I will probably have had my fill by Ultimate Combat.
What I'd like to see are books that expand on existing content, like more usages for skills, how to handle mass combat (yes, yes, I know there's some adventure path that covers this), new haunts, new monsters, natural hazard encounters, exotic technology, monster tactics and so forth.
|
Well said. As has been noted by Paizo before, they're in the business of telling stories with their Adventure Paths, and the rules are there to support the storytelling.Unfortunately, that seems to have fallen by the wayside since the Core Rulebook sold the way it did at Gencon '08.
Huh? What exactly did change with APs and the Campaign Setting line since the Core Rulebook is out?
|
I am going to post a dissenting opinion here and say that I want more APG/UM/UC style books. I have never understood the concept that just because a company has made a product that product HAS to be used in every game and HAS to be allowed.As I mentioned in the OP, it has more to do with peer pressure from players than anything. I want them to be happy, and they don't always think about the balance of a campaign as much as the GM does.
I need to mention a corollary to this.
Many times, players asking for new options is just wanting to play with the new shiny toy. That's the good stuff, and I fully appreciate and support it.
However, in my experience, also many times it's players wanting to sneak extra power in the back door. Back in the 1e-2e days, "I found it in Dragon Magazine" was code for "I want to break your campaign balance." To make another 2e allusion, I like seeing more Complete Thief's Handbook, but we don't need the Complete Book of Elves.
Paizo's been very good at maintaining the balance. (Not in Traits, though. Sorry.) However, any time I hear, "I'd like to use new rules" I worry that if the player wants to use them, then I'm probably better off banning them--if it wasn't imbalancing, the player wouldn't be so interested in it. I don't like being so suspicious, but I am.
So that's part of the reason I'm less interested in more player's options. Sometimes, you get more depth. Sometimes, you get an arms race. Some (not all) players want the arms race. For a group of friends communicating well, this isn't a problem. However, if you don't always have the luxury of choosing who you're playing with (as a player or a GM), then extra player's options can actually serve to make the game less fun.
I normally like reading things Evil Lincoln posts,, but threads like these are a huge pet peeve for me.
Yeah, these "mega-books" have tons of player options, but those options are just as usable by the DM as by any player. NPCs are built on the same rules. The only complaint I could give about them is that they spread out the material (especially feats and spells) over several books. A small price to pay IMO.
I DM for our group, and I PREFER to have books for my players to use. I use them, too. I prefer to use options that are available to the players because it feels less like cheating. I always hated it when the DM I used to play under would use homebrew crap that was questionably balanced against us, but he was reluctant to allow us to come up with things not supported by rules.
That said, if there's one thing I would replace these books with it would be one-shot adventures/modules or (something I've never seen before, so I don't know if it exists) books that are almost entirely crunchless, full of reexamination of existing rules and lots of refluffing. Tips for roleplaying epic spellcasting, creepy happenings, and making your seafaring ranger into a whale-hunter through clever description. I would pay big money for the latter, if only for my players' benefit.
I think that — done properly — NPC Gallery books could be as sustainable over multiple volumes as Bestiary books are.
given what i have seen of the NPC's presented in the GMG I agree and again are generic enought to find use at just about every table. or on my nifty book stand you hipped me to.
Huh? What exactly did change with APs and the Campaign Setting line since the Core Rulebook is out?
Per the OP's request, I'm going to avoid having that discussion here.
So that's part of the reason I'm less interested in more player's options. Sometimes, you get more depth. Sometimes, you get an arms race. Some (not all) players want the arms race. For a group of friends communicating well, this isn't a problem. However, if you don't always have the luxury of choosing who you're playing with (as a player or a GM), then extra player's options can actually serve to make the game less fun.
I never really face the arms race, myself. I'm lucky with the players I've got.
The problem for me is the sheer volume of new material to absorb, and to use properly, so that my players will be happy. It's nice that Paizo follows through on the concept, but I think they add way more player options than is necessary to make a buck.
or on my nifty book stand you hipped me to.
There's something everyone can agree on!*
I couldn't disagree more, Evil Lincoln.
I love me some splatbooks, and thus far with Paizo I haven't found anything broken or lame in theirs (the APG). I was pleased as punch to be able to blanket allow everything from the APG in my campaign. With a release schedule of, really, 3 big must have books a year, it's not hard for me to keep up with it and buy/read them all, unlike WotC in its prime. Furthermore, I usually sit down with players at character creation to discuss at length both their character concept (background, persona, etc) AND their build, because I usually know the mechanics better than my players and can point them in the right direction to help them be effective.
I want another book JUST like the APG, which is full of feats, spells, and other options to customize characters.
|
|
So that's part of the reason I'm less interested in more player's options. Sometimes, you get more depth. Sometimes, you get an arms race. Some (not all) players want the arms race. For a group of friends communicating well, this isn't a problem. However, if you don't always have the luxury of choosing who you're playing with (as a player or a GM), then extra player's options can actually serve to make the game less fun.I never really face the arms race, myself. I'm lucky with the players I've got.
The problem for me is the sheer volume of new material to absorb, and to use properly, so that my players will be happy. It's nice that Paizo follows through on the concept, but I think they add way more player options than is necessary to make a buck.
My reasoning is similar, I don't want to face new players with an entire bookshelf of option books. Three is enough.
Then again, player crunch is to gaming industry what sex is to any industry: it sells. It pays the bills and helps company develop. I can bet my rear that APG beat GMG in sales by a massive margin.
The problem for me is the sheer volume of new material to absorb, and to use properly, so that my players will be happy. It's nice that Paizo follows through on the concept, but I think they add way more player options than is necessary to make a buck.
Maybe instead of Pazio changing what they do...you could just say we will wait for the next campaign...or a month so I can absorb the new stuff to your players.
I mean it sounds like you have a great bunch of players...and things like that has worked in my group before...so I don't see why you could not do it. Unless this is the last campaign you and your players are ever going to run.
I am not argueing your opinion here just trying to give a helpful suggestion to the problems that has formed your opinion.
Evil Lincoln,
Your OP came off as "No more rule crunch, just adventure stuff".
If that was your premise, then no. It won't happen, and Paizo would go out of business if it did. The rules crunch was originally started because they needed it to support the fluff APs. Nothing has changed in that dynamic. They still need the core rules. If they quit supporting the core rules, it'll wither and die and take their APs with it.
If you mean strictly no more player options, and just GM options... Again, won't happen. GM only books do not sell nearly as well as player option books. Again, Paizo has to keep a profit margin.
If you really mean, please no more options for base classes and core classes, give us new ways for players to use what you have, such as Psionics, Epic Level rules, Monster PC rules, Equipment guides, magic item compendiums, etc... then you may get your wish. Those will sell well with both GMs and players. However, I think you will be disapointed, because those will still contain more base classes, prestige classes, archetypes, feats, spells, etc.
Then again, player crunch is to gaming industry what sex is to any industry: it sells. It pays the bills and helps company develop. I can bet my rear that APG beat GMG in sales by a massive margin.
Comparing the APG(useful to both players and GM alike) to the GMG (usefult to new GMs...not so much for experience GMS) is not very fair.
Lets face it the key to the gaming industry success is putting out books useful to both players and GMs...even the APs do this w/ world infomation and player options. That is the only reason they sell so well.
I basically hit my limit with the APG. That's not to say that I have no interest whatsoever in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic, but it's certainly diminishing returns for me at this point. I don't really care about fifty new spells or fifty new feats (maybe 10% of which I'll find interesting).+1. I'd be more interested in Guides to mid-level and high-level play - stuff that isn't a splat compendium.
Cheers
Mark
I agree with both sentiments, I have the APG but I won't be buying the Ultimate books. I spent way to much on V3.5 splatbooks that just wrecked the basic rules!
**Hushed tone** Orb of Force anyone? **Slinks Away ashamed!**
I guess I'm with that vocal minority then. I can see clearly that crunch, as Gorbacz says, is a funding staple of the industry. In my campaigns though I prefer fewer, albeit versatile, character options. I've had players play "warlocks" long before they were actually a full 20 level class option of their own. I, in fact, recently told my gaming groups that I won't be purchasing either Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat, and that if any player wants specific options from those books, they'll have to purchase the book, and sit down with me one-on-one to go over it.
What I'd like to see, and I think there is a definite segment of the market that would be on board, is an official "low-magic" campaign setting. I realize that creating a "low-magic" setting really amounts to creating a completely alternate set of rules, and in fact might include having to retool every class from the bottom up, but that doesn't change the fact that I'd love to see an official, Paizo, low-magic (setting or rule, you choose) book based off of the OGL.
Then again, player crunch is to gaming industry what sex is to any industry: it sells. It pays the bills and helps company develop. I can bet my rear that APG beat GMG in sales by a massive margin.Comparing the APG(useful to both players and GM alike) to the GMG (usefult to new GMs...not so much for experience GMS) is not very fair.
Since the OP's message came off as not wanting player option material anymore, and just world stuff and GM stuff, it's an incredibly fair comparison. It's also directly to the point.
The GMG is strictly GM stuff, as EL evinced as wanting. APG is player options, which he said he hated anymore of.
Most of the people complaining about too many rulebooks aren't subscribed to the Pathfinder RPG line. But if you are a "Core and done" sort of player, you have already made yourself not a customer (at least of that line). There are hundreds (if not thousands, I doubt we'll see real numbers) of us who subscribed to Pathfinder RPG line. We are not only asking for 3 books per year, we've signed up in advance for them.
So the question is not, "Should Paizo stop making rulebooks?" The question is, "What should Paizo's next year or two of books should be?"
Evil Lincoln,
Your OP came off as "No more rule crunch, just adventure stuff".
I got more specific after the OP, but I'll forgive you for not reading it yet since the post rate in this thread is ridiculous. I started it and I can't keep up ... despite not having left my computer since.
Somewhere on page 1, I said I think it's about finding a balance. One half of that balance is selling crunch to people who buy crunch. I'm cool with that... I'm just feeling the strain under the APG, UM, and soon UC as well.
Rules-bloat hurting GMs is important too.
The solution is not binary. They can't just say "no more character options", nor should they.
But I think those of us who are hitting a limit should say so. It may be that the limit is just "too much too fast", and not "no more ever".
Maybe I could have picked the thread title better. We've all screwed that one up on occasion, eh?
|
|
Lets face it the key to the gaming industry success is putting out books useful to both players and GMs...even the APs do this w/ world infomation and player options. That is the only reason they sell so well.
That's what I find so ironic. Player option books have quickly become not useful to me. We'd have to find a way to come up with a book that is useful to both the player and GM without involving player options.
The GMG is strictly GM stuff, as EL evinced as wanting. APG is player options, which he said he hated anymore of.
Slow down there. Those are your words, not mine. I took care to temper my posts and not provoke this kind of thing. I'd like people to judge my words and not have you reframe them for me.
Most of the people complaining about too many rulebooks aren't subscribed to the Pathfinder RPG line. But if you are a "Core and done" sort of player, you have already made yourself not a customer (at least of that line). There are hundreds (if not thousands, I doubt we'll see real numbers) of us who subscribed to Pathfinder RPG line. We are not only asking for 3 books per year, we've signed up in advance for them.
So the question is not, "Should Paizo stop making rulebooks?" The question is, "What should Paizo's next year or two of books should be?"
LOL,
Good point. :)!Rule Book Guy : "I refuse to buy anything from you Paizo, I've got enough! Now stop making rule books!"
Paizo : "Uh, ok, so, as a non customer, you want us to stop producing books, or you'll what?"
!Rule Book Guy : "I will cease spending my money with you."
Paizo : "I see, so, not only will you not buy anything we put out, but if we don't stop producing books, you'll also stop buying anything we put out?"
!Rule Book Guy : "Exactly!"
Paizo : "So, what 3 crunch books should we put out next year?"
!Rule Book Guy : "DOH!"
Most of the people complaining about too many rulebooks aren't subscribed to the Pathfinder RPG line. But if you are a "Core and done" sort of player, you have already made yourself not a customer (at least of that line). There are hundreds (if not thousands, I doubt we'll see real numbers) of us who subscribed to Pathfinder RPG line. We are not only asking for 3 books per year, we've signed up in advance for them.
So the question is not, "Should Paizo stop making rulebooks?" The question is, "What should Paizo's next year or two of books should be?"
LOL,
Good point. :)!Rule Book Guy : "I refuse to buy anything from you Paizo, I've got enough! Now stop making rule books!"
Paizo : "Uh, ok, so, as a non customer, you want us to stop producing books, or you'll what?"
!Rule Book Guy : "I will cease spending my money with you."
Paizo : "I see, so, not only will you not buy anything we put out, but if we don't stop producing books, you'll also stop buying anything we put out?"
!Rule Book Guy : "Exactly!"
Paizo : "So, what 3 crunch books should we put out next year?"
!Rule Book Guy : "DOH!"
Can we not use ridiculous strawmen? So far this thread has done well avoiding a fight, but here you're actually inviting one.
kthxbai.
LOL,
Good point. :)!Rule Book Guy : "I refuse to buy anything from you Paizo, I've got enough! Now stop making rule books!"
Paizo : "Uh, ok, so, as a non customer, you want us to stop producing books, or you'll what?"
!Rule Book Guy : "I will cease spending my money with you."
Paizo : "I see, so, not only will you not buy anything we put out, but if we don't stop producing books, you'll also stop buying anything we put out?"
!Rule Book Guy : "Exactly!"
Paizo : "So, what 3 crunch books should we put out next year?"
!Rule Book Guy : "DOH!"
Hence, my question: If you don't want more mega-crunch books, what do you want instead?
C'mon man, help me out here. I'm not calling you wrong.
I'm off to take some exams :(
Hope to return to a long, constructive conversation.
Evil Lincoln,
Your OP came off as "No more rule crunch, just adventure stuff".I got more specific after the OP, but I'll forgive you for not reading it yet since the post rate in this thread is ridiculous. I started it and I can't keep up ... despite not having left my computer since.
Somewhere on page 1, I said I think it's about finding a balance. One half of that balance is selling crunch to people who buy crunch. I'm cool with that... I'm just feeling the strain under the APG, UM, and soon UC as well.
Rules-bloat hurting GMs is important too.
The solution is not binary. They can't just say "no more character options", nor should they.
But I think those of us who are hitting a limit should say so. It may be that the limit is just "too much too fast", and not "no more ever".
Maybe I could have picked the thread title better. We've all screwed that one up on occasion, eh?
Yep, we've all done that. :)
I did read the thread, for the first 15 or so posts, and almost every one of them was along the lines of "I refuse to buy any more rule books, stop producing them". That's why I responded the way I did. It's frankly, an untenable position to post from, as you are self-selecting yourself to be ignored by Paizo. :)
I did read the thread, for the first 15 or so posts, and almost every one of them was along the lines of "I refuse to buy any more rule books, stop producing them".
What is in your head is not what is on the screen, MDT.
|
|
Most of the people complaining about too many rulebooks aren't subscribed to the Pathfinder RPG line. But if you are a "Core and done" sort of player, you have already made yourself not a customer (at least of that line). There are hundreds (if not thousands, I doubt we'll see real numbers) of us who subscribed to Pathfinder RPG line. We are not only asking for 3 books per year, we've signed up in advance for them.
So the question is not, "Should Paizo stop making rulebooks?" The question is, "What should Paizo's next year or two of books should be?"
LOL,
Good point. :)!Rule Book Guy : "I refuse to buy anything from you Paizo, I've got enough! Now stop making rule books!"
Paizo : "Uh, ok, so, as a non customer, you want us to stop producing books, or you'll what?"
!Rule Book Guy : "I will cease spending my money with you."
Paizo : "I see, so, not only will you not buy anything we put out, but if we don't stop producing books, you'll also stop buying anything we put out?"
!Rule Book Guy : "Exactly!"
Paizo : "So, what 3 crunch books should we put out next year?"
!Rule Book Guy : "DOH!"
There's always the routine employed by at least one poster in this thread:
"Your company has strayed from the path. Greed and corporate overlords dictate your actions. Your marketing sucks, your approach to customers blows, I'm fed up with you. In order to show just how much I disrespect your actions, I shall do the most terrible thing a customer can do to a company: BUY MORE OF YOUR PRODUCTS. Tremble."
Can we not use ridiculous strawmen? So far this thread has done well avoiding a fight, but here you're actually inviting one.
kthxbai.
It's not a ridiculous strawman, it's a legitimate point that's being made by using absurdity. It's directed at those that have posted "I'm not buying UM or UC or any other player option books past APG". If that is your choice, then you are already a non-customer. Paizo has to listen to the people actually spending money.
!Rule Book Guy : "I refuse to buy anything from you Paizo.
That's hyperbole of the highest order. At no point did anyone say they were going to boycott Paizo. In fact I believe the thread was started with the intent of possibly influencing books for us to purchase in the future.
Lets face it the key to the gaming industry success is putting out books useful to both players and GMs...even the APs do this w/ world infomation and player options. That is the only reason they sell so well.That's what I find so ironic. Player option books have quickly become not useful to me. We'd have to find a way to come up with a book that is useful to both the player and GM without involving player options.
I agree but there does need to be some player options in the books.
Though I am really disliking the use of 'player options' as it denotes player exclusivity that is just not there. Let call it character opitions instead.
|
|
I did read the thread, for the first 15 or so posts, and almost every one of them was along the lines of "I refuse to buy any more rule books, stop producing them". That's why I responded the way I did. It's frankly, an untenable position to post from, as you are self-selecting yourself to be ignored by Paizo. :)
But what if you're more than willing to spend money on rulebooks, just not player's option books?
Hence, my question: If you don't want more mega-crunch books, what do you want instead?
C'mon man, help me out here. I'm not calling you wrong.
I'm off to take some exams :(
Hope to return to a long, constructive conversation.
I did mention them in my first post, but I'll post them again, plus a few more.
Monster PC rules
Equipment Rules (Including a much needed revamping of Craft)
Magic Item Compendiums
Epic Rules
Cosmos creation rules (Granted, a GMG only book)
Psionics Rules
I did read the thread, for the first 15 or so posts, and almost every one of them was along the lines of "I refuse to buy any more rule books, stop producing them".What is in your head is not what is on the screen, MDT.
I could go back and quote 4 or 5 posts if you like that flat out said, I'm not buying books of player options anymore. Would that make it on my screen then?
There's always the routine employed by at least one poster in this thread:
"Your company has strayed from the path. Greed and corporate overlords dictate your actions. Your marketing sucks, your approach to customers blows, I'm fed up with you. In order to show just how much I disrespect your actions, I shall do the most terrible thing a customer can do to a company: BUY MORE OF YOUR PRODUCTS. Tremble."
The only person to type those words was you. Look at yourself, stop trollin'.
I'm curious what kind of games this "keep your options out of my game" crowd runs. Like I've said, I'm marginally anti-rules glut but with MAYBE 2 rule books a year released with player/DM options in them, it's not like it's hard to keep up. This isn't WotC and their 6-10 hardcovers a year +various campaign setting books. Last year we got the APG, this year we get the UM and UC. If next year we get 1 more book...is that really game-breaking for you guys?
I have a much harder time keeping up with APs, personally. OK Paizo, stop making APs until I can play through ALL the previous ones. It's not fair to my playstyle :P
I could go back and quote 4 or 5 posts if you like that flat out said, I'm not buying books of player options anymore. Would that make it on my screen then?I did read the thread, for the first 15 or so posts, and almost every one of them was along the lines of "I refuse to buy any more rule books, stop producing them".What is in your head is not what is on the screen, MDT.
Player options != rule books.
I'd love to see books about the mechanics behind the screen as it were. Easy ways to implement new homebrewed things such as races, traits, feats and the like and how to make sure they're correctly balanced.
|
|
The only person to type those words was you. Look at yourself, stop trollin'.There's always the routine employed by at least one poster in this thread:
"Your company has strayed from the path. Greed and corporate overlords dictate your actions. Your marketing sucks, your approach to customers blows, I'm fed up with you. In order to show just how much I disrespect your actions, I shall do the most terrible thing a customer can do to a company: BUY MORE OF YOUR PRODUCTS. Tremble."
Bah, I should have made myself more clear (blame English as second language) - it was a past action, not in this thread. Apologies! Still, a great example of customer awarness :)
I have a much harder time keeping up with APs, personally. OK Paizo, stop making APs until I can play through ALL the previous ones. It's not fair to my playstyle :P
Again, not even close to my point. Are you guys gonna keep turning this into the thread you claim to hate or what?
If you like the status quo, that's cool with me.
If you agree with my OP, post some new ideas for books and be done with it. Sheesh.
!Rule Book Guy : "I refuse to buy anything from you Paizo.That's hyperbole of the highest order. At no point did anyone say they were going to boycott Paizo. In fact I believe the thread was started with the intent of possibly influencing books for us to purchase in the future.
Even the OP admitted his first post and the title didn't come off with that intention. I admit it was his intention, but it didn't come through until his correction.
I agree wholeheartedly in saying "Let's influence the direction". I'd dearly love to influence them into letting Reynolds into creating a Monstrous PC book.
I just find it wonky for people to post that they aren't interested in buying rule books, and want more non-rule books. At least in the RPG forums (since this is not Golarion specific).
|
I would love to see:
Psionics Book
Complete Equipment book with revisions/better detail on Craft Skills
Magic Item Compendium
And a book that has all the new info from the back of all the AP's!
I plan to get the Ultimate Magic book, but am hesitant to purchase the Ultimate Combat. Mainly because I don't use guns in my fantasy setting nor do I do Oriental Adventures. :(
It's not a ridiculous strawman, it's a legitimate point that's being made by using absurdity. It's directed at those that have posted "I'm not buying UM or UC or any other player option books past APG". If that is your choice, then you are already a non-customer. Paizo has to listen to the people actually spending money.
I buy plenty of stuff from Paizo. As a customer, I am expressing my preferences for what they produce in the future, which includes asking that they not produce books which I feel would be bad for the line in the long run.
Since you seem to be fond of hyperbole, I suppose you'd be ok with Paizo producing the "Pathfinder guide to kidnapping children?" You know, since you aren't personally in the market for books about kidnapping children, why do you care?
|
|
I have a much harder time keeping up with APs, personally. OK Paizo, stop making APs until I can play through ALL the previous ones. It's not fair to my playstyle :PAgain, not even close to my point. Are you guys gonna keep turning this into the thread you claim to hate or what?
In all fairness, you kind of dropped a lighter in a fuel tank with the first post, regardless of your intentions. We're on internets, mate.
I just find it wonky for people to post that they aren't interested in buying rule books, and want more non-rule books. At least in the RPG forums (since this is not Golarion specific).
Rulebooks != Character Options.
|
|
It's not a ridiculous strawman, it's a legitimate point that's being made by using absurdity. It's directed at those that have posted "I'm not buying UM or UC or any other player option books past APG". If that is your choice, then you are already a non-customer. Paizo has to listen to the people actually spending money.Can we not use ridiculous strawmen? So far this thread has done well avoiding a fight, but here you're actually inviting one.
kthxbai.
Uh not quite. Paizo has stated many times that the APs are the bread and butter of the company. So just because you stop buying rule books does not mean you are no longer a customer.
Paizo needs to be conscious that they don't drive away AP purchases because of rule book bloat. If a percentage of the customer base does not buy UC (for example) but the next two APs heavily depend on UC then Paizo has lost a percentage of AP sales. That's the point of stating what you will and won't buy. It all impacts Paizos bottom line.
There are also those who will stop buying APs if it doesn't include APG/UM/UC options. That's people like me! A stick has two ends, you know.
Player options != rule books.I'd love to see books about the mechanics behind the screen as it were. Easy ways to implement new homebrewed things such as races, traits, feats and the like and how to make sure they're correctly balanced.
Player Options are rule books, they have rules for how the player can use those options.
Your examples (which by the way, I'd love to see!) are also player options, as they are used to give the GM ways to expand the options in his game.
The problem is, from a business standpoint, the book you suggest above (which again, I would LOVE!) will not sell as well with players if it requires the GM to make things. If it has pregenerated things made and rules for how they were made, then that would be popular with players as well. But then again, you have a book with direct player options in it.
Hence, my question: If you don't want more mega-crunch books, what do you want instead?
Detailed resource management rules.... a system for diplomacy, guild management, merchant princes, mercenary companies, base building, colonies.
I would love to see a product like the old X-Com computer game where your purchased buildings and upgrades for a base and then built a layout using tiles.
Something along the Immortals box set. Becoming a demigod and advancing your faith with different styles of adventures.
Creating pocket dimensions.
Stronghold building.
Detailed siege, naval, and air warfare.