|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was successful up the the point where they decided to throw it away. ^^It wasn't really. They started losing sales big time to third party developers whose success wasn't putting a dime in Hasbro's coffers. Case in point, if I was running a Warcraft d20 campaign and buying up every supplement that came out for it, I wasn't spending my money on the encyclopedia of Forgotten Realms supplements. While the open gaming license generated good will for WOTC, that good will did not translate to additional dollars in the long run.
Rememmber success for a company whether it's WOTC or Paizo rests largely on the balance sheet after all is said and done. Fan acclaim by itself doesn't pay the bills.
+1
Very well said and agree completely. The fanbase forget that fan acclaim and goodwill are not accepted forms of currency. It was a grand experiement that while successful hurt the company that created it imo.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd hazard to say that a big chunk of Paizo's success comes from the fact that they're seen as "the company that uses OGL the way it was supposed to be used" (hint: WotC's policy on their open content and Paizo's policy on their open content, WotC's policy on 3PP open content and Paizo's policy on 3PP open content).
Observe how 3PP OGL market helps Paizo sell more stuff: if I buy APG I can be sure that 3PP's will have additional stuff for Alchemists and Witches, unlike WotC where I bought Book of 9 Swords and could count on virtually zero support for that.
So yeah, you can throw all your crunch content for free online and still make that other company look silly. It's all about how you handle things, and WotC's talent for setting themselves on fire and then trying to put that fire out by pouring gasoline over is legendary at this point.
|
|
Having an OGL does not guarantee that ot will sell you more products. I also buy books for the Hero System. There are a few third part products that use their system which I have no interest in. Just as I buy mainly Paizo PF and have very little or no interest in 3PP. At least at this point. People need to understand that just because they have certain buying habits does not mean that everyone has such similar habits. If the OGL was a huge success then every rpg would have one. We jave a few yet it has not been adopted by every rpg company. Many are still closed source as opposed to open source in their material.
Welby, I'd like to reward your reasoned thinking by reading your book. Are you published?
Gosh, thanks! I'm Run Amok Games, with products here. I've also written (and am still writing) plenty for Headless Hydra games here, Paizo's Pathfinder Society, Rite Publishing, Open Design, and an upcoming adventure with Raging Swan.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the kind of thing you do for a closed beta, not a public play test. Hasbro has too many lawyers.Impossible. You can never have too many lawyers.
Counselor, I concur!
|
I'd hazard to say that a big chunk of Paizo's success comes from the fact that they're seen as "the company that uses OGL the way it was supposed to be used" (hint: WotC's policy on their open content and Paizo's policy on their open content, WotC's policy on 3PP open content and Paizo's policy on 3PP open content).
Observe how 3PP OGL market helps Paizo sell more stuff: if I buy APG I can be sure that 3PP's will have additional stuff for Alchemists and Witches, unlike WotC where I bought Book of 9 Swords and could count on virtually zero support for that.
So yeah, you can throw all your crunch content for free online and still make that other company look silly. It's all about how you handle things, and WotC's talent for setting themselves on fire and then trying to put that fire out by pouring gasoline over is legendary at this point.
Perhaps. I think the "talent for setting themselves on fire" is not really the case anymore, and I honestly don't see this as one of those occasions. They are trying to be much more accommodating this time around. There are a lot of people who won't trust them no matter what (tries to avoid looking at anyone in particular) and knee-jerk but then that's just life and this board. And Paizo have certainly played their hand well to date.
|
|
This is being billed as a public playtest, but is actually a playtest for a subset of the public that enters into an agreement with WotC. Those two things aren't equivalent.That doesn't make it suddenly not public. For instance, most games' public betas involve an agreement that must be entered into before the individual can participate. It's like saying, "It's billed as a public park, but it's really only for a subset of the public that agrees to pick up any poop their dogs might leave behind! How dare they call it public!" It seems like some of you are trying to purposefully redefine the meaning of the word "public" as it applies to playtests in an effort to make it look like WotC has somehow lied to you. They haven't, and it's sad that some of you are trying to twist it into that. You don't need to be constant haters just to maintain your gamer cred. We won't think less of you.
Now, now, Scott. No need to condescend. This is one of those cases where I don't think there's reason to expound upon what I've already said in order to contradict what you said. People don't enter a legal agreement to walk their dog in the park, regardless of what the sign says. There may be local laws around poop scooping, but those laws apply to everyone and are non-consensual. They apply to me, even though I don't have a pet. Should I acquire one, I am automagically subject to them. I don't have to sign on a dotted line.
Measure the absurdity of the agreement by the fact that there is a thread in this very forum section that is speaking so hesitantly about the things in the playtest that it's impossible to derive any details from the thread whatsoever. Based on the agreement, that sort of discussion in a non-WotC forum amongst people who both have and have not entered into the agreement should be fine.It is fine. People are losing their crap at the mere shadow of a legal agreement, and I'm really not sure why. They enter into agreements all the time. They've probably entered into more onerous agreements on this very website when purchasing material from Paizo, or opting into a Community Use License. But it's WotC, and people seem to enjoy finding new and exciting ways to flip out every time WotC exhales.
They're not used to doing it with a gaming company, I think. WotC has never (to my knowledge) run a playtest like this before, and Paizo certainly didn't require anything like what we're seeing for the PF Beta (for a number of reasons, mostly the OGL being in place, I assume). Remember, this is D&D, which represents (to whatever degree this is a thing) the mainstream role-player. These folks may not have ever playtested anything before. It's a little jarring, that's all.
Anyway, I'm not a hater (well, I hated 4th and what they did with FR in 4th - but I don't have to love everything a company does not not be a "hater", right?), I like what I see in the playtest, and I hope for the best.
|
So yeah, you can throw all your crunch content for free online and still make that other company look silly.
I'm not quite sure it is fair to say that Paizo is making WotC look silly. WotC has had a very VERY light schedule of print products for several years now, since well before Paizo started to win the past few quarters. The simple fact of the matter is that WotC has been focused on D&D Insider rather than retail sales. If 5E puts the focus back on the books/print releases, I'd be very surprised if D&D didn't kick Pathfinder back into the #2 slot almost immediately. Hell, as light as their retail product schedule has been, I find the fact that they're still hanging onto the #2 slot pretty damn incredible.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I suggest that the people who are objecting to the playtesting agreement don't bother with the playtest and let the rest of us help decide what 5E will look like.
We don't need your input, anyway. So there! :P
For me, it's an 'industry curiosity' more than anything. I have my Pathfinder, and Radiance arrived yesterday, and I've yet to fully digest it. I've neither the time nor the inclination to muck around with 5.x
My comment was aimed at the "You're paranoid and stupid! And don't have any reason to be so!" comments.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My comment was aimed at the "You're paranoid and stupid! And don't have any reason to be so!" comments.
I don't think anyone is necessarily paranoid or stupid. But most people don't understand how IP protection works or know what is standard in the field. Or, they still hate WotC for its unforgivable crimes against humanity.
These agreements exist to provide WotC with a shield against a claim by a playtester that they somehow have rights to the IP they contributed. This is particularly important given that there will likely be significant overlap between what WotC has discussed internally and what playtesters communicate in feedback.
Sure, WotC can use it as a sword if they want to get aggressive, but that's fairly unlikley unless the product (a) actually violates their copyright with big chunks of stolen text and (b) makes enough bank that it is perceived as a threat. Yes, this could happen, just as it's entirely possible that Apple could decide tomorrow to brick my iPhone because I talked trash about their end user license in this post, but the possibility is negligible.
I can't seem to find the Paizo forum user agreement, but I suspect that it contains the same provisions that every other forum user agreement contains, including ownership rights in every post everyone here has ever made. Any company that accepts solicitations of IP also requires that a form accompany such solicitations stating that the IP is owned by the entity (*cough* RPG Superstar *cough*). The fact that Paizo didn't require such a form in connection with their playtesting is more unusual than WotC requiring such a form.
Now, all that said, I know that the myth persists among many in the gaming community that their epic idea for a 38 part fantasy saga which will spawn videogames, movies, and porn paraodies is so super awesome that others will steal it at a drop of the hat. If a person falls within that segment, I think labeling them as paranoid is nicer than calling them delusional, but it's a close call.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"Really, WotC ninjas aren't going to be at your house, in your bushes, or hinding in your roof to make sure your group of friends all sign the thing. And they know this. Sheesh."
"No, you just can't run a playtest unless all your friends agree to a fairly standard and almost utterly inoffensive contract."
"If you find yourself itching to use it as proof that "WotC just doesn't get it," you're probably part of the problem anyway."
"They haven't, and it's sad that some of you are trying to twist it into that. You don't need to be constant haters just to maintain your gamer cred. We won't think less of you."
"Unfortunately, there are a handful of rather paranoid individuals (who also don't do close readings of the legal documents they are prompted to agree to) who come up with outlandish conclusions about what you can and can't do, and they're currently in the process of poisoning the well."
Just to list some of the "you're paranoid and stupid, and have no reason to be" comments.
I understand the 'shield WotC from playtester jerkiness' bit. (Look at the stories about the Erandi Light Horse in Battletech sometime)
The concerns I addressed were aimed mostly at people who are working on other projects, and parallel development.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't speak for the peanut gallery's thoughts on who is paranoid and stupid, I merely expressed my opinion on paranoia and stupidity. If pressed, I'd say that concerns regarding the terms of the playtest NDA are uninformed and/or overblown, but that is not an uncommon result when someone actually reads a legal document they are signing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I should have included I don't put you as part of the 'paranoid and stupid' group. Also given the lawsuit antics of this guy a little bit of questioning the language of any contract is good.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I couldn't be bothered to wade through the random partisan jabberings in the link, but, uh, the claims made aren't based on contract law. There's a world of difference between "some random dude can sue you for any reason (even without merit) because that's how our legal system works" and "an established subsidiary of a publicly traded corporation using a standard form and procedure will abuse said form to bring a suit without merit". And, there's an even larger divide between partisan reporting of some random dude suing someone and the truth. But none of that really relates to anything here, so I'm not sure why we're even dicussing it.
Once again, the gaming community is its own worst enemy.
Scott, although I haven't always agreed with everything you have to say, I can throw my weight behind this statement 100%. Sadly, this thread and others like it are living proof.
If you have a group where not everyone is signed up, only those who are signed up can give them information. The ones left out won't be invited to fill out a survey.
And putting aside the NDA, aren't WotC shooting themselves in the foot in terms of player response? As with 4E, I've got no problem with the system, but think WotC still hasn't come to terms with PR in the information age.
Things were so much simpler back when the DM bought the books and xeroxed them for the rest of the group.
There are a lot of people who won't trust them no matter what (tries to avoid looking at anyone in particular) and knee-jerk but then that's just life and this board. And Paizo have certainly played their hand well to date.
Why would you ever trust them? They lied to our face. Not two weeks before 4th edition was announced (and well into development) their employees were on their own boards swearing up and down that there were no plans yet for a 4th edition. Their claim to fame was a card game designed to be addictive. Trust? why on earth would you ever? I can see liking their products, but trust them? really?
Now as for the play test. I'm finding there are too many rules missing to make a judgement call on the game as a whole. But individually:
The advantage/disadvantage stuff is just going to result in more die rolls. Oh I'm A/D I have to roll twice (and there are a lot of spells, abilities and monsters that inflict this).
Backgrounds and Themes: These smell like cookie cutter builds that remove options from players. "Oh well i'm a 5th level guardian so I get this power" and really sounds like a way for them to sell more booster packs.. I mean books.
No skill points to choose. Your background dictates them. More over-simplification/cookie cutter that I don't care for.
I need to take a second look but it seems like the pcs deal out way more damage then the monsters. I also can't tell if they have removed HD for monsters so you have a formula to vary Hp or just left that off for now.
The goblin king does not sound like david bowie.
Why would you ever trust them? They lied to our face. Not two weeks before 4th edition was announced (and well into development) their employees were on their own boards swearing up and down that there were no plans yet for a 4th edition.
Because everyone in the organization knew about the edition in advance...even message board moderators?
But assuming for a moment what you say is true, and that they "swore up and down," surely producing a link would be no trouble? Because I keep reading this, but oddly no one ever provides a link.
Why would you ever trust them? They lied to our face. Not two weeks before 4th edition was announced (and well into development) their employees were on their own boards swearing up and down that there were no plans yet for a 4th edition.Because everyone in the organization knew about the edition in advance...even message board moderators?
But assuming for a moment what you say is true, and that they "swore up and down," surely producing a link would be no trouble? Because I keep reading this, but oddly no one ever provides a link.
You think the corporate overlords would leave evidence of such a heinous crime? Hasbro have a "department of education" who comb message boards from years ago ensuring they match the megacorporation's preferred account of history. LDO.
actually If i recall correctly, it was shortly after they announced 4th edition that they started up that Gleemax nonsense and had everyone move to new forums.
So forgive me, but i'm not going to humor you and go look through some dead forums from 5 years ago. If they are even accessible anymore.
They were trying pretty hard to kill off 3rd edition after all.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... here's an insight....
...From what I'm hearing... they haven't got a game.
I'm not worried about download issues-I'm not giving that company a single ounce of my insight or experience.
I'm not interested in Sixth Edition, or Seventh, or Fifth-I'm completely finished with anything coming from that company.
Further, they've demonstrated:
>They can cancel Dungeon and Dragon magazines in a moment's notice.
>They can cull all the legacy AD&D module .PDFs overnight
>They can design a game that isn't in step with the spirit of it's origins, history, traditions, or culture
>They can fire their designers every Thanksgiving
>They can advertise using nasty messaging toward "senior" gamers i.e. grognards, and , neo-grognards
>They cannot, to save their lives, anticipate high load on their servers when releasing information nor take appropriate action to correct it
>They can fill the industry with poor quality splat books
>They can rally the gamer-based with intention to split, divide and conquer when it suits their financial interests
>They created, and continue to foster a hostile rules-lawyer style of gamist play that draws support from their Magic the Gathering background, and is further compounded by ritual college-like 4-year cycles of repeatedly printing and publishing the same material over and over again in different ways, while gouging the general gaming community
>They can stop providing free supporting content when hiding it behind a subscription price puts free money in their pockets.
>They renounced Gary G., and wouldn't even speak with him when he sat alive at GENCON on Gygax street, but then paid platitudes to him when they decide to reprint the 1e AD&D DMG and PHB.
Therefore: they will not receive a single word of support from me.
D&D neXt is little more than the death knell of 4e support, and the revelation of their own continued greed, neglect, and disconnect from the gaming community.
^ here here.
You know what I don't understand. Considering how different 4th edition is from this "next" and how different it was from 3rd. Why they feel the need to kill off previous editions and can't just support both. I can understand maybe not printing new material for older editions in book format. But maintaining the edition on the web should be easy enough.
|
|
Just a quick question to Pax Veritas:
Why are you even posting in the D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) subforum when most of your posts are in direct violation of the "Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or other companies in the industry, will not be tolerated." clause of the rules for the subforum?
looks like a 2 month delay between the announcement of 4th and the start of gleemax. If the internet is to be believed anyway.
|
|
looks like a 2 month delay between the announcement of 4th and the start of gleemax. If the internet is to be believed anyway.
Sorry, my bad. I must be misremembering then.
But then again, as far as the internet is concerned, WotC dropped Gleemax at the end of 2008, the very same year as 4e was released. So, I don't think there's much of a connection between those two.
actually If i recall correctly, it was shortly after they announced 4th edition that they started up that Gleemax nonsense and had everyone move to new forums.
So forgive me, but i'm not going to humor you and go look through some dead forums from 5 years ago. If they are even accessible anymore.
They were trying pretty hard to kill off 3rd edition after all.
So...you're the latest person to repeat that claim who can't substantiate it? I'm shocked, I tell you.
If it's any comfort, I'm sure you won't be the last.
|
|
Just a quick question to Pax Veritas:
Why are you even posting in the D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) subforum when most of your posts are in direct violation of the "Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or other companies in the industry, will not be tolerated." clause of the rules for the subforum?
I wonder why also. The ones yelling the loudest and bothered the most are the ones that have no wish to buy 5E let alone support Wotc. Why even post in the section of the fourm where you can discuss 5E and Wotc related topics. In some vain hope that somehow they stop people from buying 5E.
Good luck with that.
It seems unless a mod gets involved directly the ""Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or other companies in the industry, will not be tolerated." clause" is imo doing nothing at all.
Time to take a Paizo break.
WotC has annoyed me on more than one occasion, but the groupthink and unrelenting bile for all things D&D/WotC is just killing these boards right now.
*closes browser and walks off*
The playtest terms and conditions seem to align with any non-internal test that I've ever played in. Video game beta tests use this language all the time. You probably already agreed to certain terms similar to this when playing other games and haven't realized it since they hid it a little more. From my perspective, WotC just emphasised it a little more so they can have a very clear legal path towards any transgressors (ie: industry folks stealing their ideas).
Another thing to remember: being the 'big dog' in the industry, means that they're more likely to get targeted by fraud (or whatever). So the lawyering is meant to help protect from that. As any company gets larger their legal presence must increase as well, else they run the risk of losing their ideas, etc. And as many have said: if you don't like the terms, don't agree to them! You are given that option... the public/closed/whatever test is totally optional. Getting semantical about a fairly standard EULA is silly. (unless you really are worried about WotC-ninjas in your bushes...)
I check for ninjas daily...
Edit: While I have no personal problem with wotc as they created the game that first got me into rping I just want to say I'm happy with my pathfinder system and don't plan on taking part in the playtest. I also understand that means I don't have the right to complain about any decisions made. Aka: if you don't vote don't complain about the president, governor, etc...
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can only benefit our hobby for dndnext to succeed
Just a quick question to Pax Veritas:
Why are you even posting in the D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) subforum when most of your posts are in direct violation of the "Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or other companies in the industry, will not be tolerated." clause of the rules for the subforum?
I wonder why also. The ones yelling the loudest and bothered the most are the ones that have no wish to buy 5E let alone support Wotc. Why even post in the section of the fourm where you can discuss 5E and Wotc related topics. In some vain hope that somehow they stop people from buying 5E.
Good luck with that.
It seems unless a mod gets involved directly the ""Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or other companies in the industry, will not be tolerated." clause" is imo doing nothing at all.
My suggestion is to flag it and wait until after the weekend.
Responding to posts about D&D:Next from someone who hasnt looked at it and has avowed not to is hardly going to help (I mean how does one respond to "I would further state, that advantage/disadvantage is called GURPS."?). The moderators are pretty good at closing down purely insulting posts whilst allowing debate, in my experience.
It's easy to forget that hanging out here and policing posts (and probably this subforum in particular) is probably an unappealing aspect of the Paizo crew's job - they're not espousing ill-informed opinions for fun like the rest of us are doing here.
^ here here.
You know what I don't understand. Considering how different 4th edition is from this "next" and how different it was from 3rd. Why they feel the need to kill off previous editions and can't just support both. I can understand maybe not printing new material for older editions in book format. But maintaining the edition on the web should be easy enough.
At this stage they are intending the 4E tools on DDI to remain. Of course, I havent seen any statement about how long that will be the case. I'm hoping it will be indefinite though (they still have some 3.5 stuff online, so I dont see it as totally impossible).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you ever trust them? They lied to our face. Not two weeks before 4th edition was announced (and well into development) their employees were on their own boards swearing up and down that there were no plans yet for a 4th edition. Their claim to fame was a card game designed to be addictive. Trust? why on earth would you ever? I can see liking their products, but trust them? really?
<sigh> We all know that any company will deny this until they are ready to launch officially. This has been discussed ad nauseaum before, and is reasonable. Paizo never mentioned that they were going to launch PF (a system not entirely compatible with with their early output) until they did. The only difference is that people didn't pester Paizo about what game system they were launching every five minutes. Who you trust and don't trust is up to you, but some of us don't wear lead-lined helmets.
And it is less about trust, and more about understanding how companies operate.
|
|
^ here here.
You know what I don't understand. Considering how different 4th edition is from this "next" and how different it was from 3rd. Why they feel the need to kill off previous editions and can't just support both. I can understand maybe not printing new material for older editions in book format. But maintaining the edition on the web should be easy enough.
You're agreeing with Pax? Man, I was right about the helmet stuff...
|
|
<sigh> We all know that any company will deny this until they are ready to launch officially. This has been discussed ad nauseaum before, and is reasonable. Paizo never mentioned that they were going to launch PF (a system not entirely compatible with with their early output) until they did. The only difference is that people didn't pester Paizo about what game system they were launching every five minutes. Who you trust and don't trust is up to you, but some of us don't wear lead-lined helmets.And it is less about trust, and more about understanding how companies operate.
Now you know why it's frustrating to come on these boards sometimes. It's like posters act like Wotc is the only company to behave a certain way and they are not. Kind of getting tireod of reading "did you see what Wotc did???" My response is suck it up other rpg and non-rpg companies do the same. Why the hell should you hobby be special or any different.
|
|
Backgrounds and Themes: These smell like cookie cutter builds that remove options from players. "Oh well i'm a 5th level guardian so I get this power" and really sounds like a way for them to sell more booster packs.. I mean books.No skill points to choose. Your background dictates them. More over-simplification/cookie cutter that I don't care for.
They are exactly that, the L&L articles explained that Themes and Backgrounds are Feat and Skill delivery systems, they are there to help new players and those who just want to choose race and class and play. To use the metaphor WotC used, they are the set price 3 course lunch menu.
However, they have made it clear that there will be options for players to go ala carte and wade through the shopping list of feats and skills if they want.
It's quite genius really, and something that could even be grafted onto PF if you wanted to - it may have been a good idea for the Beginner Box.
|
|
My understanding is that all characters get a number of skills trained at 1st level, dictated by their Background, but at later levels you will gain more skill "slots" (in quotes because I'm not sure on the terminology) which you can either use to train new skills (gaining the +3 bonus for training) or increase the bonus of one of your already trained skills. Don't know how big a bonus, but as I suspect a system of diminishing returns to prevent players from turning their characters into one-trick ponies, I suspect that a skill can only be boosted three times: once for the +3 training bonus, once again for a total of +5, and finally for a total of +6, so that each "rank" grants an improvement of one less than the previous rank.
So there will be skill customization, but going with the flatter math that they are going for it will be more incremental and not increase flatly with your level.
I quite like it, as it reminds me of the skill system from Rules Cyclopedia, where every character started with the same number of skills and received more skills every third level or so. Those skills could either be used to train new skills or to improve previously purchased skills.
|
|
Therefore: they will not receive a single word of support from me.
No, but they will receive a loads of words bad mouthing them, why is that? From your comments I assume you don'tplay 4e and by your presence on these forums I assume you play PF, so why have any hate for D&D Next? Do you go on forums for other RPGs you don't play and bad mouth them?
Are you perhaps insecure about PF and worried that Next may be successful and threaten its popularity? If so have some faith in Paizo and the quality of the PF game.
Incidentally, I am not the biggest fan of Paizo and I could easily bad mouth them, and I actually play PF and buy Paizo products, but I don't because it's bad form, purely based on my own perceptions and prejudices, doesn't do anything to promote the games I like, they do a lot of stuff I think is great, and mainly because I am not a dick.
D&D neXt is lit tle more than the death knell of 4e support, and the revelation of their own continued greed, neglect, and disconnect from the gaming community.
PF was the deathknell of 3pp support for 3.5 (and yes it was getting 3pp support after WotC dropped 3.5), does that make Paizo a bad company?
Disconnect from the gaming community? Maybe in the past, but they are trying to change that now and once again reach out, but it still seems some people out there are still bitter and try to sabotage those efforts. Luckily judging by the number of posts on the WotC forums and elsewhere, and by their Facebook likes and posts, they are succeeding in connecting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF was the deathknell of 3pp support for 3.5 (and yes it was getting 3pp support after WotC dropped 3.5), does that make Paizo a bad company?
Necromancer, Goodman, Green Ronin and Mongoose all bailed 3.5 at the advent of 4E long before PFRPG arrived, just so we have our facts straight while praising WotC for being the best thing since sex.