like Paizo. Sure Paizo may hide it better than Wotc yet you can bet they want to be as profitable as possible. Consideriing that their main competitor is the 800 pound gorilla that is Wotc they want to be as successful if not more. Since they...

Whilst I broadly agree with you, there is a difference in emphasis between the two. I have had a few instances where Paizo have gone beyond the call of duty in a way immediately injurious to their bottom line without any clear long-term benefit:

1. I ordered a book which came with a minor defect - I asked to exchange it and they gave me a brand new replacement.

2. I received a shipment with one figure missing which had clearly been opened by customs. There was an excellent chance the figure was lost there and that Paizo included the full shipment, yet they replaced the figure immediately, no questions asked.

3. I ordered one third party item from Paizo and (through no fault of Paizo's) was sent the wrong product - something I also wanted and was perfectly willing to pay for. Paizo insisted I keep the incorrectly supplied item free of charge as 'compensation' for having to wait while the correct item was re-ordered.

4. I have a bunch of friends who are not subscribers but order through me to save shipping costs from the US. Although I'm happy to save such costs through pooling our orders, I'm uncomfortable with them receiving the subscriber discount and have asked Paizo about 'opt out' option but with no luck.

None of those things have any impact on how much money I'm going to spend with them (I argued with them over every point, but Cosmo can be quite stubborn...) and any claim of profit motive behind these decisions is dubious in my mind. Whilst they want to make money, I think they also have a desire to support gaming and a culture of excellent customer service - beyond the profit motive. This 'extra yard' is something I think is missing from WoTC (who just skipped one of their monthly DDI updates, for instance - perfectly consistent with the terms of service I'm sure, but I suspect that if it was a Paizo thing they would have extended subscriptions by an additional month as a matter of course).


Paizo is (a)RPG company and (b)RPG online store. Comparing Paizo's RPG online store behavior with another company's RPG company's behavior is comparing apples and oranges.


pres man wrote:
Paizo is (a)RPG company and (b)RPG online store. Comparing Paizo's RPG online store behavior with another company's RPG company's behavior is comparing apples and oranges.

I think it's entirely valid to compare the two. Paizo's online store is run by Paizo's RPG company, the two aren't seperate entities and how they treat their customers in any aspect of their business should reflect on how they are seen as a whole.

Though even taking the online store example out of the equation, I still feel the rest of the points made are valid.

On a side note: should we possibly move this to a different thread, we are way off topic by now.


Aarontendo wrote:


Sorta off topic, but even though I like 4e more I would have loved to have seen Paizo-made modules and material for it. I really do feel that they're putting more care and attention into their materials =)

Reading that, I find myself wondering if I'd see 4E differently if it'd had better modules at launch.

Half of one of my groups was a lost cause -- they were in on the 4E beta, had a chance to voice what they didn't like, and the game hadn't changed enough in those areas to win them over -- but I think a lot of the rest were lost because the initial 4E modules just weren't very good. Or at least, they were clearly aimed at people who hadn't played D&D and weren't interesting from the perspective of cynical veterans.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
pres man wrote:
Paizo is (a)RPG company and (b)RPG online store. Comparing Paizo's RPG online store behavior with another company's RPG company's behavior is comparing apples and oranges.

Not sure if that's addressed to me, but I was comparing Paizo's response when their provision of service fell below their usual standard (sending me the wrong thing) to WoTC's response when their provision of service fell below their usual standard (skipping a DDI update).

I was specifically responding to memorax's claim (simplified somewhat) that 'they're both in it for the money' - I broadly agree with him, but think there is something more. There are times Paizo will sacrifice profit when WoTC wouldn't, in my opinion.

Dark Archive

Steve Geddes wrote:
pres man wrote:
Paizo is (a)RPG company and (b)RPG online store. Comparing Paizo's RPG online store behavior with another company's RPG company's behavior is comparing apples and oranges.

Not sure if that's addressed to me, but I was comparing Paizo's response when their provision of service fell below their usual standard (sending me the wrong thing) to WoTC's response when their provision of service fell below their usual standard (skipping a DDI update).

I was specifically responding to memorax's claim (simplified somewhat) that 'they're both in it for the money' - I broadly agree with him, but think there is something more. There are times Paizo will sacrifice profit when WoTC wouldn't, in my opinion.

Im going to point out that LFR modules are all free and that WoTC doles out tons of free loot at cons. I think they both end up trying to do right by their customers in different ways.


Aarontendo wrote:
Im going to point out that LFR modules are all free and that WoTC doles out tons of free loot at cons. I think they both end up trying to do right by their customers in different ways.

That's probably because the people running LFR are awesome.

Ultimately, even if the corporate masters of Hasbro are trying to rake in bales of cash, most of WotC's staff are still huge gaming nerds more concerned with making cool games than anything else.


I remember everyone talking about how WotC was trying to kill all of the older editions. Then you point out how they still have the 3.5 SRD on their site and other free 3e and 3.5 materials or free adventures and you get people pulling their hair out and trying to jump through hoops to make it fit their theories of the evil of WotC. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad sometimes.

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:


Making a comment against something does not make one a douche bag.

Imo it is when a poster goes into every 4E thread to post anti-4E comments. Until the mods told posters that was no longer acceptable you had the same poster doing just that. So much so that a small minority gave these forums a bad reputation.

LilithsThrall wrote:


This isn't kindergarten. It's okay to have an opinion and it's okay to not like something and it's okay to say you don't like something.

There is a difference between a poster liking and not liking something and going into every thread to say that they hate it or like it. I don't need to know a poster likes or hates hate 4E/Pathfinder mutiple times on the forum. It's not going to make me listen to anything else you have to say.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:


I was specifically responding to memorax's claim (simplified somewhat) that 'they're both in it for the money' - I broadly agree with him, but think there is something more. There are times Paizo will sacrifice profit when WoTC wouldn't, in my opinion. 3

I will repeat I do not think neither is greedy. Both want to own and run a profitable successful business. Do you think that the people who work for etiher company are going to say "you know our business is doing too well. That's a bad thing". Since when is having a successful and profitable buisness a bad thing.

Sure my description maybe borad and siomple yet imo more realistic. As anyonme you know who owns a buisness why the started one. Your going to get three resposnes. To release a quality product and for it to be both successful and profitable. Some gamersn in this hobby seem to have some sort of romatized entitlement filled fantasy of how business is supposed to work. Big difference in how a poster wants business to be run and how they really run.

You think the guys at Paizo really care that much about Wotc are doing imo probably not. They have their own things to attend to. And while Paizo may sacrifice profit don't expect it to be that much espxcially not in the current economy. A company can only lose so much ptofit before it hurts their bottom line. And their up against a competitor that has more resources, cash and devlopers than them. Depending on how things go in the future they may have to sacrifice quality for profit. One cannot predict what will happen.

Liking Paizo does not make them immune to how business are run. Or them having to possibly make decisions that are bad for the fanabse. I finally understand a comment a freind told me a few years ago. Gamers are mostly clueless when it comes to business.


I think Paizo does care how successful WotC is. At least the online store part of Paizo does. =D

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
memorax wrote:
I finally understand a comment a freind told me a few years ago. Gamers are mostly clueless when it comes to business.

I had a fairly lengthy response written up and decided that it was too patronizing to post and frankly wouldn't change anything of your opinions. Fundamentally, I can't disagree more that greed is just "being out for a profit" and should be thought of as normal business for a company. Companies need to make money to survive, but there's a difference between companies who make a profit ethically and those who don't. If you can't see that, I honestly don't know how this conversation can continue.

(Disclaimer: I do not think WoTC is unethical, but they do have a different method of operation than Paizo, which I think we can all agree upon).

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
I think Paizo does care how successful WotC is. At least the online store part of Paizo does. =D

They do care to a certain extent yet imo they have their own stuff and products to worry about. Right now Paizo docus on their own priorites not Wotc.

MisterSlanky wrote:


I had a fairly lengthy response written up and decided that it was too patronizing to post and frankly wouldn't change anything of your opinions. Fundamentally, I can't disagree more that greed is just "being out for a profit" and should be thought of as normal business for a company. Companies need to make money to survive, but there's a difference between companies who make a profit ethically and those who don't. If you can't see that, I honestly don't know how this conversation can continue.

To me for a company to be unethical it has to trully engage in unethical behavior. Say they release a product yet make it so that the only way to get replacement parts is through them only and not their competitors. Or the CEO of a company instead of investing money that investors gave him into a company instead puts it into a personal account and falsfies records that unethical.

Telling me that a company that puts more empahsis in profit such as WOTC is untehical well you may want to move to China or Cuba. As their are many more such companies in North America. Welcome to the real world of business. It has been like this since the first companies were formed. I work in the business section of a bookstore. One of the first unwritten rules they tell you when you create a business is to make sure that you have to goals. For it to bbe both successful or profitable. If your not willing to do that don't start a business. Or you wasting time and money.

I need to say it again. Having a successful and profitable company is not a greedy company. I do not know how many times I have to repeat this. I could easily say that Paizo is being greedy because they put new rules in their APs. Without those new rules imo there i no need to really buy the APs. Instead they made a smart business move. Modules usually sell poorly yet by putting new rules and monsters in them Paizo sells more of them. Or that they may reissue some of the out or print stuff with updated Pathfinder stats and make it more expensive. Some I am sure will say "Greed" I say good for Paizo. Do what you have to do in the current economy.

One thing that some posters forget. Your not being forced to buy any products from either Wotc or Paizo. If they somehow forced you to spend money thsn you can honestly call the m out on being greedy. To do what a lot of current companies do is just erong imo. I ahve seen a growing sense of entitlement everywhere but not as much as the gamiing industry. Gamers want tommorow rpg products now at yesterdays prices. Companies that dare to be priftable are greedy ansd one a company they like engages in the same behavior thy act like they cnnot see it.

MisterSlanky wrote:


(Disclaimer: I do not think WoTC is unethical, but they do have a different method of operation than Paizo, which I think we can all agree upon).

I think Paizo is less obvious about it yet I almost 99% sure they want their business to be successful and profitable. and if need be mke decisions to taht effect. Even if it means making the fanbase unhappy. Somehow I cannot see Paizo or the people they work for allow themselves to be taken hostage by the fanabse.


Why did I choose Pathfinder ?

- Because I'm running an Eberron campaign and didn't felt like tediously upgrading every rule and character.

- Because I started with 3.0, then 3.5, so I'm really familiar with the Pathfinder rules.

- Because I feel that the 4e edition severely nerfed the PCs and severely buffed the NPCs and monsters much. A CR 15 monster have like 400 HPs in the 4e, while the same monster in 3.5/PF would get around 250 HPs. However, a 4e level-15 PC cannot deal 15d6 points of damage or 100 points of damage a round; it's almost half of that.

- Because I do not like the "once per encounter" abilities. If they're gonna remove the iterative attacks, they should have given something like "once per 5 rounds" instead. "Once per encounter" might not be much of a deal in a small fight, but in a massive fight that the DMs throws lots of enemies at a time, you'll run out of abilities and fast. The only way I could tolerate this is if there is a mecanic that allows a PC to recharge these abilities once they all have been used, or that they have a feat that allows you to transform an encounter ability into an at-will ability.

- Because Pathfinder fixes a lot of issues in 3.5.

That's about it, I don't like the 4e edition because it feels restrictive.


pres man wrote:
I remember everyone talking about how WotC was trying to kill all of the older editions. Then you point out how they still have the 3.5 SRD on their site and other free 3e and 3.5 materials or free adventures and you get people pulling their hair out and trying to jump through hoops to make it fit their theories of the evil of WotC. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad sometimes.

If memory serves, they did pull ALL 3e material from their website for a time - and they most certainly pulled all of it from outside vendors.

Along with everything else that happened at the time the incentive to spend my money with them disappeared.

As far as I know, you still can't get pre-3e stuff anywhere PDF-wise.

For myself, it is a lot like going to any other retailer or restaurant. If I am served sour grapes once, why would I go back for more?


memorax wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Making a comment against something does not make one a douche bag.

Imo it is when a poster goes into every 4E thread to post anti-4E comments. Until the mods told posters that was no longer acceptable you had the same poster doing just that. So much so that a small minority gave these forums a bad reputation.

LilithsThrall wrote:


This isn't kindergarten. It's okay to have an opinion and it's okay to not like something and it's okay to say you don't like something.

There is a difference between a poster liking and not liking something and going into every thread to say that they hate it or like it. I don't need to know a poster likes or hates hate 4E/Pathfinder mutiple times on the forum. It's not going to make me listen to anything else you have to say.

If you're talking about me, there was just once that I went into the 4e forum and posted something negative about 4e. And, when I realized that I was in the 4e forum, I apologized to the forum.

Liberty's Edge

I purchased almost every 3.5 product there was. Our gaming group enjoyed D&D 3.5. A few of the rules that didn't work well, we worked around.

When 4.0 came out, I tried it. It was ok, but not exactly what I wanted. I chose Pathfinder for the following reasons.

1) Paizo makes incredible products. From the Dungeon Magazine through every item they have made now, they do an awesome job.
2) Paizo gave us (and continues to give us) opportunities to play test before they release. When 3.5 was done, they allowed the community to comment on the direction it should go. Well done.
3) WotC sprung 4.0 on us and it was a shock. After investing thousands of dollars on 3.5, we were caught off guard. If they would have warned us it was coming, asked for our thoughts, we may have been more receptive.
4) 4.0 feels too much like a video game to me.

My opinions are my own. For you, either system may be exactly what you are looking for. I recommend that you try a few Pathfinder Society Games and then a few Living Forgotten Realms games and pick the system you like best.

I contend that any game system can be a blast as long as you have the right players to enjoy it with. I can have an awesome time playing Pathfinder and likewise I can crack out the old D&D 1st Edition game and we would have a blast with it too.

Enjoy and I hope you find the game you are looking for.

Liberty's Edge

I purchased almost every 3.5 product there was. Our gaming group enjoyed D&D 3.5. A few of the rules that didn't work well, we worked around.

When 4.0 came out, I tried it. It was ok, but not exactly what I wanted. I chose Pathfinder for the following reasons.

1) Paizo makes incredible products. From the Dungeon Magazine through every item they have made now, they do an awesome job.
2) Paizo gave us (and continues to give us) opportunities to play test before they release. When 3.5 was done, they allowed the community to comment on the direction it should go. Well done.
3) WotC sprung 4.0 on us and it was a shock. After investing thousands of dollars on 3.5, we were caught off guard. If they would have warned us it was coming, asked for our thoughts, we may have been more receptive.
4) 4.0 feels too much like a video game to me.

My opinions are my own. For you, either system may be exactly what you are looking for. I recommend that you try a few Pathfinder Society Games and then a few Living Forgotten Realms games and pick the system you like best.

I contend that any game system can be a blast as long as you have the right players to enjoy it with. I can have an awesome time playing Pathfinder and likewise I can crack out the old D&D 1st Edition game and we would have a blast with it too.

Enjoy and I hope you find the game you are looking for.


Turin the Mad wrote:
pres man wrote:
I remember everyone talking about how WotC was trying to kill all of the older editions. Then you point out how they still have the 3.5 SRD on their site and other free 3e and 3.5 materials or free adventures and you get people pulling their hair out and trying to jump through hoops to make it fit their theories of the evil of WotC. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad sometimes.

If memory serves, they did pull ALL 3e material from their website for a time - and they most certainly pulled all of it from outside vendors.

Along with everything else that happened at the time the incentive to spend my money with them disappeared.

As far as I know, you still can't get pre-3e stuff anywhere PDF-wise.

For myself, it is a lot like going to any other retailer or restaurant. If I am served sour grapes once, why would I go back for more?

You still can't buy 4e pdf stuff so ... I guess if they are not selling earlier edition stuff as pdfs and this is proof that they are trying to kill earlier editions, then it must also be proof that they are trying to kill ... 4e as well?

Begin the mental hoop jumping!

Liberty's Edge

LilithsThrall wrote:

If you're talking about me, there was just once that I went into the 4e forum and posted something negative about 4e. And, when I realized that I was in the 4e forum, I apologized to the forum.

No not you at all. If I refer to someone in a thread I do so.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
pres man wrote:
I remember everyone talking about how WotC was trying to kill all of the older editions. Then you point out how they still have the 3.5 SRD on their site and other free 3e and 3.5 materials or free adventures and you get people pulling their hair out and trying to jump through hoops to make it fit their theories of the evil of WotC. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad sometimes.

If memory serves, they did pull ALL 3e material from their website for a time - and they most certainly pulled all of it from outside vendors.

Along with everything else that happened at the time the incentive to spend my money with them disappeared.

As far as I know, you still can't get pre-3e stuff anywhere PDF-wise.

For myself, it is a lot like going to any other retailer or restaurant. If I am served sour grapes once, why would I go back for more?

You still can't buy 4e pdf stuff so ... I guess if they are not selling earlier edition stuff as pdfs and this is proof that they are trying to kill earlier editions, then it must also be proof that they are trying to kill ... 4e as well?

Begin the mental hoop jumping!

LOL. I could then point out that Pathfinder is trying to kill 3.5 because it's no longer keeping some of their older 3.5 products in print.


Pres Man, and Memorax is it absolutely necessary for you to police every comment made on this thread...

I know that you are defending your game and are trying to dispel any errors or half-truths/misconceptions but you are coming across as zealots.

Both of you bash away at anybody that says anything slightly negative, people are going to have negative views about companies no mater how wrong you tell them that they are.

If you want a good way to reinforce the dislike of something, its to have somebody to tell them how wrong they are for thinking it.

Hasbro/WotC did make some major errors in their marketing that made them and their game unappealing to a lot of old time players.

This is a thread about why people chose Pathfinder - it will involve their opinions on why they chose it, naturally 4E will not have suited a large portion of people who chose Pathfinder.
They will often have a very negative opinion, that diverges wildly from your perceptions of what is correct. Your correcting people will not change that in this thread.

I suggest that you start a thread on why you should choose 4E as your game and talk about the positives of your game.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Pres Man, and Memorax is it absolutely necessary for you to police every comment made on this thread...

I know that you are defending your game and are trying to dispel any errors or half-truths/misconceptions but you are coming across as zealots.

Both of you bash away at anybody that says anything slightly negative, people are going to have negative views about companies no mater how wrong you tell them that they are.

If you want a good way to reinforce the dislike of something, its to have somebody to tell them how wrong they are for thinking it.

Hasbro/WotC did make some major errors in their marketing that made them and their game unappealing to a lot of old time players.

This is a thread about why people chose Pathfinder - it will involve their opinions on why they chose it, naturally 4E will not have suited a large portion of people who chose Pathfinder.
They will often have a very negative opinion, that diverges wildly from your perceptions of what is correct. Your correcting people will not change that in this thread.

I suggest that you start a thread on why you should choose 4E as your game and talk about the positives of your game.

ROFL

Please you are hurting my sides.
If you only knew how silly this comment is.
ROFL
Thanks, I needed that.
*wipes tears from eyes*
That was a good one. Really.

But seriously. *catches breath*
If people are saying stuff that just is illogical and everyone else in the echo chamber just lets it slide, they may believe that it is true.

And I don't think disagreeing with others is "policing" or acting like a "zealot". I just don't drink the kool-aid that everyone else seems to love so much.


pres man wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
pres man wrote:
I remember everyone talking about how WotC was trying to kill all of the older editions. Then you point out how they still have the 3.5 SRD on their site and other free 3e and 3.5 materials or free adventures and you get people pulling their hair out and trying to jump through hoops to make it fit their theories of the evil of WotC. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad sometimes.

If memory serves, they did pull ALL 3e material from their website for a time - and they most certainly pulled all of it from outside vendors.

Along with everything else that happened at the time the incentive to spend my money with them disappeared.

As far as I know, you still can't get pre-3e stuff anywhere PDF-wise.

For myself, it is a lot like going to any other retailer or restaurant. If I am served sour grapes once, why would I go back for more?

You still can't buy 4e pdf stuff so ... I guess if they are not selling earlier edition stuff as pdfs and this is proof that they are trying to kill earlier editions, then it must also be proof that they are trying to kill ... 4e as well?

Begin the mental hoop jumping!

I must be thinking out-of-context in my reply. I was intending to refer to the reason why I chose Pathfinder. Part of that reason is/was - at the time - that the access to the PDFs I had purchased was unexpectedly, with very short notice, revoked. Those PDFs spanned all 3 previous editions.

In other words, at that point in time, what I had paid for was summarily no longer something I had access to through the vendors I had purchased them through.

Mental hoops still in place ?


Turin the Mad wrote:

I must be thinking out-of-context in my reply. I was intending to refer to the reason why I chose Pathfinder. Part of that reason is/was - at the time - that the access to the PDFs I had purchased was unexpectedly, with very short notice, revoked. Those PDFs spanned all 3 previous editions.

In other words, at that point in time, what I had paid for was summarily no longer something I had access to through the vendors I had purchased them through.

That makes more sense, cool. I definitely think WotC pulling older pdfs was a bad idea.

Though, customers like yourself, I think we partially harmed by those same pdf sellers. They should have made it clear that you opportunity to download those items was not infinite.

Liberty's Edge

T8D when it comes to the rules I have no problem if someone dislikes 4E. Attacking Wotc however does not tell me whi you switched to Pathfinder. It tells me you have an axe to grind. Sure maybe from a marketing prospetive Wotc made a mistake. Yet to accuse them of being greedy for wanting to be successful and profitable it bothers me. Every business wants to be profitable and successful including Paizo. By the "logic" of some posters in this thread Paizo is greedy because their doing so well. I wish they would do some 4E material they are choosing not to. I am not going around telling fellow gamers interested in the company and PF that they are greedy for only focusing on Pathfinder. That is not a valid complaint and would be unfair to the company and the people that work for it.

And it's not like I am going after every poster. The ones who can say why they disl;ike the rules or style of the game I have not said a thing to. The more classy posters imo don't have to bash another game company to say they don't like the game or why the play Pathfinder. The OP even asked ofr the anti-4E referances to be kept to a minumu and was ignored. And I did start a thread about switching over to 4E. Not as many replies yet surprsie surprise no oneso far has bashed Paizo or Pathfinder. If I was someone who wanted to get into either 4E or Pathfinder chances are it would be 4E. Why would I listen to anyone who feels the need to bash one game to say he likes another.


pres man wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

I must be thinking out-of-context in my reply. I was intending to refer to the reason why I chose Pathfinder. Part of that reason is/was - at the time - that the access to the PDFs I had purchased was unexpectedly, with very short notice, revoked. Those PDFs spanned all 3 previous editions.

In other words, at that point in time, what I had paid for was summarily no longer something I had access to through the vendors I had purchased them through.

That makes more sense, cool. I definitely think WotC pulling older pdfs was a bad idea.

Though, customers like yourself, I think we partially harmed by those same pdf sellers. They should have made it clear that you opportunity to download those items was not infinite.

It (download availability) was infinite until the decision was made to revoke that status. Which was very sad. I was lucky enough to salvage some of them (downloaded within the small window of opportunity before it closed) ... but not all of them, as I was transitioning from one computer that died a horrible death to another.

I can understand most of the business decisions in the clarity of hindsight. At the time though ... whew. A few still have me scratching my head.

And hey, there is always the hope of "something cool this way comes". Just not as I currently understand content, formatting and especially the combined twins of price points and release schedule.

And I do so hope for that "something cool this way comes". :)

Liberty's Edge

Turin the Mad wrote:


I must be thinking out-of-context in my reply. I was intending to refer to the reason why I chose Pathfinder. Part of that reason is/was - at the time - that the access to the PDFs I had purchased was unexpectedly, with very short notice, revoked. Those PDFs spanned all 3 previous editions.

In other words, at that point in time, what I had paid for was summarily no longer something I had access to through the vendors I had purchased them through.

Mental hoops still in place ?

I csn understand and sympathize. I am mot happy woth Wotc either on their PDf stance. If you look hard enough you can find anything you want on the internet. It's does nothing to deter priacy and imo encourages it.

251 to 300 of 426 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why did you choose Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.