| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...........Why can't we have both? I like the having a lot of new stuff to play with. (Keeps me engaged) But I would like more storytelling on top of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like bloat either, but it happens in any popular game. The only way to make every happy is for Paizo to publish new material, while the concumers decide to use at their table and what not to.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder RPG line is designed to be very setting neutral. The Pathfinder Campaign Setting line seems to be more what you're looking for.
Indeed, but alas, we don't have that choice yet.
Unless you're talking PFS, I don't see how you imagine the choice is lacking.
Heck in my home game, most of the players don't buy all the new stuff that comes out, and don't do enough research online to even know about a fraction of it. As GM I could easily mandate pure core rules, and I rather doubt most of them would even really notice. It would have pretty minor effects. A couple might lose archetypes, but meh.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed! But alas, that isn't happening yet...limited manpower and whatnot. Hence, my open letter. Sometimes you have to choose, and I just wish they'd choose more in-depth storytelling and setting development darnit............Why can't we have both? I like the having a lot of new stuff to play with. (Keeps me engaged) But I would like more storytelling on top of that.
Pathfinder already releases setting material at a rate higher than just about any setting/company I can think of. I'd also wager that the setting-neutral (read: rules content; what you call "bloat") material probably sells better, on the whole.
People like new rules options. They're fun. Having a lot of them doesn't mean Pathfinder is "Munchkinesque", whatever that means, and releasing more rules content doesn't mean they aren't respecting their customers' intelligence.
That awkward feeling when I'm favoriting a post by Scott...
yeah......
;-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That awkward feeling when I'm favoriting a post by Scott...
How can anything wrong feel so right?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you make up your own fluff?
Every time I see this stuff a little piece of me dies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weeeeeell for those that don't play in Golarion setting, all the "bloat" is probably seen as a good thing in order to get some balanced options for home-games.
To the OP: "Story-telling"? "Setting-specific description for Golarion"? Have you tried checking out the variety of region books? How bout the Pathfinder Tales line of novels? The novels in particular have been invaluable for my personal roleplay and understanding of the setting.
Do you have a particular line of RPG products as an example of a campaign setting that's mostly focused on storytelling? The Elmister's Forgotten Realms book was practically an anomaly post 2nd/3rd edition.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bloaty? Just don't use it if it's a problem. Restrict your table to core rules or certain books. No-one if forcing you to use it all.
Look at it the other way. Paizo is a company, they have to make money. If Paizo were to stop doing new rules then that would hit their bottom line.
Also since the Pathfinder RPG started there have been 5 hardcover rules books, 3 beastiaries, a book of equipment which was mainly a compilation, a book of NPCs and a book of GMing advice. 11 hardcovers of which you can only really describe 5 (6 at a push) of having large amounts of rules in them.
Compare that firstly to 3.5 with it's avalanche of option books, new systems, new classes etc. etc. and I would say that rules bloat isn't an issue.
Secondly if you compare that hardcover release schedule with the Golarion specific material then there is no contest. I reckon there must be hundred of setting books by now, not to mention the material in the AP's.
Really I don't see what Paizo could do differently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
although i always love more campaign material and lore (i loved elminster's forgotten realms), i can never have too many spells, archetypes, feats, and items, both magical and mundane. i feel these things (especially spells and magic items) do a great deal to enhance the flavor of a setting, even if i never actually use them. one gamer's bloat is another gamer's gravy.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder already releases setting material at a rate higher than just about any setting/company I can think of.
True. And if you add up the pages of campaign setting material we publish each year and compare that to the number of pages we release in the rulebook line, that'll tip the scale even further—especially if you consider that one release in the rulebook line each year is a Bestiary or an NPC Codex that directly enhances the setting and contains little—if anything—in terms of new rules.
Publishing both rules and setting materials are essential to our continuing success, so we will continue to do both of these things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, there is no such thing as too many options.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the Love of Desna, please, PLEASE stop releasing an endless stream of additional spells, races, classes, feats, archetypes, etc. Talk about BLOAT!
No.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, there is no such thing as too many options.
/disagree
"Too Many" options happens when game balance becomes distorted. Options that are too weak or options that are too strong (or worse, combinations of options that are too strong) will harm the game as a whole.
And, as options are added over time, by different authors, it is inevitable that this will happen. (Example: Druid with Animal Domain (PFRPG Core Rulebook p. 41) + Boon Companion Feat (Seekers of Secrets p. 16).)
In fairness - PAIZO has done remarkably well at containing these kind of problems.
|
Creative Director
|
| 31 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I do not like an endless stream of additional rules options. That is not fun to me. It's bloat, and to me is indicative of a company catering to the least common denominator, in this case, the WOW crowd.
You see... until this point, I was actually on your side. I would LOVE to see us produce more Golarion content and less world-neutral content (the reasons we do things the way we currently do are that way for very good reasons though)...
... but then you had to go and pull the "Warcraft players are the least common denominator."
Problem is... I'm one of those Warcraft players.
There's no surer way to erode support than by making insulting comments, because you never know who you're gonna be affecting.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has put out nothing remotely close to the Forgotten Realms book that Hasbro released...ironic....
Not ironic at all.
That book was released over a decade after the Forgotten Realms was originally released, remember—they had over twice the built-up resources we do at this point in time to support that book.
Never mind the fact that the Inner Sea World Guide and the 3rd Edition FR book are the exact same page count. If what you're saying is that the FR book is better than the Inner Sea book, though... that's fine.
But I would say that the Inner Sea World Guide is at the very least "remotely close" to that book.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And furthermore, to echo Vic's statements...
We publish 3 rulebooks a year. That's about 832 pages of content a year that's world-neutral, but is meant to support Golarion nonetheless.
We publish 12 AP volumes, 10 Campaign Setting Books, 12 Player Companions, and 4 64 page modules a year. Plus novels. Plus Pathfinder Society scenarios.
Now, granted, we DO miss some scheduled releases for various reasons, but let's just set aside the novels and scenarios and assume that more than makes up for missed releases. That gives us:
12 x 96 = 1,152
10 x 64 = 640
12 x 36 = 432
4 x 64 = 256
So... we're doing around 2,480 pages of Golarion content a year. About 3 times the amount of the world-neutral content. I'd hardly say that's a minority.
I get that you like the Golarion stuff we do, and I really DO appreciate that, since the world content is my favorite part of what we publish. But we're already putting out a HUGE amount of material for Golarion every year. It's not like we're slacking on that account.
|
Creative Director
|
It's ironic when you look at the source (WOTC-Hasbro), and the demographics for 4th Ed. D&D.
And again, I'm not talking about page count or the fact that a setting guide exists. I'm talking about the substance of said guide.
All I'm looking for is something that really describes the setting of Golarion, in depth--all of the people, places, events, history, etc. without any additional classes, feats, traits, monsters, classes, etc...or a very limited amount of this.
I guess I'm alone in wanting this though. Sorry to offend you James. I think I may have misjudged Paizo and Pathfinder.
Take care.
OH! Sorry... I was assuming you were talking about the 3rd edition FR book, not the more recent one. In any event, that just further goes to show the advantage of having an extra 12 years or so to build up equity and lore in a world, I guess.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds to me that your concern is less with what we're publishing, and more with the fact that the bulk of the Pathfinder player base seems to be more interested in player crunch options than world building information.
That, alas, is the way it's always been. Players generally prefer to learn more about how to make their character better. It's the GMs (or at the very least, the players who are also GMs) who look instead to campaign setting material... and the fact of the matter is that there are just FAR FEWER of us GMs out there than there are players.
In any event, going back to your original post... choosing Whistledown as an example is a bit unfair. If you'd chosen, say, Magnimar or Sandpoint or Korvosa, there's quite a bit of information about those settlements.
We can't cover everything all at once. We've only been publishing content for Golarion for 6 years or so, as opposed to TSR/WotC/Hasbro, which has been publishing content for Forgotten Realms for closer to 30 years.
What I'm basically saying is: Give us time. We'll get there! :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have to agree with the OP. Anyone can create new rules, new classes, new feats, new spells, etc. Especially when they are not play-tested well, have conflicts with earlier material, are ambiguous and leaving players and GMs wondering what the true intent was, and in general leaves the feeling it was aimed at the lowest common denominator.
Flesh out the campaign world. Granted it will not suit 100% of everyone, but any GM worth his salt can change a few location names and customize it to his own campaign. The same goes with adventures. Its great having Adventure Path modules that can be a whole campaign for a group; but stand alone adventures of different levels, for places all around the game world would be appreciated. And once again, any adventure set in Golarion should be easily converted to a custom campaign.
I have a feeling I know why Paizo has not gone this route. Generally, only GM's will be buying adventure modules. But if they slap together a guide with some suddenly now "essential" new feats, spells and class archetypes, they will get a larger customer base that will buy them. Too bad, because that is watering down the product, and in my opinion making it mediocre.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
although i always love more campaign material and lore (i loved elminster's forgotten realms), i can never have too many spells, archetypes, feats, and items, both magical and mundane. i feel these things (especially spells and magic items) do a great deal to enhance the flavor of a setting, even if i never actually use them. one gamer's bloat is another gamer's gravy.I agree to an extent, if all of the above are in context. But they all mean much more in the context of a fleshed-out world that players care about, with people, places, and things that we as players can connect with and relate to. Otherwise, the additional feats, etc. ring a tad bit hollow to this git.
I see I'm running up against a wall of reistance from players and development here. Can't say that I'm all that surprised. Players like me seem to be going the way of the dinosaur.
Forgotten Realms suffered fairly quickly from overdevelopment. At first there were places a GM could flesh out as their own. Those places were filled in quickly, pushing "non canonical" locations into the border areas, then off of the main area altogether. Then the nearby land masses were (badly) filled in. High level NPCs that were nigh unassailable seemed to be thicker than a cloud of flies buzzing about the inevitable results of a draft animal society.
Not to far along into 2e my circles began calling it the Forgettable Realms. Elminster became Elmonster. The Seven Sisters became the Seven Babysitters. It was ridiculous.
Overdevelopment of a setting is just as much a death knell as underdevelopment. Give GMs decent space to work with inside the setting rather than continually pushing such work to the ever regressing borderlands.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Turin, I had no idea what to do with the Realms. If I put something some place they just come out with the coolest world event in that place. I want some empty space to stretch my gm legs in and know it isn't going to have a major over hall that will effect the areas surrounding it and ruin all my work. When you change an area you can change a region and that's a lot of work to redesign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds to me that your concern is less with what we're publishing, and more with the fact that the bulk of the Pathfinder player base seems to be more interested in player crunch options than world building information.
That, alas, is the way it's always been. Players generally prefer to learn more about how to make their character better. It's the GMs (or at the very least, the players who are also GMs) who look instead to campaign setting material... and the fact of the matter is that there are just FAR FEWER of us GMs out there than there are players.
In any event, going back to your original post... choosing Whistledown as an example is a bit unfair. If you'd chosen, say, Magnimar or Sandpoint or Korvosa, there's quite a bit of information about those settlements.
We can't cover everything all at once. We've only been publishing content for Golarion for 6 years or so, as opposed to TSR/WotC/Hasbro, which has been publishing content for Forgotten Realms for closer to 30 years.
What I'm basically saying is: Give us time. We'll get there! :-)
The best part is, this is Paizo we're talking about. We're pretty sure they actually will get there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best part is, this is Paizo we're talking about. We're pretty sure they actually will get there.
And, odds are, they won't utilize an increasing number of continuity-altering events to get there...
Eh, you can't blame just 4E for that.
Further, as has been brought up - that Elminster's Guide is 30-some years in the making.
Numerous editions of the game, tons of content for each of those editions, how many novels, video games, etc?
Pathfinder/Golarion ain't quite there yet.
To the OP:
Is there any particular reason you're choosing places that don't have a great deal of info, yet? Rather than places that are fully fleshed out (like Magnimar or Westcrown)?
No. 100% of the world has not been fully gazetteered and timelined, etc. It probably never will be.