Mythic Adventures


Product Discussion

301 to 350 of 626 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Aaron Scott 139 wrote:
See Bugly the problem is you are taking "The sky is falling!" knee jerk reaction approach to a product announcement that 1) we barely know anything about and 2) will be available for play testing. Why get all freaked out about it now?

Really? Because I don't feel like I'm doing that at all. It sounds like I may personally be skipping the next AP. I think the knee-jerk reaction would be to prognosticate doom for the AP and/or Paizo itself, express anger, claim I'll never give Paizo another dime, etc. I am doing none of those things.

I did allude to my desire for clarification as to whether the next AP will truly be useless to those unintereted in Mythic rules.

Sovereign Court

bugleyman wrote:

Full disclosure: I have not watched or heard a recording of the Mythic panel -- what I know is based on reading threads here on Paizo.com.

This sounds like a train wreck. At the very least, please please please get someone with a solid understanding of math and statistics (read: degree in math) involved in developing these rules.

It also sounds like I may have to drop my AP sub (again) after Shattered Star. Compromising the utility of your flagship product to everyone not interested in Mythic play seems like an odd decision...perhaps I am misunderstanding?

I like that Paizo support their RPG line, as long as they keep the 'core assumption' valid then I am cool with that. It will probably mean putting some mythic stuff in the PG...

I know the core assumption sometimes wobbles but generally you can run APs with just Core Rulebook + Besitaries

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bugleyman. Mythic Levels specifically don't increase the "Math" on the PCs but gives them abilities that make up for that. No increase in Base Attack Bonus, Caster Level, Base Saves, or Skill Points. They get a few special abilities that they can use with the expenditure of mythic points that help offset the mathematical difference between, for example, a Level 6 party and a Level 9 encounter, making this an average encounter for the party if they had 3 Mythic Levels.

If I had to be concerned with the Math of this system, it would be with the Experience Charts (and even that probably won't be difficult to resolve, just treat the level 9 encounter in the above example as a level 6 encounter on the EXP chart) and probably not much else, just based off what I am hearing.

I'm pretty excited about this.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Starsunder wrote:
Man reading about these I'm pretty freakin pumped. Are we just getting one huge book with these rules, similar to the ELH 3.0 that covered the PC *and* monster side of things?
Yes. Mythic Adventures will cover pc tracks as well as have monsters and a sample adventure.

AWESOME

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Aaron Scott 139 wrote:
See Bugly the problem is you are taking "The sky is falling!" knee jerk reaction approach to a product announcement that 1) we barely know anything about and 2) will be available for play testing. Why get all freaked out about it now?

Really? Because I don't feel like I'm doing that at all. It sounds like I may personally be skipping the next AP. I think the knee-jerk reaction would be to prognosticate doom for the AP and/or Paizo itself, express anger, claim I'll never give Paizo another dime, etc. I am doing none of those things.

I did allude to my desire for clarification as to whether the next AP will truly be useless to those unintereted in Mythic rules.

Considering that the next AP will be Reign of Winter which will come long before GenCon 2013 (and Mythic Ruels), consider your desire fulfilled!

By the way, you could have fulfilled it yourself using a calendar and quick use of "Search" function, but being a helpful person I am more than glad to lend assistance. No need for thanks!

:-)


Revel wrote:
As for the powerful cure light wounds, remember the lower level characters wouldn't have access to higher level magic so the magic they did have would need a strong enough boost to compensate. After all my understanding is that the mythic levels grant hit points etc too so your lower level healing spells would need the boost to keep the party healed.

So are we going to get abilities that do something other than make the numbers on the character sheet really big?

I wish this announcement had just been "Hey, we're releasing mythic rules next year, yaaaaay!" OR "Here is the playtest document for next year's mythic rules." The tidbits give rise to misgivings.

When I thought this was just an analogue for epic levels, I didn't want the product. When I found it was something more, I thought "Ah, gee Fog, you jumped the gun there." Then I read about some of the details and I feel like it's unfair to the supplement (and us) to just give us breadcrumbs to fight over. :/ Hopefully there are more details soon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This just in: Doomsayers finally arrive in the Mythic Adventures thread! See page 6 for more details.

(I was wondering when all the doom-gloom "I don't care that I haven't seen the rules yet, you're ruining the maths!!" posts would start. Almost made it to 300 without it, color me surprised.)

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

2 months foghammer. We get the playtest between now and 2 months.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Full disclosure: I have not watched or heard a recording of the Mythic panel -- what I know is based on reading threads here on Paizo.com.

This sounds like a train wreck. At the very least, please please please get someone with a solid understanding of math and statistics (read: degree in math) involved in developing these rules.

Oh please. This is ridiculous. I know quite a few math majors, and it has very little to do with producing solid game designs. Even statistics.

The implication that the designers at Paizo are somehow not up to the math is really pretty condescending. They do templates all the time, and what's being described here are basically templates. Honestly, using that approach instead of just blowing the lid off the 20 level system gives me some faith that they know the math.

Altering the existing levels instead of expanding the threshold is a very smart thing to do. I don't really see what a math degree will bring to this that years of professional game design experience won't.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

5 people marked this as a favorite.

What I'm finding pretty damn cool is that they've hit on a solution that can do both. It can be used to extend the current 20 level limit by some folks while others use it as a heroic overlay over very low levels.


gbonehead wrote:
What I'm finding pretty damn cool is that they've hit on a solution that can do both. It can be used to extend the current 20 level limit by some folks while others use it as a heroic overlay over very low levels.

Which is what it sounds like EXACTLY you can do with these gbonehead. Unfortunately, because of the "can be used to extend the current 20 level limit", there will be those that will go, "do not want!" (which is sad, because they haven't seen any playtest and are just going off of what the thread itself is speculating from a GenCon panel).

All that aside....I think as soon as we get a playtest, we'll all have a better understanding of what these rules will let us and won't let us do. I know our table has been waiting VERY patiently for something like this. This will be our next purchase from Paizo...our last being either Ultimate Combat or Bestiary 3....whichever came last.


It's ok to stop spending on stuff, I am. But I wasn't likely to buy anything in the next two months anyway (Psionics Unleashed was a possibility and still is since I can use it in any d20 game.) But just wait two months and read the play tests like I will be doing. We just have rumors so far anyway. You can decide if it's a game ender then. I mean there IS the possibility this will be awesome and you will want to continue spending on APs.

But it's silly to predict disaster yet. Keep in mind it's just as silly to be jumping up and down in excitement too. We simply don't know if this will have a detrimental effect on new APs yet or not.

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:

Full disclosure: I have not watched or heard a recording of the Mythic panel -- what I know is based on reading threads here on Paizo.com.

This sounds like a train wreck. At the very least, please please please get someone with a solid understanding of math and statistics (read: degree in math) involved in developing these rules.

There's a good double-handful of people with those qualifications here on the boards and I'm pretty sure they'll all take an interest in the play test.

I'm looking forward to the Mythic rules because the approach that the designers have taken is clever. Hopefully, everyone here with concerns will take a good look at the play test, actually play test it, and then provide copious feedback to try and improve whatever still concerns them.


gbonehead wrote:
What I'm finding pretty damn cool is that they've hit on a solution that can do both. It can be used to extend the current 20 level limit by some folks while others use it as a heroic overlay over very low levels.

If mythic levels are capable of functioning as standalone levels and have names like "Archmage" and "Champion" then it just sounds suspiciously like epic level classes that can be gestalt-leveled anywhere in your game. That's what I see. We're given the names of mythic classes and a sense that they progress in a linear fashion from what, levels 1-10?

Respectfully, I don't feel like there's a way to hit that nail on the head. If you want your party to go up against a CR 10 encounter, make them the appropriate level.

I think that's what it's boiling down to with me. We're being given rules that are supposed to make the game feel more epic in scope, but so far it just sounds like we're running high level encounters with 'lower level' characters (which actually are still higher level because they ALSO get mythic levels). It feels enormously artificial to me in regard to anything before 20th level.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
A bunch of good stuff.

Not much to add but I can only favourite your post once.

So +100 to you sir.


Aranna wrote:

It's ok to stop spending on stuff, I am. But I wasn't likely to buy anything in the next two months anyway (Psionics Unleashed was a possibility and still is since I can use it in any d20 game.) But just wait two months and read the play tests like I will be doing. We just have rumors so far anyway. You can decide if it's a game ender then. I mean there IS the possibility this will be awesome and you will want to continue spending on APs.

But it's silly to predict disaster yet. Keep in mind it's just as silly to be jumping up and down in excitement too. We simply don't know if this will have a detrimental effect on new APs yet or not.

See, I'm still having trouble understanding this "game ender" scenario you speak of. Even if it's an absolute disaster (highly doubtful), you know the majority of the hardcover rules are entirely optional, right? Even when they integrate some of these rules with the AP line they're usually optional.

Guns were introduced in Ultimate Combat. You may or may not include them with Skull and Shackles.

A lot of people use Hero Points from the APG. A lot of people don't.

I haven't bought the Advanced Race Guide yet or allowed any of the shiny new rules into my game. To date, my players have yet to threaten me or my family over it.

Ultimate Equipment, Ultimate Campaign, Mythic Adventures - all of these introduce new things which may or may not be in your game as you choose. If an NPC in an AP has an archetype or a spell or a magic item from a book in the Ultimate line and you don't like it, you can swap it out or just not include it.

Mythic Rules do nothing to change the Base Classes. They will not reprint the CRB with adjustments forcing anyone to factor in Mythic play.

So, I ask again, what does any of this have to do with choosing to no longer buy other Pathfinder products? Especially older ones.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
I don't really see what a math degree will bring to this that years of professional game design experience won't.

See Also: 4E skill challenge rules.

Funny thing about math -- it is there whether you see it or not.


So I'm "condescending," "ridiculous", and a "doomsayer."

Can't say that's a surprise, 'cause that's geekdom for you -- if you love something, defend it vociferously again all threats, real or imagined.

Consider me suitably chastised.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition Subscriber
brock, no the other one... wrote:
There's a good double-handful of people with those qualifications here on the boards and I'm pretty sure they'll all take an interest in the play test.

I still don't think statistics is all that fun... but all I get to do with my degree at work is high school-level trig and algebra (in other words, I don't get to use any of my degree, just stuff I learned in high school), so... I guess I'll take a peek.


Shinmizu wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:
There's a good double-handful of people with those qualifications here on the boards and I'm pretty sure they'll all take an interest in the play test.
I still don't think statistics is all that fun... but all I get to do with my degree at work is high school-level trig and algebra (in other words, I don't get to use any of my degree, just stuff I learned in high school), so... I guess I'll take a peek.

Please do. The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this thread...


bugleyman wrote:

So I'm "condescending," "ridiculous", and a "doomsayer."

Can't say that's a surprise, 'cause that's geekdom for you -- if you love something, defend it vociferously again all threats, real or imagined.

Consider me suitably chastised.

I thought the doomsayer comment was directed at me for bringing up the +20 to initiative and 3d6+wtf CLW.

Don't be stealing my thunder, bro.


Foghammer wrote:

I thought the doomsayer comment was directed at me for bringing up the +20 to initiative and 3d6+wtf CLW.

Don't be stealing my thunder, bro.

My bad. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Scott 139 wrote:
See Bugly the problem is you are taking "The sky is falling!" knee jerk reaction approach to a product announcement that 1) we barely know anything about and 2) will be available for play testing. Why get all freaked out about it now?

Exactly!

There's been a product announcement.
There has been some information given in a seminar, that some people (Dale) have tried to share as they understand it, which may not be 100% accurate.

There will be a playtest in about a month.
The book is not scheduled for release for 12 months. There's time to figure out whether it is going to work for you, or not, before then.

EDIT: And Ninja'd a few times over. I really need to read to the end before replying.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

So I'm "condescending," "ridiculous", and a "doomsayer." Hmmm...can't say that's a surprise, 'cause that's geekdom for you -- if you love something, defend it vociferously again all threats, real or imagined.

Consider me suitably chastised.

For the record, since I'm relatively new at posting on these board and would like to keep my reputation as a love-blind "fanboy" to a minimum - as such, if these rules actually do suck I'll be right there with you to call them on it (I'll still buy their non-suck product though). I just prefer to wait (with eager intent) until the playtest is released before condemning math I haven't seen.

bugleyman wrote:

Please do. The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this thread...

Ok, that was needlessly derogatory. It's one thing to imply that people are talking out of their @$$, which we all are on this thread since it's only speculative. But to imply that many of them are unskilled (and in such a way as to imply your own superiority) is unfair to say the least. Also, isn't judging people for judging sort of, well, I'll let you be the judge.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Please do. The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this thread...

Incorrect. There are a bunch of people telling you to chill out until more information is revealed while you panic like a headless chicken.


The Block Knight wrote:
For the record, since I'm relatively new at posting on these board and would like to keep my reputation as a love-blind "fanboy" to a minimum - as such, if these rules actually do suck I'll be right there with you to call them on it (I'll still buy their non-suck product though). I just prefer to wait (with eager intent) until the playtest is released before condemning math I haven't seen.

I'm pretty bad about being a Paizo/Open Design fanboy myself. That doesn't mean I have agreed with everything they have done. I've had a lot of concerns about previous products; what sticks out in my memory is Ultimate Combat. I love Ultimate Combat and a lot of the things that came with it, but I didn't like all of it. Still a fanboy, I just [try to] raise my voice when I want to be heard.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Shinmizu wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:
There's a good double-handful of people with those qualifications here on the boards and I'm pretty sure they'll all take an interest in the play test.
I still don't think statistics is all that fun... but all I get to do with my degree at work is high school-level trig and algebra (in other words, I don't get to use any of my degree, just stuff I learned in high school), so... I guess I'll take a peek.
Please do. The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this thread...

The old rule of social interaction says that if you make yourself look bad, don't try to do anything about that right away, because... well, because the above happens. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Please do. The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this thread...
Incorrect. There are a bunch of people telling you to chill out until more information is revealed while you panic like a headless chicken.

And incorrect back at you.

It seems the headless-chicken panic is being conducted more by the "bunch of people" freaking out that someone dared to respond with less than stellar praise for some new product announcement, instead of contributing to the echo chamber.


Foghammer wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

So I'm "condescending," "ridiculous", and a "doomsayer."

Can't say that's a surprise, 'cause that's geekdom for you -- if you love something, defend it vociferously again all threats, real or imagined.

Consider me suitably chastised.

I thought the doomsayer comment was directed at me for bringing up the +20 to initiative and 3d6+wtf CLW.

Don't be stealing my thunder, bro.

Actually, to be honest, it was directed at bugleyman. I would also like to note that the comment was meant to come off more as playful teasing as a commentary on the typical state of gamer critiquing. I always find it amusing that in a sub-culture where we are so often judged unfairly by the mainstream, we are still so quick to judge a book by its cover. You think we would have learned by now.

Anyway, if the statement ended up being interpreted in a more vociferous tone than I intended I apologize. I wasn't trying to sound accusatory.

Edit: And just in case you're wondering where I inferred your judgmental tone from, it was your comment on how Mythic "sounds like a train wreck". You may not necessarily have come across as panicked but, a "train wreck", seriously? We barely have enough information to figure out just how exactly the Mythic template and levels are applied. I think it will be good. Some think it will be bad. But extremes (whether it be "best thing EVAR!" or "train wreck") are still a little premature.


Orthos wrote:
...while you panic like a headless chicken.

Right...because I'm clearly panicked.

I came into the thread and expressed my concerns in a calm way, and I was promptly chastised for it. That isn't surprising, but it is disappointing.

You know what the biggest problem was with 4E? Wotc Management.
You know what the biggest problem is with Pathfinder? Paizo customers.

Thanks guys.


Brian E. Harris wrote:
Orthos wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Please do. The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this thread...
Incorrect. There are a bunch of people telling you to chill out until more information is revealed while you panic like a headless chicken.

And incorrect back at you.

It seems the headless-chicken panic is being conducted more by the "bunch of people" freaking out that someone dared to respond with less than stellar praise for some new product announcement, instead of contributing to the echo chamber.

If you actually read the thread, you can see there's quite a bit of not-praise. I'm one of the people who posted "cautious optimism" in response to the initial announcement, and that comment is the first thing I've said since.

But there are a handful of people here who are exploding into sudden doom-and-gloomage sparking catastrophic failure on the part of a product that all we've had is Convention Teasers. Telling someone to chill out and wait for more concrete info before throwing their hands in the air and abandoning ship is hardly echo chamber enthusiasm.


The Block Knight wrote:

See, I'm still having trouble understanding this "game ender" scenario you speak of. Even if it's an absolute disaster (highly doubtful), you know the majority of the hardcover rules are entirely optional, right? Even when they integrate some of these rules with the AP line they're usually optional.

If an NPC in an AP has an archetype or a spell or a magic item from a book in the Ultimate line and you don't like it, you can swap it out or just not include it.

Mythic Rules do nothing to change the Base Classes. They will not reprint the CRB with adjustments forcing anyone to factor in Mythic play.

So, I ask again, what does any of this have to do with choosing to no longer buy other Pathfinder products? Especially older ones.

Ok but CAN you swap anything out? Maybe not. You don't know the final product or even the play test. The play test starts in two months. But like I said before I don't need to spend money in the next two months to continue enjoying pathfinder. A while I didn't rush out to buy all their stuff, I was a pretty big Pathfinder fan. Is it too harsh to wait and see what this is going to do to their product line in case I don't like it? And isn't your attitude a little premature? You have NO idea if this will be mandatory for certain future APs or not? I do know that Mythic will play very differently from standard play. After play tests they may decide it doesn't convert well. They may do a half dozen different things with it in response to the play tests. At this point I just want to see it and then decide for myself. I have the older products that I want so far. I am sure a few months hold on my pocketbook is WISE, not crazy like you seem to think. If it turns out that I don't like the new direction I saved a few dollars. If I like it instead then I can start buying again with no loss in enjoyment.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Orthos wrote:
...while you panic like a headless chicken.

Right...because I'm clearly panicked.

I came into the thread and expressed my concerns in a calm way, and I was promptly chastised for it. That isn't surprising, but it is disappointing.

You know what the biggest problem was with 4E? Wotc Management.
You know what the biggest problem is with Pathfinder? Paizo customers.

Thanks guys.

So wait ... *notices Bugley's subscriber tag" ... that means you're one of the biggest problem with Pathfinder?

IT ALL SUDDENLY MAKES SENSE!


Gorbacz wrote:

So wait ... *notices Bugley's subscriber tag" ... that means you're one of the biggest problem with Pathfinder?

IT ALL SUDDENLY MAKES SENSE!

Welp there goes one more soda.... *wipes off monitor*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
I am sure a few months hold on my pocketbook is WISE, not crazy like you seem to think. If it turns out that I don't like the new direction I saved a few dollars. If I like it instead then I can start buying again with no loss in enjoyment.

I think the point they're trying to make is that this book is still a year or so away, so any impact it MIGHT have on future products (which I am 99.999% sure is "none") won't be until late in 2013 or early 2014, so worrying about not spending money on products between now and then is a little extreme.

Also, to date, not a single rules supplement beyond the CRB and bestiary from Pathfinder has been required to make a game function(and I would posit that it's almost entirely possible to run an entire game without the bestiary if you're creative enough). Mythic rules literally cannot rewrite what's already come before it without a new edition coming out.

It will be 100% optional. No need to worry about that.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me start by saying that I was never very enarmoured with the idea of Epic play. Being able to punch Cthulhu in the nose (or tentacle... whatever) never seemed very appealing to me. It's fun to kick butt, but I want to be mortally afraid of something, after all.

However, here's my two cents on the mythic system, based on what I heard at the GenCon seminars and what I gleaned in conversation with a couple of Paizo's resident geniuses:

1. Yes, they will have a public playtest and as always will listen to (rational) messageboard feedback.

2. IMHO this is an incredibly clever and elegant solution to the Epic problem of bad math and monstrously unwieldy stat blocks. Jason Bulmahn (and whoever helps him work out the kinks) deserves a medal for this concept.

3. Because this is an overlay system, my assumption is that those who do not want to use it can remove it with some effort, and just like mass combat, caravan rules, and other specialized systems introduced, won't appear in each and every Pathfinder product.

4. It was very obvious that the guys at Paizo are really excited about the potential of this system. This fact alone speaks volumes to me.

5. Regular PCs are already pretty awesome in terms of their power in the world, but even unnaturally talented folks are going to reach a limit as to the level of skill and power they gain. It makes sense from a storytelling perspective, however, that some extraordinarily rare few are (literally) touched by the Divine, and that's where extra-special awesomeness comes from (e.g., Hercules, Achilles, Gilgamesh, Hiawatha, etc). That is an emotionally and intellectually satisfying conceptualization in my mind: any adventurer who is lucky and works hard enough can become an 18th level whatever, but only those touched by the gods can become virtual demigods themselves.

6. As a freelancer, I am really jazzed about the kinds of stories I can tell with this kind of system. I am also excited about reading the kinds of stories others will contribute as well.

For those predicting Golarion-Shattering Cataclysm, I recommend taking a deep breath; let's see what happens. The Paizo folks have consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to maintaining the Pathfinder RPG's quality and integrity.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could be awesome.

Could be awful.

But that is why you playtest.

I worry it may be more like the Summoner/Words of Power/Race guide... choose your own way to break the game style of book, but it isn't like those things didn't also have merit if kept out of the hands of the to munchkins of the world.

I give it a hearty "We'll see!"


Orthos wrote:
But there are a handful of people here who are exploding into sudden doom-and-gloomage sparking catastrophic failure on the part of a product that all we've had is Convention Teasers. Telling someone to chill out and wait for more concrete info before throwing their hands in the air and abandoning ship is hardly echo chamber enthusiasm.

So, perhaps you could direct your ire at people who are actually doing that?

The guy said he MIGHT skip ONE AP - he didn't go crazynuts, as you insinuate, with a fist-shaking "PAIZO, YOU'VE BETRAYED ME AND MY DOLLARS FOR THE LAST TIME!"

Holy hell, man.


Foghammer wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I am sure a few months hold on my pocketbook is WISE, not crazy like you seem to think. If it turns out that I don't like the new direction I saved a few dollars. If I like it instead then I can start buying again with no loss in enjoyment.

I think the point they're trying to make is that this book is still a year or so away, so any impact it MIGHT have on future products (which I am 99.999% sure is "none") won't be until late in 2013 or early 2014, so worrying about not spending money on products between now and then is a little extreme.

Also, to date, not a single rules supplement beyond the CRB and bestiary from Pathfinder has been required to make a game function(and I would posit that it's almost entirely possible to run an entire game without the bestiary if you're creative enough). Mythic rules literally cannot rewrite what's already come before it without a new edition coming out.

It will be 100% optional. No need to worry about that.

But I have seen too many failed games to not worry. And I don't have to wait a full year to know if I like it. I just have to wait till the play test is under way and then if I like it I will jump up and down as much as it would amuse you to have me do so. And you don't know the future, saying you are 100% certain is silly. The only supplement I have not stood behind that they have put out to date is the ARG. Which was a huge mistake in my opinion... oh and Ultimate Equipment which I was waiting on and now might not buy on it's own failings. They clearly can make mistakes... just wait and see if this is a mistake or a cool new thing.

Liberty's Edge

Mike Shel wrote:


4. It was very obvious that the guys at Paizo are really excited about the potential of this system. This fact alone speaks volumes to me.

I think the Devs are great. But potential is a dangerous word. I think words of power had a ton of potential, but it didn't work.

I don't think this is because Jason was "bad" or that the idea wasn't brilliant. Jason is great at what he does, and the idea was wonderful

I think it didn't integrate well with the operating system.

I worry about the same thing happening here, and I wonder sometimes if the Devs are kind of bored with the limitations of the 3.5 base system but realize there isn't a market for two side by side systems when you make your real money on having APs with the broadest appeal.

In each of the books there have been great ideas that were kind of meh when forced into the 3.5 rule set. Words of Power, Improvised Armor, Alternate Hit points, all great ideas, none seem to have gained traction.

Making an entire book around this style is very risky. We will see.


bugleyman wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
I don't really see what a math degree will bring to this that years of professional game design experience won't.

See Also: 4E skill challenge rules.

Funny thing about math -- it is there whether you see it or not.

For my part, Bugley, I'm not saying your apprehensions are wrong. I just don't think that a math degree is relevant. It's overspecialized in one relevant area of game design, and carries an awful lot of baggage with it that is useful in other applications. The level of stats required for any d20 design (and most RPGs besides) would actually be a colossal waste of what those people have learned.

Citing one poorly executed rule doesn't invalidate that game design experience makes for better rules. Just because the architect who built the leaning tower failed to account for the foundation doesn't mean a mathematician would have done a better job; a better architect would.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
The Block Knight wrote:

See, I'm still having trouble understanding this "game ender" scenario you speak of. Even if it's an absolute disaster (highly doubtful), you know the majority of the hardcover rules are entirely optional, right? Even when they integrate some of these rules with the AP line they're usually optional.

If an NPC in an AP has an archetype or a spell or a magic item from a book in the Ultimate line and you don't like it, you can swap it out or just not include it.

Mythic Rules do nothing to change the Base Classes. They will not reprint the CRB with adjustments forcing anyone to factor in Mythic play.

So, I ask again, what does any of this have to do with choosing to no longer buy other Pathfinder products? Especially older ones.

Ok but CAN you swap anything out? Maybe not. You don't know the final product or even the play test. The play test starts in two months. But like I said before I don't need to spend money in the next two months to continue enjoying pathfinder. A while I didn't rush out to buy all their stuff, I was a pretty big Pathfinder fan. Is it too harsh to wait and see what this is going to do to their product line in case I don't like it? And isn't your attitude a little premature? You have NO idea if this will be mandatory for certain future APs or not? I do know that Mythic will play very differently from standard play. After play tests they may decide it doesn't convert well. They may do a half dozen different things with it in response to the play tests. At this point I just want to see it and then decide for myself. I have the older products that I want so far. I am sure a few months hold on my pocketbook is WISE, not crazy like you seem to think. If it turns out that I don't like the new direction I saved a few dollars. If I like it instead then I can start buying again with no loss in enjoyment.

I think you misunderstand me slightly. Also, regarding premature, the same can be said in reverse - you don't know either. So you're being cautious, I get that. Several pages ago I even supported your position if this is just a spending issue for you.

Here's where I get confused. So if there's a book on Paizo's product schedule in the next six months (long before Mythic comes out) that has nothing to do with Mythic (why would it) and you were originally planning on getting it, now you won't?

If you weren't planning on getting any new Pathfinder books in the next few months anyway (due to budgeting), what does that have to do with Mythic? Nothing. So why bring it up in this thread (your budget is your business, if you want to share it with us, cool, I guess)?

Or, is your concern, what it will do the product line as a whole? Um, nothing really. Paizo's not going to suddenly combust or go out of business. They're not suddenly going to plaster Mythic over all their setting books. I imagine they'll use these rules as a vehicle to finally print setting material for Golarion regarding some of the previously unstattable NPCs in the setting. Ok, sure, you can say that I don't know that and I'm making premature guesses. But here's the thing, I'm using precedent. Unless Paizo has suddenly changed out all of their management and hired amateur business students to run their business they're not going to do any of that. We've seen how Paizo handles new rules content. We've seen how Paizo handles its product lines. Why would any of that change?

Honestly, if Paizo hasn't earned the faith of its subscribers and customers after five years of good business modelling, I don't know what they'd have to do at this point to earn it.

Edit: (10 years as a business. 5 years for the product line.)

TANGENT INCOMING(this part isn't directed at you Aranna:
Ok, yes, Engineering and PhD's in Science are hard work. You know what else is hard work? Getting through business school (and in many cases also getting an MBA) and then earning over ten years of experience in a single industry. Many of the employees at Paizo are extremely qualified at running a business and I'm so very tired of seeing all the posts on these forums regarding "You know what you need to change to make your business better, because I sure do. . . "

If someone actually knows something about operations management or product chains, or financing , then by all means provide your suggestions on why the current AP model doesn't work or why the Paizo staff are wrong when they say there is too much risk in completely changing their product identity.

But for the rest of you, please, just stop. It's hurts my brain.

Sorry, rant over. I realize almost none of that has anything to do with this thread but I just wanted to get that off my chest. Not even sure what reminded me of that in this thread. Carry on. Nothing to see here.


Aranna wrote:
But I have seen too many failed games to not worry. And I don't have to wait a full year to know if I like it. I just have to wait till the play test is under way and then if I like it I will jump up and down as much as it would amuse you to have me do so. And you don't know the future, saying you are 100% certain is silly. The only supplement I have not stood behind that they have put out to date is the ARG. Which was a huge mistake in my opinion... oh and Ultimate Equipment which I was waiting on and now might not buy on it's own failings. They clearly can make mistakes... just wait and see if this is a mistake or a cool new thing.

I've seen failed games, too. I've gone down with some of those ships, and they didn't fail because of their products.

And you're right, you don't have to wait a full year to know if you like what this supplement will entail, but you WILL have to wait a full year to know what effect it will have on the company. Sorry about that. Whether you like it or not doesn't matter to me. Personally, I DON'T like what I'm seeing, but that doesn't mean I'm losing my brand loyalty over it.

I already cited Ultimate Combat as containing material I consider "mistakes" or "failings" to use your words. The ARG I like as well, but there are things in it that I really do not like, and when I get Ultimate Equipment, I'm sure I'll find things I dislike in that, too.

You seem to have a very "black or white" attitude about these things.

And yes, I am indeed 100% sure that it will be optional. You don't have to believe me; I'm sure that with all the vitriol flowing around in this thread Paizo staff will be in here before long, and someone is bound to confirm that for you.

EDIT: Kinda ninja'd by The Block Knight.


Ok thanks for clarifying The Block Knight. I am just worried.

My latest posts were in response to doomsayers. I am just telling them they could do like me and wait a few months see if it will be good or bad and then decide. Sure it might not be a big deal after most of it is in play. But wouldn't you rather the nay sayers just wait and not jump ship immediately? If turns out to be something good then we can all spend the money we saved up and Paizo is no worse. If it turns out hideous then the nay sayers can THEN tell us all how they were right all along. At least my way gives Paizo a chance to play this out before people panic. Also it will tell Paizo in NO uncertain terms if their revenue drys up by a certain percentage that they have at least THAT many people on the fence over the drastic new thing. That might inspire caution where other companies have just gone crazy.


I wonder if there will be two rounds of play testing given the large timeframe we have before it's supposed release.


Rule of Middling Expectation.

There is a possibility these rules will be absolutely awesome and bring the game a new era of popularity.

There is a possibility these rules will be like Windows Millennium Edition, and will cause the Pathfinder game to sink into an ignominious
end.

Are either of these likely? Probably about as likely as being hit by lightning 7 days in a row...

What's mostly likely going to happen is exactly what happens with all the other books that come out. It'll be within a sigma of 'Average', and there'll be a group of people who love it, a group who hate it, and everyone else will like it in general and dislike bits of it and really like other bits.

Personally, I'm going to wait and see what the play test is like. it could be good, it could be bad. I prefer to wait and see.


Odraude wrote:
I wonder if there will be two rounds of play testing given the large timeframe we have before it's supposed release.

That would certainly be a best case scenario. I hope so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Ok thanks for clarifying The Block Knight. I am just worried.

My latest posts were in response to doomsayers. I am just telling them they could do like me and wait a few months see if it will be good or bad and then decide. Sure it might not be a big deal after most of it is in play. But wouldn't you rather the nay sayers just wait and not jump ship immediately? If turns out to be something good then we can all spend the money we saved up and Paizo is no worse. If it turns out hideous then the nay sayers can THEN tell us all how they were right all along. At least my way gives Paizo a chance to play this out before people panic. Also it will tell Paizo in NO uncertain terms if their revenue drys up by a certain percentage that they have at least THAT many people on the fence over the drastic new thing. That might inspire caution where other companies have just gone crazy.

It's fair to be worried.

One note though regarding how most publishing companies judge their revenue data. First, they won't even be able to analyze that data till several months after the Mythic rules release, at the very least, more likely the turnaround on the data will be closer to a year. Second, if their revenue drys up by a certain percentage PRIOR to the release of Mythic rules this will tell them in NO uncertain terms that a select demographic of their market did not like Shattered Star/Reign of Winter/the NPC hardcover/etc. What will be uncertain is whether this minor boycott was related to upcoming products like Mythic. Remember, marketing analytics do not come with notes regarding buyer's intentions.

So if a large subset of Paizo consumers are cautious before Mythic comes out and because of that they buy less, then the lukewarm sales are only going to reflect on current products. Sales are an indicator of something a company "did do" not something a company is "going to do". Marketers have other tools to measure outcry of upcoming releases but sales figures aren't usually one of them.


The Block Knight wrote:

It's fair to be worried.

One note though regarding how most publishing companies judge their revenue data. First, they won't even be able to analyze that data till several months after the Mythic rules release, at the very least, more likely the turnaround on the data will be closer to a year. Second, if their revenue drys up by a certain percentage PRIOR to the release of Mythic rules this will tell them in NO uncertain terms that a select demographic of their market did not like Shattered Star/Reign of Winter/the NPC hardcover/etc. What will be uncertain is whether this minor boycott was related to upcoming products like Mythic. Remember, marketing analytics do not come with notes regarding buyer's intentions.

So if a large subset of Paizo consumers are cautious before Mythic comes out and because of that they buy less, then the lukewarm sales are only going to reflect on current products. Sales are an indicator of something a company "did do" not something a company is "going to do". Marketers have other tools to measure outcry of upcoming releases but sales figures aren't usually one of them.

Nice. +5


Aaron Scott 139 wrote:
See Bugly the problem is you are taking "The sky is falling!" knee jerk reaction approach to a product announcement that 1) we barely know anything about and 2) will be available for play testing. Why get all freaked out about it now?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would think that the "teasers" released by Paizo should be the most interesting parts of the proposed system. So if I'm finding those distinctly underwhelming, it makes me feel kind of pessimistic for the end result.

For instance, in another thread James Jacobs was saying "the reason we can't have adventure paths that end with the PCs fighting demigods or demon lords (like in Age of Worms and Savage Tide) is because we don't have the necessary rules". So when I hear that an example of a mythic effect is changing Cure Light Wounds's healing from 1d8 to 3d6, my first reaction is to say "...and that kind of thing is supposed to make the difference between killing a demon lord and getting ground into a fine paste?"

301 to 350 of 626 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Mythic Adventures All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.