I'm skeptical. It's nearly impossible to avoid playing the part of psychotically-suicidal killer-for-pay in D&D or games like it. You habitually fight extremely dangerous monsters, throwing yourself into combat situations with many times more frequency than the most decorated and daring of military groups, and nearly every group finds itself motivated primarily by wealth for at least one of their quests in each campaign. I mean, really, really think about it. If the fantasy world of D&D were real, and you were really an adventurer, everyone would view you as insane and suicidal. There's no other way to put it. "Wait, the four of you are going to purge the catacombs of undead by yourselves just so you can get to the treasure map that might be in one of the crypts?" That's ridiculously self-destructive behavior. And even if, out of sheer determination, you've managed to never create a character who considers adventuring to be a reasonable profession, I'm certain you've had others in your party who fit the bill. But you got along fine with them, probably, because you know that it's better not to look too closely at such things. Making a tabletop fantasy game superficially "real" is fine, but past a certain point you find yourself up against the brick wall of realizing that the core conceits of the game are incredibly unrealistic.
You know, we wouldnt call them "insane and suicidal", we'd just call them Navy Seals and heroes.
You know, we wouldnt call them "insane and suicidal", we'd just call them Navy Seals and heroes.I'm skeptical. It's nearly impossible to avoid playing the part of psychotically-suicidal killer-for-pay in D&D or games like it. You habitually fight extremely dangerous monsters, throwing yourself into combat situations with many times more frequency than the most decorated and daring of military groups, and nearly every group finds itself motivated primarily by wealth for at least one of their quests in each campaign. I mean, really, really think about it. If the fantasy world of D&D were real, and you were really an adventurer, everyone would view you as insane and suicidal. There's no other way to put it. "Wait, the four of you are going to purge the catacombs of undead by yourselves just so you can get to the treasure map that might be in one of the crypts?" That's ridiculously self-destructive behavior. And even if, out of sheer determination, you've managed to never create a character who considers adventuring to be a reasonable profession, I'm certain you've had others in your party who fit the bill. But you got along fine with them, probably, because you know that it's better not to look too closely at such things. Making a tabletop fantasy game superficially "real" is fine, but past a certain point you find yourself up against the brick wall of realizing that the core conceits of the game are incredibly unrealistic.
I am so confused by this comment.
Are you trying to be super-patriotic? Or trying to object to what I said? Did you miss the line in there that reads, "You habitually fight extremely dangerous monsters, throwing yourself into combat situations with many times more frequency than the most decorated and daring of military groups,"?
You, also, apparently missed the discussions where it was made clear that acting in this way makes sense if you are acting for a higher purpose (as groups like the SEALs presumably do), and qualifies as "insane and suicidal" typically when the primary motivation is wealth, or personal power.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't read 8 pages worth of debate, but I was just thinking... wouldn't it be possible to create a City Codex? Sort of like the NPC Codex but you have a bunch of cities, towns, and villages with their stat blocks and brief descriptions and maybe a map? Or you could even create a mapfolio as an additional content purchase that gives maps of the locations. All the towns could be tweakable and used in other areas (similar to how Heldren in RoW can be placed anywhere and doesn't have to be in Taldor).
You know, we wouldnt call them "insane and suicidal", we'd just call them Navy Seals and heroes.I am so confused by this comment.
Are you trying to be super-patriotic? Or trying to object to what I said? Did you miss the line in there that reads, "You habitually fight extremely dangerous monsters, throwing yourself into combat situations with many times more frequency than the most decorated and daring of military groups,"?
You, also, apparently missed the discussions where it was made clear that acting in this way makes sense if you are acting for a higher purpose (as groups like the SEALs presumably do), and qualifies as "insane and suicidal" typically when the primary motivation is wealth, or personal power.
Just about every adventuring party I have been a part of is out to save: the local village, the Princess, the Kingdom or the World- as they get more powerful. Wealth, and/or personal power is a means to an end or a bonus for hard dangerous work. They ARE acting for a "higher power". This for forty years of playing with dozens of groups, so it's hardly rare.
Even the Evil game we were in- we were working for a Diety, which certainly is a "higher power" (or "lower power" I guess).
I mean- if you don’t like adventuring, why not play Checkers or something?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My campaign has been running every 2 weeks since late Sept 2012 (7 months) and I consider it "just starting." The characters are level 3, and I've expressed to the players that the campaign is intended to run to level 10 or so.
To provide some feedback on who buys what though, most of my players own no Pathfinder print materials at all. (One owns a Core Rulebook.) I own almost every book produced since Pathfinder RPG launched (except for the last 6 months--I need to catch up), but two of my players own HeroLab and just buy Pathfinder add-ons for it. They have all the mechanics and none of the setting. They pick their deities from the list HeroLab provides, which mixes everything from the top 20 gods to the devils, to nascent demon lords, to the good-aligned outsiders worshiped in Magnimar (forgot what they're called). They all just appear in a long list and the players draw from them. I have to constantly ask "where is this from," and the players have no respect for the big 20 deities, nor know them any better than the others. (It frustrates me, they have no context.)
So yes, while most of Pathfinder's "users" are players, I'm inclined to believe, through my own experience, that most of Pathfinder's paying customers are GMs.
You know, we wouldnt call them "insane and suicidal", we'd just call them Navy Seals and heroes.I am so confused by this comment.
Are you trying to be super-patriotic? Or trying to object to what I said? Did you miss the line in there that reads, "You habitually fight extremely dangerous monsters, throwing yourself into combat situations with many times more frequency than the most decorated and daring of military groups,"?
You, also, apparently missed the discussions where it was made clear that acting in this way makes sense if you are acting for a higher purpose (as groups like the SEALs presumably do), and qualifies as "insane and suicidal" typically when the primary motivation is wealth, or personal power.
Just about every adventuring party I have been a part of is out to save: the local village, the Princess, the Kingdom or the World- as they get more powerful. Wealth, and/or personal power is a means to an end or a bonus for hard dangerous work. They ARE acting for a "higher power". This for forty years of playing with dozens of groups, so it's hardly rare.
Even the Evil game we were in- we were working for a Diety, which certainly is a "higher power" (or "lower power" I guess).
I mean- if you don’t like adventuring, why not play Checkers or something?
I'm going to ask you to go back and read what's already been said. I think you're missing some crucial pieces of the discussion. I'll be happy to help clear up specific questions you have, but much of this is already asked-and-answered, as it were.
It's not important that most parties have, at some point, worked for the "greater good" or on behalf of a higher belief. It is noteworthy that nearly all of them have, at some point, tackled incredibly dangerous challenges, repeatedly, for the sake of personal gain in a way that no actual person would do unless they exhibited the traits I outlined (psychotically-suicidal, foolish, etc.).
This is a direct result of the dichotomy between how actual people behave, and how people controlling imaginary people behave, particularly within the construct of a fantasy roleplaying game where this behavior is expected and even encouraged. The disincentives that might be present in the real world (the danger of actual death, for instance) do not threaten the people playing imaginary characters in a fantasy world, and even though most try to exhibit some semblance of "realistic" portrayal of their characters, the desire to act in such an unconventional way seeps through.
This has nothing to do with whether I love adventuring. Of course I love adventuring. Who doesn't? It's one of the main reasons I play D&D. What I'm not a fan of is looking too closely at the game world, or expecting it to be highly "realistic". Those are not reasonable expectations to have of a fantasy roleplaying game, and it is almost unfailing that people who play a fantasy roleplaying game with those expectations will eventually become disillusioned by the experience's failure to live up to what they came in expecting. It's much better to go in with the understanding that you are playing a game, and that this game is - by necessity - a highly imperfect attempt at simulating a fantasy world. Enjoy it for what it is, rather than what you wish it could have been.
To provide some feedback on who buys what though, most of my players own no Pathfinder print materials at all. (One owns a Core Rulebook.) I own almost every book produced since Pathfinder RPG launched (except for the last 6 months--I need to catch up), but two of my players own HeroLab and just buy Pathfinder add-ons for it. They have all the mechanics and none of the setting. They pick their deities from the list HeroLab provides, which mixes everything from the top 20 gods to the devils, to nascent demon lords, to the good-aligned outsiders worshiped in Magnimar (forgot what they're called). They all just appear in a long list and the players draw from them. I have to constantly ask "where is this from," and the players have no respect for the big 20 deities, nor know them any better than the others. (It frustrates me, they have no context.)
So yes, while most of Pathfinder's "users" are players, I'm inclined to believe, through my own experience, that most of Pathfinder's paying customers are GMs.
This is certainly our experience too. (For any RPG - typically one of us buys the game and someone else might by a supplement or the core rules, but generally dont. In our case, I also bought all the Herolab subscriptions we have.
It's not important that most parties have, at some point, worked for the "greater good" or on behalf of a higher belief. It is noteworthy that nearly all of them have, at some point, tackled incredibly dangerous challenges, repeatedly, for the sake of personal gain in a way that no actual person would do unless they exhibited the traits I outlined...
But you do know there are about four Player Characters on each world, right? And you have read about Knight errant (rare but real) "adventurers' , and other from later periods? The age of explorers for example. Sure, adventuring is not a common profession, and takes a certain mind set. But it's not unrealistic, it's just rare. It's only unrealistic if you play it as a large % of the population are Player characters.
Knut Haugland was an adventurer. You know there were several "real life' Indiana Jones, right? (Have you read about Roy Chapman Andrews?)Arctic explorers. Cortez- driven by greed and a sense of adventure.
And again, Player characters do not adventure just "for the sake of personal gain".
Adventurers are rare. They may be a a little "off", but they exist and they have not all been "psychotically-suicidal, foolish".
Adventurers are heroes, cut from a different cloth. They are rare, but not insane.
It's not important that most parties have, at some point, worked for the "greater good" or on behalf of a higher belief. It is noteworthy that nearly all of them have, at some point, tackled incredibly dangerous challenges, repeatedly, for the sake of personal gain in a way that no actual person would do unless they exhibited the traits I outlined...
But you do know there are about four Player Characters on each world, right? And you have read about Knight errant (rare but real) "adventurers' , and other from later periods? The age of explorers for example. Sure, adventuring is not a common profession, and takes a certain mind set. But it's not unrealistic, it's just rare. It's only unrealistic if you play it as a large % of the population are Player characters.
Knut Haugland was an adventurer. You know there were several "real life' Indiana Jones, right? (Have you read about Roy Chapman Andrews?)Arctic explorers. Cortez- driven by greed and a sense of adventure.
And again, Player characters do not adventure just "for the sake of personal gain".
Adventurers are rare. They may be a a little "off", but they exist and they have not all been "psychotically-suicidal, foolish".
Adventurers are heroes, cut from a different cloth. They are rare, but not insane.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that what your typical D&D player character goes through is comparable to Knut Haugland?
Come on, man.
When we (as people in the real world) say "adventurer", we mean something hugely different from what the DM at a D&D table refers to the player characters as "adventurers". You get that, right?
An "adventurer" in the real world maybe explores some new territory or sets some new world records. Richard Branson is who we call an "adventurer".
An "adventurer" in D&D can pretty much count on going toe-to-toe with multiple dragons by the time he's finished his career. And, at that point, he has personally killed hundreds of creatures, dangerous and fantastical.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here after the thread has degenerated into aimless bickering, but to the OP and your original point - our group also doesn't like having to play catch-up with the endless rules options, so for each of our campaigns we clearly state what's in scope for the PCs. So far we've expanded to regularly include the APG but not UC or UM (with a brief exception for UC Asian stuff for Jade Regent).
I do worry about the pace sometimes, and if at the current rate of rules output Paizo will be forced into more and more questionable areas and eventually hit the "time to collapse and do a new version" wall, but so far they've been pretty innovative in filling in the schedule - Mythic Adventures, for example, is a brand new idea and not just "here's some toys to charop better by point building your race/class." And some of the "rules" books are just generally useful to us GMs without having new rules per se, like the NPC Codex.
I'm OK with the rate of Golarion publishing, I don't want everything to be 100% covered after all. If anything I'd like more adventures, not the APs but the one-offs.
This 'discussion' is highly entertaining. Please continue!
| 1 person 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!
I can agree with slowing down the release of spells simply because of how it automatically makes certain types of spellcasters more powerful.
However, there is no such thing as too many classes, feats, or archetypes as long as they all serve a purpose and remain relatively balanced with each-other. There are still plenty of character concepts that I want to play that I can't build properly in Pathfinder.
If you think Paizo is releasing too much content, please just stick to the core rules (or whatever level of complexity you prefer) instead of ruining things for those of us who love extra options.
So they're dangerous game hunters? We have those IRL.Not on the scale shown in the game.
But then, this IS fantasy after all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Selous
Not only killed more big game than any D&D PC, but was a well known explorer and military hero.
So they're dangerous game hunters? We have those IRL.
Sure.
Because bagging a tiger and wiping out a stone giant fortress with four people is basically the same thing, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Selous
Not only killed more big game than any D&D PC, but was a well known explorer and military hero.
By which you mean he mostly shot a lot of elephants.
Are you still trying to insist that what most people mean when they use the word "adventurer" to describe someone is the same as what a DM means by the word "adventurer" when he uses it to refer to a D&D player character?
So they're dangerous game hunters? We have those IRL.Sure.
Because bagging a tiger and wiping out a stone giant fortress with four people is basically the same thing, right?
Given that in the real world we don't have magic, you are comparing apples to watermelons.
Yes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boxed sets are hard to create and—because the costs are really high—hard to make money on.
Let's look at the Greyhawk "From the Ashes" box set, which contains:
- Two 96-page books (a setting book and an adventure book, more or less)
- Three 32x21 maps
- Five monster sheets
- 20 reference cards
- A box
Now, let's model a Pathfinder equivalent.
- 96-page books are the size of an AP volume. We sell those for $22.99.
- Our Map Folios that contain 3 33x22 maps sell for $19.99.
- The best equivalent for "monster sheets" and "reference cards" would be our Campaign Cards, which sell for $10.99.
- We sold our Treasure Chest empty box directly from paizo.com for $2. (That actually has very little markup from cost—boxes are expensive; if we had to cover our costs on that through the distribution chain, it would be higher; for this exercise, let's call it $3.03 because it gets us to a retail price that we could actually use.)
Would you pay $79.99 for that?
And even if you would... do you think game stores or book stores would be thrilled to invest $48 (that's 60% of retail) for each copy on their shelf that may or may not sell for ages if at all?
The counter argument is I and many other folks paid $120 for Ptolus brick of a city.
So.....yes, people will buy them IF they are good enough. If fact they would pay more then that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you know they are good enough?
How do you know if any Paizo product is good enough, by your logic? Are the AP's good enough? Some are and some are not, and they usually don't know until after the fact.
If it fits what it does and provides a complete city plus adventure hooks, similar to Ptolus. There's a reason folks talk about Ptolus even though its 7 years since its release and no one talks about WotC's 3.5 cityscape and dungeonscape books, or AEG's world's largest city. The former was way past good enough and the latter not nearly enough.
|
|
How do you know they are good enough?How do you know if any Paizo product is good enough, by your logic?Research. Experience. Evaluation. Everything Vic was talking about.
You can risk a $15-20 AP or Companion being a slow seller more than you can risk an $80-120 box set or mega-tome.
And if they relied on any of that alone after the Third AP then the AP's would have been a failure no?(Second Darkness) The worst selling AP to date if I recall right.
I'm going to ask you to go back and read what's already been said. I think you're missing some crucial pieces of the discussion. I'll be happy to help clear up specific questions you have, but much of this is already asked-and-answered, as it were.
It's not important that most parties have, at some point, worked for the "greater good" or on behalf of a higher belief. It is noteworthy that nearly all of them have, at some point, tackled incredibly dangerous challenges, repeatedly, for the sake of personal gain in a way that no actual person would do unless they exhibited the traits I outlined (psychotically-suicidal, foolish, etc.).
This is a direct result of the dichotomy between how actual people behave, and how people controlling imaginary people behave, particularly within the construct of a fantasy roleplaying game where this behavior is expected and even encouraged. The disincentives that might be present in the real world (the danger of actual death, for instance) do not threaten the people playing imaginary characters in a fantasy world, and even though most try to exhibit some semblance of "realistic" portrayal of their characters, the desire to act in such an unconventional way seeps through.
This has nothing to do with whether I love adventuring. Of course I love adventuring. Who doesn't? It's one of the main reasons I play D&D. What I'm not a fan of is looking too closely at the game world, or expecting it to be highly "realistic". Those are not reasonable expectations to have of a fantasy roleplaying game, and it is almost unfailing that people who play a fantasy roleplaying game with those expectations will eventually become disillusioned by the experience's failure to live up to what they came in expecting. It's much better to go in with the understanding that you are playing a game, and that this game is - by necessity - a highly imperfect attempt at simulating a fantasy world. Enjoy it for what it is, rather than what you wish it could have been.
The mistake I see you making is that, even while saying that you can't look to closely for realism in Pathfinder, you are still doing exactly that.
Player characters are not normal human beings ( completely putting aside that they are often not even humans at all... they are mostly still humanoids played by humans ). They may start out as equivalents to us in many regards, but after a certain level, they are super-people. You can throw a 10th level character off a 200 meter cliff and he will probably survive the fall, dust himself off and go about his business a few seconds later.
Since leveling mostly happens very fast, the player characters may not have too good an idea of what they really are capable of, but most of them will be cognizant of that very fast. Hence, the insane idea of taking on a dragon as big as a house is not as insane for them as you seem to view it yourself. They know that they are capable of getting it done.
Or just learn from past missteps.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I don't follow.If your going to rely on what you said- Research. Experience. Evaluation, then given how bad I believe the 3rd AP was, shouldn't have paizo canceled the AP line?
No, considering that the first 5 APs they published were highly successful (beginning with the Dungeon mag APs).
|
I don't follow.If your going to rely on what you said- Research. Experience. Evaluation, then given how bad I believe the 3rd AP was, shouldn't have paizo canceled the AP line?
Is that your evaluation? It obviously wasn't theirs.
Dragging this back to the point, what evaluation are you making that says a boxed set is a good choice, and how does your evaluation address Vic's?
Are you only basing it on the fact that Ptolus was a popular product and charged more than what was suggested for the boxed set price? Or is there more?
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.
And to be doubly fair, the druid is using one of their precious feats in order to get Domain + Animal Companion in your example. And considering that the Animal Domain grants its companion at 4th level (compared to the Druid's 1st level) it isn't that bad. Plus you still have to go a full level with a weaker animal companion, considering you wouldn't be able to select Boon Companion until 5th level anyway.
In an effort to stay on-topic, here's my spin on things. I don't play in Golarion much, personally. I'm much more of a creative type, so as a GM and as a player I value the world neutral products much more than the Campaign Setting products. I do pick up Campaign Setting and Player Companion products from time to time, but its usually because I'm either A) interested in applying the focus topic as settings-neutral material (i.e. Blood of Angels or Inner Sea Bestiary) or B) I've read about a player option within the book that I'm curious about. Looking over my collection of Pathfinder books, B) happens much more frequently than A), but the fact that Paizo is trying to make their products appeal to multiple crowds is not a bad thing. This is why the Advanced Race Guide, a book primarily aimed at player options, includes an awesome GM resource for building customized races. This is also why the Bestiaries often include new potential player race options and why Ultimate Campaign is going to have story feats; business wise, it is a better move to have your product target multiple demographics so you can assure you sell your product to more people.