Maybe a streamlined repackaging of the current game perhaps, but it seems to me that doing a 2nd edition for the sake of it would create for Paizo the same problems that drove former WOTC customers here.
I agree. An updated CRB -maybe a 1.1 version or a rules cyclopaedia -but not something you could really call a 'new' edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, just reading through this thread is making me think that Paizo is going to hold of on a 2nd edition as long as possible. It's not even close to announced and people are already getting all crazy over it.
I think I'm going to need to find a bomb shelter for when it actually does get announced.
|
You guys realize that we're on a de-facto 5th edition already with the 5th printing of the CRB? Each time there is a new printing, the rules are updated, clarified, errataed, etc. At some point, I imagine Paizo might need to redo the CRB just to deal with formatting issues, but I don't think making new rules are necessary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't need a new addition.
They just Need to Errata TWF Into a single feat, where you get the second and 3rd off hand attack based on BAB.
And make Doubleslice work for Power Attack.
Done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys realize that we're on a de-facto 5th edition already with the 5th printing of the CRB? Each time there is a new printing, the rules are updated, clarified, errataed, etc. At some point, I imagine Paizo might need to redo the CRB just to deal with formatting issues, but I don't think making new rules are necessary.
While I absolutely agree, we tend to distinguish between printings and editions in the RPG world. Well, that's my perception anyway.
What I'd love to see is not a mere new printing (we get those all the time), but not a new version (like the steps between 4e and 5e) ... but rather a "Pathfinder, Revised Edition" that actually cuts up a lot of the GMing and Magic item sections, groups relevant rules together (esp. with respect to skills and magic) and incorporates some material from later books into the core.
That, or a rules cyclopedia type product.
Either way, we're still some years off from that, I think.
|
|
While I would like to see a PF 2E. Not for a long while yet. Not a totally different game. Yet neither a rehash for the sake of backward compability. If a PF 2E ever does get released we will have not one but two rpgs with very similar rulesets. Those two rpgs being 3.5 and pF 1E. Paizo has to come up with something more than just "you can still use your old books" as selling point. I knw gamers who still play 3.5 and won't touch PF because they feel it's too similar to 3.5. Coming out with a new edtion that changes nothing is not going to get people who play 3.5 or even PF 1E to switch over. And why would they. If a 2E is more or less unchanged from 1E why would anyone who is satisifed with 1E switch over to 2E.
I want to support Paizo. I'm not dishing out 100$ again for a edition with lttile to no changes. Not when I have access to 3.5 and 1E PF material. Nor will Paizo have the same situation that we had after 3.5 was cancelled. A fanbase unhappy with a new edition. Unhappy that it was no longer supported and unhappy with the changes in 4E. They have to also think of theior bottom line. If making a new different edition will make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A some point, I'd love to see a revised, even more streamlined Pathfinder that gets rid of some clunky artifacts from 3.x that were kept for "backwards compatibility" purposes but don't actually help the system grow very much (certain mechanics like certain feat requirements, certain spells, certain items... not going to wax on specifics but hopefully the gist is gotten). But at the same time keeping the modularity and flavor and feel of the game's "engine" as it were. I'd like to see some specific things like, "If the spell can't be reprinted easily onto a single 3x5 index card, it's too complicated, get rid of it." I'd like classes to be reviewed/revamped/rebooted, started from going from the concept of "okay, what fantasy archetypes* do we want represented in our game and what can we concretely say they should be able to do?" and then filling in with revised existing classes or new classes from there. I'd like to see some supplementary stuff added to core, like the additional combat maneuvers.
I am content to wait a long while for these things (or whatever else comes along).
---
* By which I mean "archetype" in the broad sense of "type of character," not the class mechanic. Speaking of which, I'd like "archetype" named to something else ("kit" or "alternate" would be fine) so I don't have to make this kind of clarification. It's annoying to say, "I want to play a swashbuckler archetype sort of hero," when you mean generally "lightly armored dude with light blade" and someone thinks you mean specifically a rogue with the swashbuckler archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But at the same time keeping the modularity and flavor and feel of the game's "engine" as it were. I'd like to see some specific things like, "If the spell can't be reprinted easily onto a single 3x5 index card, it's too complicated, get rid of it."
A good thought. What I think they should actually do in this case: if it can't fit, determine what mechanics can be generalized to other spells as well, and stick it in the appropriate part of the magic chapter.
For example, telekinesis is a long one, but I don't think it should be cut or simplified. However, the general mechanics for using a spell to perform a maneuver are in there... but they also get used in other spells (like swipe, for example).
It would work, then, to cut the maneuver language out of the telekinesis block and have a general "spell maneuvers" section, either in combat, or better yet under maneuvers, right next to the other CMB calculation. Most long spells actually contain rules that can be generalized to other spells.
Of course, from a technical writing/information architecture standpoint, I would want to actually structure the book around the workflow of the game as it is played — these ideas don't necessarily bear out. Doing it right takes methodical research.
|
|
Or spell cards. One thing that I liked with 4E that is missing in PF is spell cards. It's annoying imo to write out the spell on a index card. While Perriams spellbook is very useful http://www.thegm.org/perramsSpellbook.php it takes a lot of ink. Being able to have the spell at the ready written out would be a huge time saver.
The Core Rulebook is consistently in the Top 10 of Paizo's sales. The PFRPG community is growing.
Even apart from the fact that Paizo mostly makes money off of APs, that fact alone tells us the market for crunch isn't saturated.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I want done is for the spell list to be gone through, and extensively cut and re-leveled. If a spell essentially stomps all over the specialty of another class, or serves to do more to eliminate adventuring than aid it, then either cut the spell, or crank it's level up substantially, or weaken it substantially.
Kill crafting, except maybe for expendable items, and make the creation of those less mundane.
Stop making every g!&#%*n idea for something that can be done into a feat. Just give us rules to do it, don't make a character have to chose between being able to wipe his own ass or pick his own nose at 1st level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rulebook is consistently in the Top 10 of Paizo's sales. The PFRPG community is growing.
Even apart from the fact that Paizo mostly makes money off of APs, that fact alone tells us the market for crunch isn't saturated.
Won't argue that the Core Rulebook is a good book, but I think it could be better.
It is intimidating. Enough so that I have failed to entice multiple people to the game with it.
Knowing that a large portion of it could be removed or streamlined to fix that problem, with little or no impact on the actual gameplay... I can't help but support the idea of a revised edition with an updated presentation.
I think the community could be growing faster if the book were more user-friendly while presenting nearly identical rules. BUT: I have a disproportionately intense opinion on such things, because usability is what I do. I'm biased.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is off subject, but what's with the bard hate? Bards are awesome in Pathfinder. Do people just dislike them in general? Because I think they're mechanically fine (and by that I mean awesome) in Pathfinder. This "those damn bards..." attitude seems to be fairly common, and it baffles me. I'll agree that the core bard was pretty bad in 3.5, but in Pathfinder... they're awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't need a new addition.
They just Need to Errata TWF Into a single feat, where you get the second and 3rd off hand attack based on BAB.
And make Doubleslice work for Power Attack.Done.
You want the extra attacks and benefits, pay the feat tax.
I've seen the phrase 'streamlined rules' used a few times, but not 'Beginner Box'...
If Paizo want to increase profits, I think that they need to continue to do what they do so well AND look at producing a very different game - superheroes or space-opera for example, something that is completely different to Pathfinder.
Paizo has won a huge community of supporters through what they have done, and continue to do with Pathfinder. If they produced a completely new game I would give it a go* knowing that Paizo will have developed it with great play-testing, they will release value-for-money products, they will continue to support it with great adventures and they will be very careful with any revisions and errata.
*assuming it is to my taste - I don't want to play Superheroes....
The Core Rulebook is consistently in the Top 10 of Paizo's sales. The PFRPG community is growing.
Even apart from the fact that Paizo mostly makes money off of APs, that fact alone tells us the market for crunch isn't saturated.
Won't argue that the Core Rulebook is a good book, but I think it could be better.
It is intimidating. Enough so that I have failed to entice multiple people to the game with it.
Knowing that a large portion of it could be removed or streamlined to fix that problem, with little or no impact on the actual gameplay... I can't help but support the idea of a revised edition with an updated presentation.
I think the community could be growing faster if the book were more user-friendly while presenting nearly identical rules. BUT: I have a disproportionately intense opinion on such things, because usability is what I do. I'm biased.
Due to the way the rules interact people will still do a a decent amount of page flipping. I don't of any other way to organize. Well there are small things here and there, but not enough to make a big difference.
Get rid of Bards and Monks and I'll be a happy camper!
Got a good laugh out of this one. :-)
You guys realize that we're on a de-facto 5th edition already with the 5th printing of the CRB? Each time there is a new printing, the rules are updated, clarified, errataed, etc. At some point, I imagine Paizo might need to redo the CRB just to deal with formatting issues, but I don't think making new rules are necessary.
Funny, I would have counted updated printings as a .1 at best so we are on 1.5 but then that is just me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't need a new addition.
They just Need to Errata TWF Into a single feat, where you get the second and 3rd off hand attack based on BAB.
And make Doubleslice work for Power Attack.Done.
You want the extra attacks and benefits, pay the feat tax.
There's a difference between "feat tax" and "mechanical bloat."
Combat Expertise is a tax. Imp/Gtr TWF is bloat.Besides, Conan d20 does it the way STR Ranger suggests and it doesn't break anything.
Crom laughs at your four winds. :}
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between "feat tax" and "mechanical bloat."
Combat Expertise is a tax. Imp/Gtr TWF is bloat.Besides, Conan d20 does it the way STR Ranger suggests and it doesn't break anything.
How can it be "feat bloat" if the feat is available in the CRB? These two feats were also available in 3rd/3.5, so it wasn't "feat bloat" then, either.
Feat bloat cannot be found in a core set of rules. Feat bloat comes from an uncontrolled and unmonitored expansion of feats beyond what is available in the core product.
EDIT: if you like the way Conan does things, then either house-rule it into your PF game, or play that game outright. Don't whine about PF just because you don't like the philosophy of the design.
You guys realize that we're on a de-facto 5th edition already with the 5th printing of the CRB? Each time there is a new printing, the rules are updated, clarified, errataed, etc. At some point, I imagine Paizo might need to redo the CRB just to deal with formatting issues, but I don't think making new rules are necessary.Funny, I would have counted updated printings as a .1 at best so we are on 1.5 but then that is just me.
I'd take it even farther. We're on the 5th printing (4th update) of the crb. I'd call us on version 1.0.5
If Paizo ever does an update along the lines of the 3.0 to 3.5 change, then I'll be calling it 1.1.1 (first version, first revision, first printing )
We really need to get off thinking "edition" as synonymous with "New RPG rules system with the same brand name". It's not.
The rules need to be continously trimmed for balance, transparency and simplicity, in moderation to ensure playability and continuity.
Instead of new versions, they need to keep the only version, reinforcng that brand and penetration, solidifying customer loyalty and learning, as they are doing, but I would like to see a few differences.
1) IP license transparency. When I buy the lifelong untranferrable rights to use the Core material, I want to see it in a nice table, listing all the possible IP-segments I own and don't own.
2) In that matrix, I wish to be able to either have the state I bought, or pay a yearly fee to get my IP-document updated. I think it is crucial that there is a continous stream of funding to an IP segment to keep it good and usable.
3) I want to be guaranteed that the yearly fee pays for rules revisions, text simplifications and improvements, maybe new artwork for races, characters, monsters, weapons, etc.
4) I want to be able to order a personalized paper-print of my IP-segment for a fee. Printing is an addon-service to my IP-purchase, not the main product.
5) I want to be able to vote for given IP artwork is converted into a 3D model, that can then be ordered prepainted individually. Imagine being able to get all the baddies from an adventure. With a continous money-trickle to that adventure, and customer-polled prioritization, that might happen. Maybe it is just a question of displaying the customers preferences, and then add a channel where modelling artists can sell their physical artwork via your homepage (but even better if they are required to turn over the rights to the miniature to Paizo, who then pay a royalty back to the artist every time the figure is produced and sold).
|
|
Feat bloat cannot be found in a core set of rules. Feat bloat comes from an uncontrolled and unmonitored expansion of feats beyond what is available in the core product.So a guy who has always been 300 pounds cannot be called bloated until he gains some more?
Are you talking about someone who started at 180 then ate nothing but McDonalds and blew up to 300 pounds. Or are you talking about someone who is normally 300 pounds?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't need a new addition.
They just Need to Errata TWF Into a single feat, where you get the second and 3rd off hand attack based on BAB.
And make Doubleslice work for Power Attack.Done.
You want the extra attacks and benefits, pay the feat tax.
There's a difference between "feat tax" and "mechanical bloat."
Combat Expertise is a tax. Imp/Gtr TWF is bloat.Besides, Conan d20 does it the way STR Ranger suggests and it doesn't break anything.
There are extra attacks and benefits. But the cost is DAMN steep.
TWF is a style many (including myself) love. DPR wise it can outdo two handing but at the cost of around 5 feats or more and takes a lot of system mastery to do properly AND stops you from taking other stuff.Fixing it doesn't take a rewrite, just add a sentence to the feat description in the next errata (same way they did the stealth nerf on Smite)
For example. (What I would do without cutting out the old feats)
Twf- add this sentence: Your extra blade also aids in disarming foes. Add +1 to Disarm CMB/CMD when you fight with 2 weapons.
Itwf- add this sentence: Your increased skill fighting with two weapons improves.
Whenever you full attack you work your opponents defending limbs further away from their body. They subtract 1 from their AC for every successful strike you make after the first. This penalty applies for 1 round.
This feat has no effect on creatures which do not use manufactured weapons or limbs (oozes) EXAMPLE- If you full attack and hit twice, they take -1 to AC.
GTWF- add this sentence: You have mastered using your offhand for defense. Whenever you full attack, You can give up your 3rd iterative attack with the offhand and the next time an opponent successfully strikes you in combat with a melee or ranged weapon attack you can make an attack roll against their attack. If your result is higher you deflect the attack with no harm to yourself. This ability lasts until your next turn.
Doubleslice- add this sentence. Whenever you use Power Attack with TWF, both limbs get the 1:2 power attack ratio.
The rules need to be continously trimmed for balance, transparency and simplicity, in moderation to ensure playability and continuity.
Instead of new versions, they need to keep the only version, reinforcng that brand and penetration, solidifying customer loyalty and learning, as they are doing, but I would like to see a few differences.
What happens if it turns out there's a rather major rules oversight that can dramatically retroactively affect the rules or character builds? Can you trust that everyone gets the update? I ask because that's one of the key issues right now with the monk/flurry of blows controversy that came up earlier this year. Paizo devs clearly interpret flurry one way, but many--including writers of modules and supplementary books that got published by Paizo--interpreted it another, leading to inconsistent stat blocks. If monk ends up needing a dramatic revision, can you update core in a way that everyone would know about it and make sure they got the updates? I know you address that to a degree in your following remarks, but unless you're assuming everyone switches to some kind of digital-only ruleset where everyone signs into an update system, it would be hard to guarantee that. Take a casual player who bought the Pathfinder RPG rulebook three years ago and pays no attention to the message boards or Paizo blog. If the flurry revision got published, how do we make sure that person finds out? Don't really want you to answer those questions (not to me), just something to ponder.
Me, I like the occasional blank slate to get things rebooted cleanly, but that is a personal preference.
1) IP license transparency. When I buy the lifelong untranferrable rights to use the Core material, I want to see it in a nice table, listing all the possible IP-segments I own and don't own.2) In that matrix, I wish to be able to either have the state I bought, or pay a yearly fee to get my IP-document updated. I think it is crucial that there is a continous stream of funding to an IP segment to keep it good and usable.
3) I want to be guaranteed that the yearly fee pays for rules revisions, text simplifications and improvements, maybe new artwork for races, characters, monsters, weapons, etc.
4) I want to be able to order a personalized paper-print of my IP-segment for a fee. Printing is an addon-service to my IP-purchase, not the main product.
5) I want to be able to vote for given IP artwork is converted into a 3D model, that can then be ordered prepainted individually. Imagine being able to get all the baddies from an adventure. With a continous money-trickle to that adventure, and customer-polled prioritization, that might happen. Maybe it is just a question of displaying the customers preferences, and then add a channel where modelling artists can sell their physical artwork via your homepage (but even better if they are required to turn over the rights to the miniature to Paizo, who then pay a royalty back to the artist every time the figure is produced and sold).
Having trouble wading through your legalese wording, admittedly, but I would imagine that some of the IP issues would be governed and limited by the OGL. If the OGL would not allow for these things (I am admittedly too lazy to reread it right now), then they could not happen -- at least not so long as Pathfinder remains a d20 system game, which as noted above, you want it to be.
Otherwise, it sounds like what you basically want is a subscription to the rules so they auto update as things change. As it is now, while there is no "auto update," if you purchase a .pdf from Paizo, you are notified whenever a new printing is available so you can download the new printing as well as the separate errata document that you can append to your print copy of your book, should you have one.
As digital services advance, I imagine that process can become even easier in years to come. (But as noted above, it does still exclude print only purchasers who do not buy through Paizo.)
|
Are you talking about someone who started at 180 then ate nothing but McDonalds and blew up to 300 pounds. Or are you talking about someone who is normally 300 pounds?
Exactly. You think the TWF feats are the 180 pound guy. He thinks they are the 300 pound guy.
And you are both correct. One mans bloat is another's extra options.
The rules need to be continously trimmed for balance, transparency and simplicity, in moderation to ensure playability and continuity.
Instead of new versions, they need to keep the only version, reinforcng that brand and penetration, solidifying customer loyalty and learning, as they are doing, but I would like to see a few differences.
What happens if it turns out there's a rather major rules oversight that can dramatically retroactively affect the rules or character builds? Can you trust that everyone gets the update? I ask because that's one of the key issues right now with the monk/flurry of blows controversy that came up earlier this year. Paizo devs clearly interpret flurry one way, but many--including writers of modules and supplementary books that got published by Paizo--interpreted it another, leading to inconsistent stat blocks. If monk ends up needing a dramatic revision, can you update core in a way that everyone would know about it and make sure they got the updates? I know you address that to a degree in your following remarks, but unless you're assuming everyone switches to some kind of digital-only ruleset where everyone signs into an update system, it would be hard to guarantee that. Take a casual player who bought the Pathfinder RPG rulebook three years ago and pays no attention to the message boards or Paizo blog. If the flurry revision got published, how do we make sure that person finds out? Don't really want you to answer those questions (not to me), just something to ponder.
Me, I like the occasional blank slate to get things rebooted cleanly, but that is a personal preference.
...
1) IP license transparency. When I buy the lifelong untranferrable rights to use the Core material, I want to see it in a nice table, listing all the possible IP-segments I own and don't own.2) In that matrix, I wish to be able to either have the state I bought, or pay a yearly fee to get my IP-document updated. I think it is crucial that there is a continous
Yes, you are rigth: I want a business model where I can stream funds into the parts that I like and get continously updated. If Paizo reaches a saturation point where they can no longer expand, there is no revenue for them on their original productions, and the incitament to keep improving these lowers (in a business perspective). If they can make it worhwhile for the customer to pay (a little) continously, this can be avoided.
Having played 10+ MMORPGS, all versions of D&D, etc etc, I have experienced what was unlovingly called 'MUDflation', ( multi user dungeon inflation), where each new content expansion had to surpass the previously released content.
I have also seen both Everquest and Dungeons and Dragons loose to the competitiok when they believed that they could make a new version, sell it to existing customers, and keep custumers and loyalty. They both failed miserably, simply because the world changed, and old business dynamics where replaced.
There IS a risk of creating conflicts between content publications if the rules are slowly but continuously improved, as you point out. But if there is funding, these can also be corrected. The proposed business model allows for that.
I am afraid that the alternative is that money streams to Paizo dry out, and they are either forced out of their market position, or are preasured by business logic to make a completely new version, in order to sell books to their customers. This is Wizards failed business model, and it does not work in 2012
Except I don't consider them bloat (uneeded options) or Extra options.
I see them like the pads American footballers wear. Something that people wear cause that's the part of the game. But you shouldn't have to use all that crap just to play your game.
But if you're gonna wear it the gear better be worthwhile. Right now GTWF is rarely worth it.
(Man, I can see that comment might annoy a few people. Forgive me, I am Australian so I don't quite 'get' the whole pads, thing. We play Rugby League and Union here, which also involves Massive blokes smashing each other. ;)
Sorry if the comment offends anyone
I think it's a culture thing myself. I've seen a few American Expats take to Rugby like a Duck to water over here. I don't know the history of Gridiron but I'm sure the pads probably grew out of players thinking the padding would let them go harder.
So providing a real benefit for the extra weight.
The TWF tree should be the same.
ITWF is generally worth it.
GTWF is NOT worth it unless your are getting about +6-10 added to your hit and damage (So fighter or Instant Enemy Ranger)- Generally BASHING FINISH is far better.
Doubleslice sucks until you have a MASSIVE str score.
Hammer the Gap? Please. You need a massive to hit bonus and like 7 attacks to make this worthwhile.
Break guard? Now that is a decent feat.
|
|
Are you talking about someone who started at 180 then ate nothing but McDonalds and blew up to 300 pounds. Or are you talking about someone who is normally 300 pounds?Exactly. You think the TWF feats are the 180 pound guy. He thinks they are the 300 pound guy.
And you are both correct. One mans bloat is another's extra options.
You obviously didn't look at the link. The point I was making was that just because someone is 300 pounds, that doesn't make him bloated.
|
|
You obviously didn't look at the link. The point I was making was that just because someone is 300 pounds, that doesn't make him bloated.
You obviously missed my point. He could just as easily BE bloated.
You are subjectively stating that PF core has no feat bloat, and he is subjectively stating that it does. And you are both correct.
That is actually very apt. Not only feat wise but example wise as well.
The 'heavy hitter' type positions in NFL tend to carry alot more fat than wide receivers etc.
A professional Prop (our version of a heavy hitter) in Rugby League/Union tends to run around 250-265pounds Max and 6-10% bodyfat between 6" to 6"4in.
So me looking at that picture sees a guy who could lose a few pounds.
But different sports, so my view IS askew. There is a hell of a lot more running in league (Our teams line up 10metres apart before running at each other and play doesn't stop unless the ball is dropped or someone scores)
Obviously to have made it as a Professional NFL player, he is in peak fitness for HIS sport.
Annyyway, end of derail
Honestly, given that TWF can out-damage a two-handed build it probably needs to be more than one feat. However, I think the extra feats should provide more than an iterative attack - or else, if it is consolidated into one feat, the extra attacks should be conditional on dexterity - you get one extra attack qith 15 dex; 17 dex and you get a second, iterative attack with the off-hand weapon; 19 dex etc.
I'd also like to see a new or updated edition contain an updated and improved monk and rogue. A lot of archetypes could be incorporated as options in the core classes with a little thought...
What I wouldn't like to see is an updated edition with a repeat of all the old supplements then re-released, but I think Paizo are wise enough to avoid that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I wouldn't like to see is an updated edition with a repeat of all the old supplements then re-released, but I think Paizo are wise enough to avoid that.You sure? When I scratched the paint on the Ultimates and APG, I saw 3.5 splats underneath.
I scratched some more and saw two dead bearded American geeks staring at me.
I can't sleep now.
What I wouldn't like to see is an updated edition with a repeat of all the old supplements then re-released, but I think Paizo are wise enough to avoid that.You sure? When I scratched the paint on the Ultimates and APG, I saw 3.5 splats underneath.
Yeah, but at least six were crammed into each of them, so much better value for money.
What I was thinking was that perhaps an updated Pathfinder would be published in a different format, more like a rules encyclopaedia with updated parts inserted. So ALL the feats are included, ALL the spells, ALL the items, ALL the classes, etc.
Honestly, given that TWF can out-damage a two-handed build it probably needs to be more than one feat. However, I think the extra feats should provide more than an iterative attack - or else, if it is consolidated into one feat, the extra attacks should be conditional on dexterity - you get one extra attack qith 15 dex; 17 dex and you get a second, iterative attack with the off-hand weapon; 19 dex etc.
You're comparing the fully-feated TWF to the fully-feated THF though.
If you roll Imp. and Gtr TWF into the combat style and remove them as feats, you still end up with a style that requires more feats and has a higher penalty to hit than THF (which still only requires PA to be successful).
First, let me second the question of what's with all the Bard hate? It's a staple of the game and has been for a long time, since 1st edition, granted it acted more like a Prestige Class back then but it was still there. If you really have a hate-on for Bards then just ignore them in your games.
I'd take it even farther. We're on the 5th printing (4th update) of the crb. I'd call us on version 1.0.5
If Paizo ever does an update along the lines of the 3.0 to 3.5 change, then I'll be calling it 1.1.1 (first version, first revision, first printing )
We really need to get off thinking "edition" as synonymous with "New RPG rules system with the same brand name". It's not.
I agree 100%. Rather than a 2nd edition we need to start looking at it like iterations of software. Minecraft is great example of a game you pay for once and then gets updated with new systems and changes on a regular basis. Sometimes people like the changes, sometimes they don't, but they're incorporated in a way that makes transition mostly seamless and comfortable.
In the end, I agree with those who say it's mostly a matter of streamlining certain portions of the rules and making the Core Book a bit more organized.
As for getting out the rules updates, the online PRD certainly helps with that. Personally, I think more needs to be done to promote Paizo's online presence. Most of us hardcore gamers who are actively involved with the online community know about the forums and the PRD but there is still a good chunk of the gamer population that is mostly offline. This brings me to the next quote I want to address:
The rules need to be continously trimmed for balance, transparency and simplicity, in moderation to ensure playability and continuity.
Instead of new versions, they need to keep the only version, reinforcng that brand and penetration, solidifying customer loyalty and learning, as they are doing, but I would like to see a few differences.
This part I agree with wholeheartedly. Well, except for the bit about brand reinforcement and penetration. They're already competing for top market share, the brand is well-known in the industry, so any new efforts toward market penetration (or any of the 4 standard growth strategies) would need to be carefully considered and then reconsidered. Market expansion and growth can sometimes be misconstrued as needlessly aggressive behaviour. Now, I did note that you said "reinforce" rather than "increase" which is good, but as for how you address it:
A bunch of IP stuff listed in 5 points.
I get what you're trying to say here but, as Deathquaker rightly points out, not everyone else may be able to follow your jargon.
Now just to make sure we're on the same page here regarding your proposed business model, do you think Paizo SHOULD be changing or adjusting their business model? I like some of your suggestions but I'm not sure they're the best possible options.
First, updating business models is far more risky and resource-intensive than just updating editions. Couple that with the fact that most people (and I agree) believe that there is no need for a new edition right now. Which may indicate there wouldn't be a need for a new business model either.
Second, you've positioned your suggestions as solutions, but to what problem? I don't currently see an issue where these solutions could be applied.
Third, to quote you further -
I am afraid that the alternative is that money streams to Paizo dry out, and they are either forced out of their market position, or are preasured by business logic to make a completely new version, in order to sell books to their customers. This is Wizards failed business model, and it does not work in 2012
This is where I definitely do not agree. There is more than one alternative. Also, Wizards may or may not have failed, but regardless of that fact you seem to be implying that WotC and Paizo have the same business model. They do not. They may share some similarities but they have drastically different business models. So proposing solutions for WotC's problems won't do anything to help Paizo's. I'll grant you that there may be some viability in using Wizard's issues for Benchmarking but that's about it.
Going back to what Gorbacz pointed out earlier in the thread, many people overlook the fact that Wizards built their model around selling rulebooks while Paizo built their current model around selling adventure modules and setting material. This is the primary reason why they shouldn't be changing their business model. Even if Paizo did have problems (though they're doing just fine by the looks of things) they would need to address their business model from the standpoint of their largest source of revenue which is setting material not rules.
Now I also said that I liked many of your points, and I do, but I see them as improvements that can be made to help them lay the groundwork for updating the rules as needed down the road. An increased focus toward iterative updates through digital and online distribution could certainly help with that. Again, I think it comes down to improving on the services and organization of the PRD while at the same time increasing the awareness and promotion of their digital and online tools.
Meh, everyone knows Australians are tougher than Americans, what with needing armor skin to survive everything trying to kill them.
Often it is a high reflex save. Spiders in the dunny, swooping attack birds, crocodiles chasing you up banks, snakes being random encounters on bike rides.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, everyone knows Australians are tougher than Americans, what with needing armor skin to survive everything trying to kill them.Often it is a high reflex save. Spiders in the dunny, swooping attack birds, crocodiles chasing you up banks, snakes being random encounters on bike rides.
Well, both Aussies and Yanks are descended from prime stock aren't they? Us Brits didn't conquer 1/4 of the world from one little island by being a bunch of pussies...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, both Aussies and Yanks are descended from prime stock aren't they? Us Brits didn't conquer 1/4 of the world from one little island by being a bunch of pussies...Meh, everyone knows Australians are tougher than Americans, what with needing armor skin to survive everything trying to kill them.Often it is a high reflex save. Spiders in the dunny, swooping attack birds, crocodiles chasing you up banks, snakes being random encounters on bike rides.
Nah. That's just how you lost it. ;-)
(Too easy there....Just couldn't ignore the opening.)