|
I think "advancing the timeline five to ten years, so that the storyline can progress a bit" is by far not as egregious than "advancing the timeline a hundred years, ripping up whole continents, changing out entire races, dumbing down the pantheon and in the process killing off almost all human characters the players knew".I'm 100% with you on having been deeply disappointed and dismayed with what happened to the Forgotten Realms, which priorily were my favorite fantasy setting.
To my mind, that's the PC's job.
To my mind, that's the PC's job.
I think "advancing the timeline five to ten years, so that the storyline can progress a bit" is by far not as egregious than "advancing the timeline a hundred years, ripping up whole continents, changing out entire races, dumbing down the pantheon and in the process killing off almost all human characters the players knew".I'm 100% with you on having been deeply disappointed and dismayed with what happened to the Forgotten Realms, which priorily were my favorite fantasy setting.
But the PCs can't advance the timeline of the published world. Because every set of PCs does something different.
They've already done it a little bit, with Shattered Star assuming that RotRL has happened.
Shattered Star assumed RotRL happened - and Second Darkness - and Curse of the Crimson Throne.
Jade Regent assumed RotRL happened.
If they played it right advancing the timeline could be an entirely new product line - with monthly or bi-monthly status :) I know I'd sub in a second.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I still think you overestimate that danger. ;) Every consumer of other serial media manages to live with things not staying static. Gamers are no more conservative than comic fans in my estimation.
Managing evolution doesn't necessarily make it a popular choice. Some settings have lost many fans (read: consumers) because of evolution. Dragonlance comes to mind.
I don't speak for any fan other than myself but I'm actually quite pleased with the current setup. Not only does it not invalidate any products but it also puts everything firmly in the hands of me and my players with regard to expanding the story. I like that. That's just a personal preference, of course. :)
I do think that, in the case of Golarion, there's a lot of evolution going on as new regions are explored in detail through the adventure paths, modules, and campaign setting books. It's not an evoultion in time, of course, and we know what conflicts are in place, but many of those conflicts and areas of strife have yet to be explored in detail at this point. As Paizo release more products, they start to explore those conflicts and regions. Wrath of the Righteous is an excellent example of this.
To my mind, that's the PC's job.
I think "advancing the timeline five to ten years, so that the storyline can progress a bit" is by far not as egregious than "advancing the timeline a hundred years, ripping up whole continents, changing out entire races, dumbing down the pantheon and in the process killing off almost all human characters the players knew".I'm 100% with you on having been deeply disappointed and dismayed with what happened to the Forgotten Realms, which priorily were my favorite fantasy setting.
But the PCs can't advance the timeline of the published world. Because every set of PCs does something different.
They've already done it a little bit, with Shattered Star assuming that RotRL has happened.
Shattered Star assumed RotRL happened - and Second Darkness - and Curse of the Crimson Throne.
Jade Regent assumed RotRL happened.
Actually Jade Regent does not assume RotRL happened. It is written so that RotRL could have happened, it is also written so that RotRL might not have happened. The only thing assumed in Jade Regent is that Ameiko is the oldest surviving Kaijutsu, everything else is implied, not assumed. In the forward they specifically alude to the fact that the RotRL AE would be coming out the next year & Jade Regent might wind up being the prelude to it for a particular game group.
|
|
To my mind, that's the PC's job.
I think "advancing the timeline five to ten years, so that the storyline can progress a bit" is by far not as egregious than "advancing the timeline a hundred years, ripping up whole continents, changing out entire races, dumbing down the pantheon and in the process killing off almost all human characters the players knew".I'm 100% with you on having been deeply disappointed and dismayed with what happened to the Forgotten Realms, which priorily were my favorite fantasy setting.
But the PCs can't advance the timeline of the published world. Because every set of PCs does something different.
They've already done it a little bit, with Shattered Star assuming that RotRL has happened.
Shattered Star assumed RotRL happened - and Second Darkness - and Curse of the Crimson Throne.
Jade Regent assumed RotRL happened.
If they played it right advancing the timeline could be an entirely new product line - with monthly or bi-monthly status :) I know I'd sub in a second.
Same question for you then: What would be the advantage for me, a long-time Pathfinder superscriber?
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that. But, OTOH, if you fear change that much, I think that this will negatively impact on the costumer base, too, if not now, then in a few years when people want something new. I just think that you are underestimating the adaptability of your costumers on this issue.
I've been watching reactions to changes to campaign settings/timeline advances for a long time... both as a customer and as an industry professional. And my observations of how such changes have gone have informed my decisions about timeline advances—it's not something I just decided on a lark. And the same goes for the publisher and owners of Paizo. Timeline advances/drastic campaign setting changes are very risky, and making them when the setting is still gaining popularity is not the best move. When you're doing something right, as evidenced by Pathfinder's continued growth, changing things drastically is a fundamental risk.
I'm certainly watching reviews, feedback, and post counts for Shattered Star, since that's one of the biggest timeline advancement things we've done. And while the AP has been pretty well received... it's not looking like it's a game-changer as far as our existing policy on timeline advancing so far.
I know that. But, OTOH, if you fear change that much, I think that this will negatively impact on the costumer base, too, if not now, then in a few years when people want something new. I just think that you are underestimating the adaptability of your costumers on this issue.I've been watching reactions to changes to campaign settings/timeline advances for a long time... both as a customer and as an industry professional. And my observations of how such changes have gone have informed my decisions about timeline advances—it's not something I just decided on a lark. And the same goes for the publisher and owners of Paizo. Timeline advances/drastic campaign setting changes are very risky, and making them when the setting is still gaining popularity is not the best move. When you're doing something right, as evidenced by Pathfinder's continued growth, changing things drastically is a fundamental risk.
I'm certainly watching reviews, feedback, and post counts for Shattered Star, since that's one of the biggest timeline advancement things we've done. And while the AP has been pretty well received... it's not looking like it's a game-changer as far as our existing policy on timeline advancing so far.
Hm, are you saying that the AP did just as good as other APs or that it did worse? Because if you are saying the former, you essentially are confirming for me that the timeline advance has not impacted sales negatively at all.
If you are saying that sales were down for Shattered Star compared to other APs, there is a possibility that its timeline advance did indeed impact sales, although other factors ( it being a dungeon-heavy AP ) might have factored into that.And I understand that you are conservative with changing things up, because so much depends on the AP line. However, you certainly haven't been so conservative about other aspects of the APs, like setting, sub-systems and other new concepts. Wrath of the Righteous will present its own set of new rules which can turn off costumers.
And what I have observed over the last decade or so of fiction/game development, as a player and GM, is that fans get turned off a setting when the writers/developers rip up that setting and change it into something barely recognizable. i.e. the Spellplague, Third Age Dragonlance or Dark Age BattleTech. Or one of the many reboots of the DC Universe. Fans do not mind if the story progresses, but they mind if the setting is not recognizable afterwards to what it was before. Fans of a franchise like evolution, not revolution.
What might be a reasonable change to one person is setting destroying to another. At this point, we haven't even seen three of the continents. I'll pass on a timeshift.
|
Creative Director
|
Hm, are you saying that the AP did just as good as other APs or that it did worse? Because if you are saying the former, you essentially are confirming for me that the timeline advance has not impacted sales negatively at all.
If you are saying that sales were down for Shattered Star compared to other APs, there is a possibility that its timeline advance did indeed impact sales, although other factors ( it being a dungeon-heavy AP ) might have factored into that.
And I understand that you are conservative with changing things up, because so much depends on the AP line. However, you certainly haven't been so conservative about other aspects of the APs, like setting, sub-systems and other new concepts. Wrath of the Righteous will present its own set of new rules which can turn off costumers.
And what I have observed over the last decade or so of fiction/game development, as a player and GM, is that fans get turned off a setting when the writers/developers rip up that setting and change it into something barely recognizable. i.e. the Spellplague, Third Age Dragonlance or Dark Age BattleTech. Or one of the many reboots of the DC Universe. Fans do not mind if the story progresses, but they mind if the setting is not recognizable afterwards to what it was before. Fans of a franchise like evolution, not revolution.
I'm not talking about sales at all. We don't talk about sales publicly.
I'm specifically talking about how its post count seems low on the boards; that's all.
I don't think the dungeon heavy element was a turn-off. People have been asking for a dungeon-heavy adventure path quite a lot.
|
Hm, are you saying that the AP did just as good as other APs or that it did worse? Because if you are saying the former, you essentially are confirming for me that the timeline advance has not impacted sales negatively at all.
If you are saying that sales were down for Shattered Star compared to other APs, there is a possibility that its timeline advance did indeed impact sales, although other factors ( it being a dungeon-heavy AP ) might have factored into that.
And I understand that you are conservative with changing things up, because so much depends on the AP line. However, you certainly haven't been so conservative about other aspects of the APs, like setting, sub-systems and other new concepts. Wrath of the Righteous will present its own set of new rules which can turn off costumers.
And what I have observed over the last decade or so of fiction/game development, as a player and GM, is that fans get turned off a setting when the writers/developers rip up that setting and change it into something barely recognizable. i.e. the Spellplague, Third Age Dragonlance or Dark Age BattleTech. Or one of the many reboots of the DC Universe. Fans do not mind if the story progresses, but they mind if the setting is not recognizable afterwards to what it was before. Fans of a franchise like evolution, not revolution.
I'm not talking about sales at all. We don't talk about sales publicly.
I'm specifically talking about how its post count seems low on the boards; that's all.
I don't think the dungeon heavy element was a turn-off. People have been asking for a dungeon-heavy adventure path quite a lot.
Actually, even if the heavy use of dungeons wasn't a problem with my players, I actually prefer waiting, until I have had the chance to run rise of the runelords with them. Of course I currently have 4 unused adventure paths and scores of adventures read and waiting.
My players are really exited for this one though, half of them have already made their characters ^^
I'm not talking about sales at all. We don't talk about sales publicly.
I'm specifically talking about how its post count seems low on the boards; that's all.
I don't think the dungeon heavy element was a turn-off. People have been asking for a dungeon-heavy adventure path quite a lot.
After the excellent reviews the AP got, I am definitely going to GM it. As it is, however, I am GM'ing two instances of the Jade Regent AP and doing that takes about one and a half years per group.
What I'm saying is that there is a backlog of APs building up and lower post-count on the newer ones may come from that. Of course not every group plays their AP to conclusion, so there is that, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the slow time advancement of the setting as it is currently done, one year at a time. At this pace, it's not necessary that huge changes happen all the time. And I am most certainly not a fan of a shelf full of books getting invalidated by a time shift.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fans of a franchise like evolution, not revolution.
You are ignoring a VERY important part of what a customer base is - and that's growth. A company should strive to do more than please it's current customers - it's goal should be to grow over time. That means sell their stuff to new people.
And getting people to get into a new roleplaying game, or a new system, is not very easy. Take anyone who has been playing 3.5 in the far realms for, say, 10 years. Now, if Paizo is ever to "convert" that person to Pathfinder and sell AP volumes to him/her, they'd have to convince him/her to not only learn a new rule system, but also adapt to a new setting. Another crowed that's hard to market to are completely new players - people who never played any version of D&D or maybe even roleplaying before.
What's common for those two croweds, and which makes them very different than you, me and the rest of the fanbase who's been around for quite a while, is that the more you "evolve" a setting, the harder it becomes to get into. The more history you need to learn before you can get into the setting.
Furthermore, the moment Paizo advances the timelines and incorporate the results of previous APs into Golarion history, ALL APs published up to that point are rendered useless for anyone wanting to start playing in Golarion. Meaning, simply enough, that people will not buy them anymore.
Your desire to see "evolution" in the game world is both understandable and well recorded in these forums. However, you need to take a look at the bigger picture here, and realize you are only representing one section of the large group that's called "Paizo customers". Even among fans, some of us (me included) don't really want to see the setting timeline advance anytime soon, because we are not even CLOSE to exploring everything there is to explore without making any changes, plus a GM can also change his own version of Golarion without official backup from Paizo.
So bottom line is, the "evolution" you suggest is harmful to Paizo and does not even serve most of the customers and potential customers. Not to say that such a change should never happen, just that deciding WHEN it will happen is a very delicate process better left to the best professionals in the world, is evident by their rise to power - Paizo.
So bottom line is, the "evolution" you suggest is harmful to Paizo and does not even serve most of the customers and potential customers. Not to say that such a change should never happen, just that deciding WHEN it will happen is a very delicate process better left to the best professionals in the world, is evident by their rise to power - Paizo.
I think the "bottom line" is that you have an opinion contrary to mine, not a more factual basis for your argument. I'm certainly not taking my opinion on the matter as more than trying to make a good argument for what I want, so I'd be happy to see you not try to pass off your own arguments as facts, as you are trying to do here.
My argument remains that complete stagnation is bad. Not maybe in the short term, but certainly in the longer term. The question is only how long that time is, before people feel disconnected enough that the world is unchanging and is supposed to be that way.
I think the correct timeframe to that is "until Pathfinder 2.0 comes out in a few years". Because at that time we will have the full gamut of edition wars and disgruntled costumers anyway, the writers might as well give the setting a good shove to advance the storyline along with the rules ( only not too much of a shove please, no Spellplague 2.0 ).
Also, in regards to your argument about "leave it to the professionals", I've seen professional writers manage to destroy their fan-beloved settings much too many times now ( Forgotten Realms, BattleTech, Star Wars EU, OWoD ) to have much faith left in creative infallibility. Giving feedback helps, if they are willing to listen ( as the guys at Paizo certainly seem to be, much more than any other writing team ) and a diversity of opinions also can't be harmful for them. And I think "evolution, not revolution" is some of the best advice I can give after watching many of my other beloved franchises fail over the last decade.
My $.02 is to leave well enough alone. As a DM who's running two full campaigns (RotRL AE and Slumbering Tsar), who has a full-time day job yet consumes most new rules material as it is released, I don't have enough time in my life for the setting material Paizo has already released.
There's SO much richness and detail available for most deities, countries, organizations and so on that I can't keep it all straight in my head. Depending on the day of the week and how much of my brain has been eaten by the need to memorize IP subnets for racks full of gear, I may not remember the difference between Osirion and Katapesh. The former is to the North of the latter, right? Right. Um, they have people in them, so they're kind of the same that way. But... Katapesh has gnolls. Lots of gnolls. Right? Right.
So, folks like me, who are treading water, staying barely afloat with the current deluge of lore... well, a time-line advancement to stir things up is just going to be a HUGE turn-off. Great... Kuthites used to be masochistic emo punks until the Return of Aroden (yeah, that was in 4913, remember?) and now they've merged with the Formerly-Red Mantis Assassins who prefer teal these days, and don't hurt themselves or others anymore in any case. I don't have TIME for change. I desperately need CONSISTENCY and STABILITY in the lore of the land. Golarion must remain reasonably unchanged or its utility to me declines. Growth... sure. Expansion and deeper exploration... absolutely. Occasional revelations... yeah, okay. But the lure of "new" Golarion, Post-Whatever-calypse Golarion... doesn't exist for me.
Just my opinion.
Oh, and to keep things on topic, I'd really like to play this AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i agree with anguish fully (and i have most of the books already released) a changed golarion would be useless to me and i would NEVER buy ANY of the books for a changed golarion, i made the mistake of getting fourth edition forgotten realms, it was such a turn off for me within weeks i sold off ALL my 3rd edition forgotten realms to fund my switch to golarion (and pathfinder) for me 4th ed FR was soooo bad i couldn't even stand to read them anymore without getting mad about how bad it was (the super crappy map was the first straw, no explanation bout half the pantheon just missing with no explanation whatsoever was the last straw.
btw i CANT wait for wrath of the righteous, keep up the good work and steady as she goes, turtle wins the race, yada yada yada.
Speaking as a recent customer of Paizo and Pathfinder (before I got into Pathfinder, I was running a hybrid 2nd/3rd edition D&D game - I switched to Pathfinder for a new player because I refuse with an unholy passion to play "D&D" 4th edition and couldn't find used or new 3rd edition D&D books), the world of Golarion is not what got me into Pathfinder. Pathfinder is what got me into Pathfinder. The product is superior (even if spell durations are still far too short, a holdover of D&D 3.5 sadly enough) and it is fun. I mean it. Pathfinder is a hell of a lot more fun than my hybrid game, easily more fun than my 3rd edition games, and on par with my 2nd edition games (and on its way to surpassing that).
I started running the Runelords AP because a friend wanted me to run a Skype-based game, and it was all there. Soon after I started reading the AP, I found myself inspired. And when I found Reign of Winter... I realized I could switch my tabletop group to RoW - even though it meant abandoning my gameworld (yeah, I could have snuck it in I suppose... but the world-travel aspect of RoW allowed me to just have the group go to a new world (once they get that far, that is!)).
For the most part I don't have the campaign books. I have Magnimar and Lost Cities because it helped me with Runelords. Not because I wanted to play this world.
What I'm trying to say is that while Golarion is a superb setting and likely superior to Forgotten Realms or my own homecrafted worlds... I'm here for Pathfinder, and the adventures. That's all. If a "Ten Years Later" guide is put out? Fine. If it never is? That's also fine.
Undoubtedly I'm not alone here. There are plenty of people who play this because of the game rather than the setting. They play because you put out a damn fine product that you should be proud of. Even if your spell durations are still far too short. ;)
i agree with anguish fully (and i have most of the books already released) a changed golarion would be useless to me and i would NEVER buy ANY of the books for a changed golarion, i made the mistake of getting fourth edition forgotten realms, it was such a turn off for me within weeks i sold off ALL my 3rd edition forgotten realms to fund my switch to golarion (and pathfinder) for me 4th ed FR was soooo bad i couldn't even stand to read them anymore without getting mad about how bad it was (the super crappy map was the first straw, no explanation bout half the pantheon just missing with no explanation whatsoever was the last straw.
btw i CANT wait for wrath of the righteous, keep up the good work and steady as she goes, turtle wins the race, yada yada yada.
I just love how people go harangueing about the 4E Forgotten Realms, when I said about five times that I too would hate to see something like that happen to Golarion. Evolution, not revolution.
I just love how people go harangueing about the 4E Forgotten Realms, when I said about five times that I too would hate to see something like that happen to Golarion. Evolution, not revolution.i agree with anguish fully (and i have most of the books already released) a changed golarion would be useless to me and i would NEVER buy ANY of the books for a changed golarion, i made the mistake of getting fourth edition forgotten realms, it was such a turn off for me within weeks i sold off ALL my 3rd edition forgotten realms to fund my switch to golarion (and pathfinder) for me 4th ed FR was soooo bad i couldn't even stand to read them anymore without getting mad about how bad it was (the super crappy map was the first straw, no explanation bout half the pantheon just missing with no explanation whatsoever was the last straw.
btw i CANT wait for wrath of the righteous, keep up the good work and steady as she goes, turtle wins the race, yada yada yada.
Now imagine what happens if Paizo announces an advance in the timeline. You'd have hundreds of people going "OMG THIS IS FR 4E" and before you would be able to explain each of them that it's not, subscriptions would be cancelled, vitriolic posts would be written, and half the Internet would be informed that Paizo is WotC all over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just love how people go harangueing about the 4E Forgotten Realms, when I said about five times that I too would hate to see something like that happen to Golarion. Evolution, not revolution.i agree with anguish fully (and i have most of the books already released) a changed golarion would be useless to me and i would NEVER buy ANY of the books for a changed golarion, i made the mistake of getting fourth edition forgotten realms, it was such a turn off for me within weeks i sold off ALL my 3rd edition forgotten realms to fund my switch to golarion (and pathfinder) for me 4th ed FR was soooo bad i couldn't even stand to read them anymore without getting mad about how bad it was (the super crappy map was the first straw, no explanation bout half the pantheon just missing with no explanation whatsoever was the last straw.
btw i CANT wait for wrath of the righteous, keep up the good work and steady as she goes, turtle wins the race, yada yada yada.
thats because FR 4th ed was THAT bad, but its not just FR it was dragon lance too. the point is advancing the timeline is NEVER any good, and i think paizo is evolving just fine (if you dont believe me check out council o thieves pt 1, then carrion crown pt 1 then reign of winter pt1, each one evolved from the last. and i constantly see mr jacobs and mr schneider asking people how they can continue to evolve. keep it steady and gradual is my opinion.
Heh. Paizo could always put out a PDF offering called "Timelines" which depicts different "endings" for various APs and how those endings would directly or indirectly influence other APs - including a couple of the "bad ending" scenarios. Seeing there are multiple "timelines" here, Paizo gets around the whole "you negated my game!" bit while giving a bone for those who want to see the campaign "advanced."
|
|
So bottom line is, the "evolution" you suggest is harmful to Paizo and does not even serve most of the customers and potential customers. Not to say that such a change should never happen, just that deciding WHEN it will happen is a very delicate process better left to the best professionals in the world, is evident by their rise to power - Paizo.I think the "bottom line" is that you have an opinion contrary to mine, not a more factual basis for your argument. I'm certainly not taking my opinion on the matter as more than trying to make a good argument for what I want, so I'd be happy to see you not try to pass off your own arguments as facts, as you are trying to do here.
My argument remains that complete stagnation is bad. Not maybe in the short term, but certainly in the longer term. The question is only how long that time is, before people feel disconnected enough that the world is unchanging and is supposed to be that way.
I think the correct timeframe to that is "until Pathfinder 2.0 comes out in a few years". Because at that time we will have the full gamut of edition wars and disgruntled costumers anyway, the writers might as well give the setting a good shove to advance the storyline along with the rules ( only not too much of a shove please, no Spellplague 2.0 ).
Also, in regards to your argument about "leave it to the professionals", I've seen professional writers manage to destroy their fan-beloved settings much too many times now ( Forgotten Realms, BattleTech, Star Wars EU, OWoD ) to have much faith left in creative infallibility. Giving feedback helps, if they are willing to listen ( as the guys at Paizo certainly seem to be, much more than any other writing team ) and a diversity of opinions also can't be harmful for them. And I think "evolution, not revolution" is some of the best advice I can give after watching many of my other beloved franchises fail over the last decade.
Feedback is helpful, but sometimes, those giving the feedbacl could also benefit from feedback themselves.
You keep on making assumptions that are not based on actual facts but actualy reflect your personal preferences. For example in this qouted post, "stagnation is bad" - What you might call stagnation, others will call stability. For you, as an avid Golarion fan, there might be a feeling that, after playing through many APs, it's fraustrating not to see the timeline advance to recognize these APs. So the way you see it, you played through numerous potentialy world changing stories, only to have the story remain the same time after time. For you, it grows tiresome and old.
OK, I get it, even through I still hold that you can easily advance the timeline of your version of Golarion. Thing is, for many others, what you call "stagnation" is exactly what they are looking for - a rather static world. even though it's HUGE and full of potential adventure and stories, people who buy an adventure set in a certain part of the world want to be able to know as much about that area with as little effort as possible- constantly advancing a timeline would make it more confusing. People want to be able to count on certain things.Imagine someone wanting to pick up a Pathfinder Module in a local game store. If the timeline is constantly moving, the buyer will have to approach an employee and ask,
"so wait, does this module, set in Varisia, happen before or after Shattered Star?"
It's not anything horrible, but the more you advance the timeline, the more stuff like this you are going to have. Therefore, I think you'll have to agree, for just about anyone who is less knowledgeable about Golarion than you are, it's better to have the world remain static.
Have you ever played Magic: The Gathering? this is a very interesting article. It pretty much explains just how problematic it is to go on adding more and more stuff that new players will be required to be able to keep track of. It's kind of what I'm trying to say.
|
|
To make a point clear: I myself am quite invested in Golarion, and of course would be intrigued to see how a change in timeline would affect the setting. As someone who deals with the campaign world on a daily basis, I will of course be able to grasp any changed made and probably also not lose myself and keep track of what's happening when and where.
I am just demonstrating that you and I are not the only crowed Paizo markets for. Furthermore... we are not a very important crowed, since we like their stuff enough to buy it anyway even if we do not approve the way they handle changing the timelines (or in your case, the way they don't change the timeline is the issue). However as a workplace, Paizo HAS to keep getting new customers, because of Economics. It's just how it works. So when you consider the damage that advancing a timeline might cause to a the potential of getting new customers, you just realise it's not a good idea for Paizo to act on. At least not until curcumstances change significantly enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to back up a bit...I never got a sense that people didn't like Shattered Star because it advanced the timeline, but because people didn't like reporting to the Pathfinders, or didn't like the repetitiveness of the dungeons, or people thought it was too traditional.
although at this point I wonder what if anything this has to do with Wrath of the Righteous....
Feedback is helpful, but sometimes, those giving the feedbacl could also benefit from feedback themselves.
You keep on making assumptions that are not based on actual facts but actualy reflect your personal preferences. For example in this qouted post, "stagnation is bad" - What you might call stagnation, others will call stability. For you, as an avid Golarion fan, there might be a feeling that, after playing through many APs, it's fraustrating not to see the timeline advance to recognize these APs. So the way you see it, you played through numerous potentialy world changing stories, only to have the story remain the same time after time. For you, it grows tiresome and old.
OK, I get it, even through I still hold that you can easily advance the timeline of your version of Golarion. Thing is, for many others, what you call "stagnation" is exactly what they are looking for - a rather static world. even though it's HUGE and full of potential adventure and stories, people who buy an adventure set in a certain part of the world want to be able to know as much about that area with as little effort as possible- constantly advancing a timeline would make it more confusing. People want to be able to count on certain things.Imagine someone wanting to pick up a Pathfinder Module in a local game store. If the timeline is constantly moving, the buyer will have to approach an employee and ask,
"so wait, does this module, set in Varisia, happen before or after Shattered Star?"
It's not anything horrible, but the more you advance the timeline, the more stuff like this you are going to have. Therefore, I think you'll have to agree, for just about anyone who is less knowledgeable about Golarion than you are, it's better to have the world remain static.Have you ever played Magic: The Gathering? this is a very interesting article. It pretty much explains just how problematic it is to go on adding more and more stuff that new players will be required to be able to keep track of. It's kind of what I'm trying to say.
Well, aside from Magic: The Gathering still being the most popular TCG after so many years ( which by itself makes your argument seem kinda, uh, wrong? ), you are yourself only trying to advance your opinion and your methodology to do so is not very good.
I never claimed that I want the timeline to advance "constantly". What I would like is there to be a ten year advance at about the time Pathfinder 2.0 rolls around. Until then, we still have enough regions to easily write APs and fill out the details for said regions. But when a new edition arrives ( about half a decade down the line, by my personal estimation ), the time is there for a timeline advance, because Paizo will have to deal with the usual "I'LL NEVER BUY ANYTHING FROM YOU AGAIN, BLARGHARGLGARGH!" BS, no matter what they do.
Seriously, there will be a new edition somewhen down the line. We all should acknowledge that. Only people who like their head firmly stuck in the sand can dispute that at some time, this edition will have reached the end of its development cycle.
Even the people who like a static world will have to deal with that. Most likely by throwing a temper tantrum, but unless Paizo manages to lose their collective heads and blow up Varisia ( or something else egregious like that ), I will tell you that people will bluster and threaten to quit, but most people will not do anything of the sort.
To make a point clear: I myself am quite invested in Golarion, and of course would be intrigued to see how a change in timeline would affect the setting. As someone who deals with the campaign world on a daily basis, I will of course be able to grasp any changed made and probably also not lose myself and keep track of what's happening when and where.
I am just demonstrating that you and I are not the only crowed Paizo markets for. Furthermore... we are not a very important crowed, since we like their stuff enough to buy it anyway even if we do not approve the way they handle changing the timelines (or in your case, the way they don't change the timeline is the issue). However as a workplace, Paizo HAS to keep getting new customers, because of Economics. It's just how it works. So when you consider the damage that advancing a timeline might cause to a the potential of getting new customers, you just realise it's not a good idea for Paizo to act on. At least not until curcumstances change significantly enough.
And I'd like to ask why you are so sure that a stagnant world setting will attact more new costumers than one which updates about once per decade. Sorry, but you are tea leaves reading, in the same way that I am. Only that I am actually telling of my experiences with several other fandoms, while you are so far stating stuff without actually referencing other fandoms which did not blow up their setting, but yet still advanced their stories.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
although at this point I wonder what if anything this has to do with Wrath of the Righteous....
+1
Girls, girls, you're both pretty.
I remember talk of FR's canon lawyers, and well that went, so having less "official" advancement and leaving the timeline up to the GM is not a bad idea.
Saying King/Queen ____ is dead because he/she was killed in AP ___ and the GM is wrong is not going to be a good thing.
Now the GM can just say that event never happened. Well he could do it in FR, but the player has less backing for his arguing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, aside from Magic: The Gathering still being the most popular TCG after so many years ( which by itself makes your argument seem kinda, uh, wrong?)
The article was published years ago, and it anounced a *major* change in how Magic was designed - if you'd read the paragraph preceeding the graph shown, you'll note that the writer (who is the lead designer of Magic) states clearly that magic was becoming less and less popular - that is, it's rate of growth was negative. After the change, it became positive again and Magic is now more popular than ever. So, simplifying things might have easily been a BIG part of that reason. Can't know for sure, but the evidance strognly suggests that.
And I'd like to ask why you are so sure that a stagnant world setting will attact more new costumers than one which updates about once per decade. Sorry, but you are tea leaves reading, in the same way that I am. Only that I am actually telling of my experiences with several other fandoms, while you are so far stating stuff without actually referencing other fandoms which did not blow up their setting, but yet still advanced their stories.
Because, simply put, the more effort you need to invest in order to learn a new game game, the less likely you are to do so. Really think about it for a moment with a viewpoint as objective as possible. Maybe you are special and delight in delving into a world that went through several jumps in timeline, requiring you to learn not only the way things are in the "present" but also SEVERAL older versions of the same world (and it will be several, because according to your own logic, Pathfinder 2.0 would eventualy be replaced by Pathfinder 3.0, and so on), but for most people that's just too much of a headache. Or it might be. Any way you look at it, increasing the "bar of entry" - that is, the minimal effort you need to invest in order to get into a game - also filters away all the people for whom the previous bar of entry was borderline unacceptable.
The math involved is not complexed, nor is the basic principle. The only place where opinion can come into the matter is asking if maybe the risk is worth it, every now and then. You believe it's worth it, apprantly, while I believe it should be done only with greatest caution and is sparsley as possible. If it's avoidable, I think you should probably avoid it.
I will say this. I have mostly gotten out of Warhammer Fantasy because of the rules changes (two since I got into the game - both of which have happened without me playing a single game due to a lack of players in my local area). I'm also growing less and less enthused about Moneygrabber 40K - er, I mean Warhammer 40K, though I'll continue buying the rules... I've enough models unassembled that I could likely last a decade before running out of things to assemble and paint. And most of it will likely still be valid in some way.
Here's the question: Why would Pathfinder need a new edition? Perhaps the only complaint I have over Pathfinder is the ultra-short spell durations (and the fact that the feat Spell Extension is pretty much useless for spells like Invisibility or the like). The game mechanics work fairly well, so really the only genuine need would be to either consolidate all the classes and races into one book (doubtful), or to revise the rules for small fixes and the like to improve playability.
Is there a desperate need for the latter? If not, then why have a new edition?
te]
Because, simply put, the more effort you need to invest in order to learn a new game game, the less likely you are to do so. Really think about it for a moment with a viewpoint as objective as possible. Maybe you are special and delight in delving into a world that went through several jumps in timeline, requiring you to learn not only the way things are in the "present" but also SEVERAL older versions of the same world (and it will be several,...
This is a large reason why I never tried to run an FR based game, and probably a large reason why I don't know any GM's that ever ran one.
PS:If they did, they never told me about it.
PS2: I am not knocking FR. I heard it was fun, but I had no desire to learn all of the connections that exist in the game between different countries, groups, and so on. While Eberron had things I did not like there were a lot of "up to the GM" questions", and I liked that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
although at this point I wonder what if anything this has to do with Wrath of the Righteous....
I'm sure this is a rhetorical question, but its because Wrath of the Righteous presents a situation where the outcome has extremely meaningful consequences with long range implications.
While it is a sidetrack to get the broader Pros and Cons of evolving a campaign in a general context, it nevertheless is extremely relevant.
I'd like to point something out I think is quite significant.
This is a generalization, but most of the early Adventure Paths present a crisis. If the crisis is averted, the PCs are awesome heroes and have accomplished something incredibly major—but they return the campaign setting to the status quo.
Here are some vague examples from many APs. Not really spoilers, but I want to minimize TL/dr
Runelords—you preserve the status quo by defeating the baddie
Crimson Throne—Life can go back to normal thanks to the PCs!
Second Darkness—The Second Age of Darkness is averted
Legacy of Fire—thanks to the PCs, its business as usual in Katapesh
Serpent's Skull—Ydersius does not return to start World War 5, life goes on.
Now this pattern does gets broken up:
Jade Regent—has some big things happen, far far far away from the Inner Sea.
Skull and Shackles-yeah, but the implications aren't as far reaching, its a more personal story to the PCs.
Just bear in mind, it is a generalization. Don't nit pick.
When you get to Reign of Winter and Wrath of the Righteous, something really interesting happens.
A crisis is presented and no matter what happens, there is a huge possible impact on the setting. Especially in Wrath of the Righteous. With Wrath, there is big change if the PCs fail, and there is big change if the PCs succeed. Either way it appears nothing stays the same.
(I am not privy to the end of Reign of Winter except in the most broadest and general sense. However, I have faith in Rob McCreary that if the PCs do succeed they're going to have the ability to do a little more than return Irrisen to exactly the way it was before. I think it is a parallel example to Wrath, but I am making less assumptions about it).
That is not the type of evolution that magnuskn wants, but I think it is a brave departure from past precedent.
That is the sort of evolution in storytelling I think we should hope for, and I'm happy that our Developers are bringing us.
Though I'm still assuming the changes will be less drastic if the PCs win: Change in rulers in Irrisen, maybe up to removal of Baba Yaga's influence vs. Elvanna conquers a frozen world.
Hence my caveat, but Wrath of the Righteous is there staring you in the face.
Most games and other APs can go on unhindered if the PCs win. Not if they lose.
Yes, but that is entirely my point. We're seeing something new.
But I am working on the idea that we really don't know how Wrath of the Righteous ends
My guess is that the PCs take on Deskari, but does that mean if they win the Worldwound would close?
That would be a HUGE Change, since it would basically completely change a region of the world. Sure there would still be demons and much of the landscape would be tainted by the energies of the Abyss, but there would no longer be a new influx of demons, and people could realistically resettle and fight back the evil.
But we don't know if that will happen. Perhaps killing Deskari just creates chaos and a power vaccuum. The crusaders would have a respite as other demon lords or nascent demon lords jockeyed for power, and infighting within the enemies ranks would provide a respite for the crusaders. If the worldwound remains open, which might very well happen, then the actual layout of the inner sea might not change much.
...And with that I return you to your discussion!
Good day folks!
EDIT: And if I walk away that easy.. you best be scratching your head...
Because, simply put, the more effort you need to invest in order to learn a new game game, the less likely you are to do so. Really think about it for a moment with a viewpoint as objective as possible. Maybe you are special and delight in delving into a world that went through several jumps in timeline, requiring you to learn not only the way things are in the "present" but also SEVERAL older versions of the same world (and it will be several, because according to your own logic, Pathfinder 2.0 would eventualy be replaced by Pathfinder 3.0, and so on), but for most people that's just too much of a headache. Or it might be. Any way you look at it, increasing the "bar of entry" - that is, the minimal effort you need to invest in order to get into a game - also filters away all the people for whom the previous bar of entry was borderline...
Well, I guess Paizo better stop publishing new campaign material RIGHT NOW, because by your logic, new players would be too confoozled by all those nations on the map and all those books and APs which are already out, dealing with those nations.
Hey, judging by wraithstrikes comment, I wonder if he would get into Golarion as a new player, if he would have the choice to do so right now. There's already so many materials to buy and read and understand...
My point: Advancing the timeline is not significantly different to your argument than the world filling up with published sourcebooks. Have some faith that players, especially RPG players, are more intelligent and capable and willing to learn about something they want to get into.
Here's the question: Why would Pathfinder need a new edition? Perhaps the only complaint I have over Pathfinder is the ultra-short spell durations (and the fact that the feat Spell Extension is pretty much useless for spells like Invisibility or the like). The game mechanics work fairly well, so really the only genuine need would be to either consolidate all the classes and races into one book (doubtful), or to revise the rules for small fixes and the like to improve playability.
Is there a desperate need for the latter? If not, then why have a new edition?
Editions have cycles. First, there are the additional rulebooks, which give more options and more details. Then, after those are done, there come the exacting details, which only serve a niche audience ( Undead book, Dragon book, and so on ). Paizo is burning the candle at both ends in that regard, because their setting books basically are printing those end-of-cycle books at the same time when their RPG line is doing the crunch books. As far as the crunch books go, we are already at "NPC statblocks" and "campaign advice", so there's still about one major round of "new classes and feats" left after that and a bit more fluff disguised as crunch.
But at the end of the day, at some time you have done all the crunch you can do and the system is groaning under all the weight of the rules ( which tend to begin to conflict with each other with each new set of feats, spells and classes added ). So you don't really have new material to publish, which means you need to make a decision: Fire people or publish something new and exciting. And a new edition normally makes people excited. Oh, and you can republish all that material you already published once, only "new and improved".
That's why a new edition is inevitable. The question is only, how long until the day arrives when the developers are ready to admit that they are going to publish one.
|
|
Well, I guess Paizo better stop publishing new campaign material RIGHT NOW, because by your logic, new players would be too confoozled by all those nations on the map and all those books and APs which are already out, dealing with those nations.
Thing is, the way things work now, if you want to know about Sargava, for example, you buy the book about Sargava. The moment the timeline is advanced, suddenly not everything written in that book is still correct, or even relevent. Because if, for example,
My point being, right now you have a *gurantee* that if you bought a Paizo product detailing an area, you can count on the description being accurate. If you advance a timeline, suddenly it becomes harder to discren which of the facts that you know about a place happened when. Of course for you and me it'll be rather easy - because we were here to see the situation evolve. For a newcomer, it's confusing.
Just imagine how outraged someone might be if he found out that he just spent over 10$ buying a book about Sargava in preperation for the AP he's going to run there (I'm talking about a future, possible, hipothetical AP in Sargava set after the advance of the timeline), to only then find out he got confused and bought an outdated product.
In another related issue, if you advance the timeline in Sargava to accomedate the events that happened in Serpent's Skull, then whomever is going to have a game there will have to either run Serpent's Skull first, or never run Serpent's Skull at all, due to wanting your game to have a coherent timeline your players can follow. That means Paizo will render quite the number of older product useless if they advance the timeline.
Good thing the setting is in nice, bite-sized pieces, or else I'd never get into Golarion.
One thing to consider about Paizo is if the company is privately owned or publicly. It's a Limited Liability Company, which suggests to me it's privately owned. As such, constant growth is not as important as making a profit. Thus you don't need new editions every X years to make investors happy. Instead, you come out with a new edition if it is needed. Until it is needed, we won't see one. And rules conflicts because of Feats or the like is not an "as-needed" model as FAQs and Rules Clarifications can always be posted online... or maybe just maybe the GM can decide for him or herself on which rule has priority.
---------
If I were to guess as to when we'd see Mythic characters in WotR, I'd say either it will be at the end of the first "chapter" or part of the first AP book... or at the climactic battle at the end of the AP itself. It seems likely the latter will be the case, as it allows characters to slowly grow and develop without having Mythic rules dominating the setting.
In addition, WotR will have information on how to run the game without Mythic rules. Rather than clutter the first AP with that data, it seems likely the Mythic Rules appear at the end so to allow the AP to better build on the atmosphere and setting of the Worldwound and what the players are doing here.
You have RIGHT NOW a Paizo book about Golarion elves which is not accurate in some regards as to how the race actually works, i.e. sleeping habits and probably some other stuff. Edition changes happen, man.
One thing to consider about Paizo is if the company is privately owned or publicly. It's a Limited Liability Company, which suggests to me it's privately owned. As such, constant growth is not as important as making a profit. Thus you don't need new editions every X years to make investors happy. Instead, you come out with a new edition if it is needed. Until it is needed, we won't see one. And rules conflicts because of Feats or the like is not an "as-needed" model as FAQs and Rules Clarifications can always be posted online... or maybe just maybe the GM can decide for him or herself on which rule has priority.
You are seriously suggesting that Paizo not ever bring out a new edition, because... uh, stuff. Really?
Actually, no. Right now I do NOT have a Paizo book about Golarion elves. Thus whether or not the book is accurate makes no difference to me. However, why don't you go and create a "Paizo needs to create a new edition of Pathfinder" discussion thread and let this one return to the discussion of Wrath of the Righteous. Which I tried to do and you promptly ignored in order to keep beating on a hooved mammal that is pining for the fjords.
mmmm...fjords!