What percentage of pathfinder players do you suppose plays PFS?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever this threat comes up it reminds me of the economic theories of how choices lead to waste - and we should only have one or two of each product for higher effiency.
The end result? It sucks - and you end up with Soviet Russia - where the few products you do have are all horrible. (Yes - I know that the comparison is a bit of a stretch - but these threads make me think of it all the same.)
Choices > No Choices
Every
Single
Time
Having lived in a just-post-soviet Lithuania, I can attest that this was very much so the case.
Further, I tend to agree: "use the ideas of the players (where possible)" is a great way to build things.
That said, there's something to be said for simplicity as well - an overabundance of choices that appear too similar or simply an overabundance can lead to decision paralysis or even create a dearth of imagination by being too many, forcing folk to go with "what they know" again and again - this leads to boring repitition.
Beyond that, sometimes a setting creates it's own demands and limitations, and in those situations, it makes sense to limit the options within the broader narrative framework the GM wants to run with (which is different than having a specific narrative the GM wants to tell - which in and of itself isn't automatically railroading or denying player choice or agency, though it easily can be).
All that said, I tend to prefer to have settings where I can try out most anything. Similarly, I strongly tend to prefer settings where I can do anything the villains can do or vice-verse (presupposing I follow the same paths), or at least where everyone plays by the same (general) rules.
But I do sometimes have those other kinds of inspiration as well.
I'm not disparaging PFS, I was curious to the %, that's all. No larger point, just curious :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it hasn't been pointed out yet
The problem with old APs and adventures is not that the players have more character options to fight them (especially since the strongest/easiest to use encounter trivializing powers came from core) it's that the encounters are easy for semi-decent players.
Big dumb animal fights are easy, big boss vs 4 dudes is generally easy, enemies lacking power attack are easy, supposed combat masters with horrid optimization are a joke, skill 'challenges' are generally low DC, lots of hand holding pushes players in the right direction, and much more.
If you're having trouble with easy adventures my best suggestion is to find non-Paizo adventures since they are less likely to coddle.
Not that there isn't such a thing as bloat, but bloat is only relevant if you are a GM that allows everything, or a GM that selects what books are appropriate for a given game. If you don't allow all the books, how can one feel bloated?
When I run Kaidan games, for example, I allow the Core, UM (for Kensai) and UC (for ninja and samurai), and then Kaidan sourcebooks like Way of the Samurai and Way of the Yakuza, and if I allow non-human races, then I use Kaidan racial supplements. Any other rules are GM specific rules, so players needn't learn them. In this way all the rules we need to best run a given setting or scenario is applied, nothing else is available, so no bloat ever encountered.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with complaints of gamer bloat is that it often stems from the same place and the thought process behind all of these threads is this: "I don't like this new thing so everyone else isn't allowed to like this new thing either, oh wait people do like it? Damn them, gamer bloat/lack of originality/other games are better."
It's dumb and we've heard this before. We heard it during Iron Gods, we heard it when the Gunslinger class was released, we are always going to hear it and it will always sound kind of dumb to everyone who likes the idea of having options.
There is no such thing as bloat.
Why?
Because you are under no obligation to purchase, use, or allow ANY material you don't want to. You can ban stuff out of core if you want. Don't like mythic rules? Don't buy 'em, don't use 'em, don't allow 'em. Same goes for any other game element or game supplement you want.
So...does that mean because I don't intend to purchase or use, say, a yacht, that yachts do not exist? :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your point's taken, but this is more akin to choosing not to purchase a yacht because you believe the yacht is too big for your tastes, then complaining about the fact that others have the yachts you didn't want.
Oh look, it's this thread again.
I just want to address one point that Wiggz made: that Paizo has refused to update the 3.5 adventure paths besides RotRL. Well, considering that three out of six of the CoTC books, all of the Second Darkness books, and five out of six of the Legacy of Fire books are all still available in print as new, Paizo would have to basically consider all of that as a loss in order to give those APs the compilation treatment like RotRL got. If nearly all the AP's books were sold out, there'd be more of an argument for it, and if any AP were to get that treatment, I'd expect CotCT to get it since it's generally considered the best of those, and it's the closest to selling out in print.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder
Pathfinder Society
Pathfinder Society Core
Pathfinder Unchained
Beginner Box
Mythic Rules
etc.I know there has been some concern expressed in the past about bloat, but at least past instances of bloat still all used the same ruleset, right?
Having to parse through all the different rules and alternate rules and options and alternate options and versions and alternate versions to determine what's actually legal in your game and what isn't is actually starting to affect our play. I'm looking at the acceleration and I'm starting to wonder what the end-game looks like...
I am not seeing the confusion here
Society and Society Core: These are subsets of the rules for use in organized society play, than in turn don't really differ to much from normal Pathfinder, or Core only Pathfinder
Beginner Box is a single entry level product not really meant to be used alongside other books
Mythic is an optional rule set that most campaigns won't use, unless they are trying to go for a superhero feel or want to extend play past 20th
Unchained isn't even out, but presumably will have a bunch of optional rules that players/GMs can implement if they don't like a certain class or think a particular element of the game doesn't work.
So for the average pathfinder player who plays at home, 3 of those 5 options are not even at the table.
Also, it sounds like Society Core is actually meant to address concerns over bloat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We get about two bloat threads a month. They all end the same way, with some folks convinced that there is too much and others that want more.So we keep getting bloat threads... and we keep getting more bloat. Seems like one side's getting everything they want and the other is getting increasingly marginalized.
The question I asked was a sincere one... with so many versions of the game out there and more seemingly on the way, what does the end-game look like?
If the "anti-bloat" people get a win, that means basically cancelling one of the lines, which doesn't seem likely. I also think the anti-bloat people can never be truly satisfied, since some of them have been making those arguments since the first of the Ultimate books, if not sooner.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought this was going to be a chat about when you've hit a wall as a GM and don't recognize your own campaign anymore. That's where I am; I've run too long and too inconsistently to know where I was going with any of this stuff.
As for rules bloat and such, I've never really noticed it with PF. I guess the only thing that grates on me is that in their setting of Golarion you have a realm for everything: cyber, uber-horror, witches and fairy tales, etc. That to me seems... bloated.
I'm in the Frog God Games camp with lots of folks here. Pick one setting, make it vague, and throw together a single ruleset. Then pile on the monsters. GMs can make up their own stuff if they want to, otherwise go core and conquer.
So...does that mean because I don't intend to purchase or use, say, a yacht, that yachts do not exist? :PThere is no such thing as bloat.
Why?
Because you are under no obligation to purchase, use, or allow ANY material you don't want to. You can ban stuff out of core if you want. Don't like mythic rules? Don't buy 'em, don't use 'em, don't allow 'em. Same goes for any other game element or game supplement you want.
Congratulations, you failed your perception check while looking for the point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for rules bloat and such, I've never really noticed it with PF. I guess the only thing that grates on me is that in their setting of Golarion you have a realm for everything: cyber, uber-horror, witches and fairy tales, etc. That to me seems... bloated.
You're free to cut anything out of the settings as well. Don't want a Worldwound? It's gone. Don't want Numeria? Gone. Extraterrestial races or androids? Gone. Elves? Poof. Dwarves? Sayonara. Goblins? See ya.
Et Cetera.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins? See ya.
You wot mate?
Goblins ARE Pathfinder. You take out Goblins and its just not Pathfinder anymore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh look, it's this thread again.
I just want to address one point that Wiggz made: that Paizo has refused to update the 3.5 adventure paths besides RotRL. Well, considering that three out of six of the CoTC books, all of the Second Darkness books, and five out of six of the Legacy of Fire books are all still available in print as new, Paizo would have to basically consider all of that as a loss in order to give those APs the compilation treatment like RotRL got. If nearly all the AP's books were sold out, there'd be more of an argument for it, and if any AP were to get that treatment, I'd expect CotCT to get it since it's generally considered the best of those, and it's the closest to selling out in print.
Its not just about existing books being out of print. Its about the sales of CURRENT adventure paths. If paizo thought it economically viable, they could give the RotRL treatment to ALL older aps. Its not a matter of staff or resources. I know this to be true because they put out the anniverary edition of rise of the runelords while putting out 2 APs that year. There were some difficulties, but they still did it. If they wanted to, they could do it again.
But that would be bad for paizo. Their economic model is of subscription, and of high sales on their CURRENT AP. While they obviously want to sell leftover copies of old books, they need the current adventure path (and other new products) to be flying off the shelves. THis is what drives their business, keeps paizo products on game store shelves, and what keeps the game in the minds of the general rpg community.
If they started reprinting all their old aps in a big hardcover, 2 things would happen. One, people would consider not buying the new ap, and waiting for the hardcover of a given adventure path even if they want that adventure. The next problem is that people who are deciding what to buy right now, might look at the hardcover reprints as more attractive and decide to go with those adventures right now.
Basically. Not only is it a bad idea for paizo to reprint old aps, its bad for people to even THINK they will reprint old aps. So, baring exceptional situations like the anniversary edition of runelords, we arent going to see it. Period. Maybe at the 10 year mark we'll get a second darkness reprint. Thats probably as much as we can hope for.
Also, everyone who claims that paizo could cut down on 'crunch' and release more adventure material is ignoring realities of the industry. There are customers, who either wont buy, or will invest a limited amount of their gaming dollars into published adventures. Some people dont buy them, others only buy what they are planning to actually play. Many of those customers also tend to buy more rules material. If I am running my own campaign world, Ultimate campaign is obviously far more useful to me then a new AP for example. Even character option books like the advanced players guide are more likely to see use at such a table then an adventure that will never be run.
If paizo recuded the output of the rpg line, it wouldnt increase output in other areas, it would simply decrease paizos sales. They are already putting out more adventure material every month then the vast majority of groups could ever hope to play. More isnt likely to be a good investment on paizo's part.
There isnt some magical way for that to work out. The rpg line fills a different need, and a different portion of the market then adventures. This isnt a zero sum game here. Less rules doesnt mean more fluff. It means less products.
Oh look, it's this thread again.
I just want to address one point that Wiggz made: that Paizo has refused to update the 3.5 adventure paths besides RotRL. Well, considering that three out of six of the CoTC books, all of the Second Darkness books, and five out of six of the Legacy of Fire books are all still available in print as new, Paizo would have to basically consider all of that as a loss in order to give those APs the compilation treatment like RotRL got. If nearly all the AP's books were sold out, there'd be more of an argument for it, and if any AP were to get that treatment, I'd expect CotCT to get it since it's generally considered the best of those, and it's the closest to selling out in print.
And the reason people rarely buy them is because they'd rather not run them without the conversions done for them. Nasty cycle that leads to them never getting sold either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?
I'm running Skull and Shackles
Can you play a gunslinger?
Yes.
Can you be mythic?
No.
Can you wield a laser pistol?
No.
Can you be the lord of your own island and use the kingdom building rules?
No.
Can you use these various supplements not on the d20pfsrd that you know I don't own?
No.
Can I be a wereshark?
No, but you can be ate by one.
Paizo puts out the books to sell books. And you can buy them whether or not you intend to use them. Actually using the books is on you. If you start to have back troubles because you can't lift the combined stash maybe you should reconsider your approach and voluntarily limit what you allow.
I certainly don't fear telling my players no. The unfortunate problem being that GMs I play under do. And so we end up with a lot of characters choosing a lot of stuff that I really don't care for being in the game. Often options I think are inappropriate or too powerful. I'm a jerk if tell them I don't like, but I'm still not satisfied with the game. I could always find another game, but that is easier said then done (when you don't care for PFS or online games).
Anybody starting to have trouble recognizing their game?
Considering I use what I want to use and ignore what I don't, nope not having any problems at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you use these various supplements not on the d20pfsrd that you know I don't own?
I'm completely fine with my players using d20pfsrd.com as their source for classes, feats and spells though 1st and 3rd party are allowed, the complete homebrew (non-published) content are allowed on a case by case basis only.
Can I be a wereshark?
A wereshark no, but a same-bito, Japanese man-shark is certainly allowable in the Kaidan setting.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combined with the steadfast refusal to even acknowledge the repeated requests to update old AP's it seems like every time a whole new set of classes or a whole new version of previous classes gets introduced, it creeps my previous purchases that much closer to obsolescence, reducing its collective value.
*Emphasis mine, but please do note the bolded portion of the quoted section.
They have answered the request to update old APs. Several times, actually. Exactly how many times do they need to answer the repetitive requests? 10? 15? A million? Or only until they actually update the old APs?
At what point do "repeated requests" become nagging and pushiness?
There is a philosophy that states if you do not see something - it does not exist. If you don't have yacht, perhaps it truly does not exist for you. It may exist for someone else, however.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only a real issue when one is forced to use any and all of material. To put it another way unless a loaded gun is held to your head. No one is forced to use all material. It's the reason why I am not a subscriber. As I want to pick and choose the material I want to use. I can respect fellow gamers not wanting to use all the material put out by Paizo. Yet to blame a rpg company for doing what a smart, successful, and profitable one should be. Jut leaves me at a loss for words.
First off Paizo is not a non-profit organization. Second they need to pay their employees. Only so much profit can be made from older material. I don't need say mutliple copies of the APG. Third and more importantly they need money made from the profit of selling both old and new material to pay rent, bills and employees. As last I checked no bank on the planet accepts goodwill as any currency. Fourth they told us they would attempt to try and keep bloat to a minimum. I don't remember them promising to not release new material. If they did it was a poor promise to make as it's not one they could keep imo.
Nor is it a cop-out either before someone says it. Unless your forced no one is making anyone use new material. Even games like Shadowrun while not releasing new material like Paizo. Keep releasing new material as well. If anything it's one of the reasons why I keep buying new material. As I'm not too thrilled with how Wotc is handling new material for 5E.
One might as well blame the donut shop for selling donuts to a raging diabetic who should know better and not buy and products with sugar while were at it.
I have no philosophy, I simply point to one that exists - I am no relativist (nor a philosopher). Its no more silly than wanting a yacht in the first place. Any boat is a hole in the water that you pour money into - a silly thing at best.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
'No,' Says GodCombined with the steadfast refusal to even acknowledge the repeated requests to update old AP's it seems like every time a whole new set of classes or a whole new version of previous classes gets introduced, it creeps my previous purchases that much closer to obsolescence, reducing its collective value.*Emphasis mine, but please do note the bolded portion of the quoted section.
They have answered the request to update old APs. Several times, actually. Exactly how many times do they need to answer the repetitive requests? 10? 15? A million? Or only until they actually update the old APs?
At what point do "repeated requests" become nagging and pushiness?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder
Pathfinder Society
Pathfinder Society Core
These aren't different rulesets. Pathfinder Society is an organized campaign that uses the Pathfinder rules; Pathfinder Society Core is the same thing, but with a more limited set of potential sources. It's a *reaction* to complaints about bloat. It's the anti-bloat.
Pathfinder Unchained
This isn't even out yet.
Beginner Box
Mythic Rules
These aren't really different rulesets either. The Mythic rules fit on top of the existing rules, and the Beginner Box is just a stripped-down version of the normal rules designed to appeal to kids and get them interested in regular Pathfinder. It even comes with a booklet to teach those kids who to convert their Basic characters to normal Pathfinder.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?
I brought this up earlier. It seems that players are putting pressure on the GM to allow things, and the GM's are finding it hard to say no if this is a group of close friends. if you are friends with someone it should be easier to talk to them about the type of games you like to run.
Sometimes good friends don't make good gaming partners. If gaming is the only chance you(general statement) get to meet up then it may come to a point where are better off not gaming, or at least not running Pathfinder if a common ground can not be found.
To be fair, if you're a player, you want to be able to look through the menu of what's available when thinking about your character. Sites like the PRD and ArchivesOfNethys make this even easier. If the GM has set out ahead of time what's legal, that's fine. If it's "on a case-by-case basis", it becomes much more cumbersome to make a character, as every thing you think about you have to ask about.
As GM, the larger the rules base gets, the heavier the burden of figuring out what's allowed. Once upon a time, a GM could say "everything Paizo", and have a chance of having some sense of what all of it was. Now, the burden on the GM is higher to select out the things he wants. Sure, you could just select individual books, that makes it easier -- but in reality, you probably want bits and pieces of everything. So, either you have a huge task of vetting stuff ahead of time, or you have to do "on a case-by-case" basis. In that latter case, even if you do have amenable players who agree with you that it's OK to ban some things, when a player asks for something, you're going to be tempted to want to let them have it.
So, while everybody seems to say "just disallow the things you don't like! what's the big deal?", as the base of mechanics (including classes, class abilities, archetypes, feats, spells, etc.) grows and grows, it gets tougher and tougher for the GM to have a handle on enough of it to actually do that.
I'm not saying that added options are bad. All I'm saying is that they do add a burden of things to keep track of in any event, and it's unrealistic to deny that, or to insist that it won't be a problem if you just have the right players.
To the OP, I understand what you're saying and asking. But for me the answer is no.
I did feel that happened in 3.x since so many of the new books were just up-and-out better than everything in the original books. Toward the end if you wanted a reasonably powerful character (on par with the rest of the group), virtually everything on your character sheet was from a book that was printed in the last couple of years.
I agree there is some power creep in PF. The slayer or investigator are just plain more powerful than the rogue. However, they are still not up to the level of a well run and well optimized primary caster from the CRB. So in my opinion, not very much power creep.
With all the options in all the books, probably at least 1/3 of the builds I see are the core classes. I think over half of them have at least some levels of the core classes. Probably 1/4 of the feats or spells in those builds are also from the CRB. That's a pretty heavy percentage coming from what is actually a pretty small percentage of the published material.
There are a whole lot of cool options you can now do that you couldn't then. Yes, a rimed spell is lots of fun because it dos something more than what is just listed in the spell. But is it really universally all that much more powerful than just using a higher level spell slot? Not really. It is more useful in some situations. But that is true of almost any spell.
After the ACG a bunch of people are building unarmed brawler PC's. But are they really all that much more powerful than the brute barbarian with the big two handed weapon (built with the same level of system mastery)? Nope. It still usually takes about the same amount of time/resources to take down the bad guys. Often more. But people will try it anyway, because it is a new option. That doesn't really mean it is a better option.
NOTE:
The teifling bloodrager natural weapon reach warrior that I would build now is significantly more powerful and effective than any character I built with only the CRB 5 years ago. However, that is primarily because I have significantly greater system proficiency than I had 5 years ago. I could also build a much more powerful CRB only character than anything I produced 5 years ago.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We get about two bloat threads a month. They all end the same way, with some folks convinced that there is too much and others that want more.So we keep getting bloat threads... and we keep getting more bloat. Seems like one side's getting everything they want and the other is getting increasingly marginalized.
Probably because the no-bloat people's arguments basically boil down to, "Stop making money, Paizo."
Whether you prefer to think otherwise or not is your business, but products targeted at players sell better than those targeted at GMs because when you target GMs, you're only selling to one-fifth of the player base. Players don't need Lands of the Linnorm Kings; they want People of the North.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP's complaint does have some merit, but only if you consider that there are players on these forums who insist that if an option exists in the game, YOU MUST allow them to use it in YOUR game.
Because the antidote for bloat (heh, that rhymes) is house rules. Allow some things, don't allow others.
However, if you have a player who insists on their favorite option being allowed, and you as a GM don't want to allow it, you're probably feeling like things are bloated. The solution to this dilemma is yet another issue of group composition: reach an agreement or somebody needs to find a different group.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the antidote for bloat (heh, that rhymes) is house rules. Allow some things, don't allow others.
Does not allowing certain splatbooks really qualify as a houserule? I always considered houserules to be things such as changing the rogue by giving it full BAB, or having no divination spells in your mystery based campaign. (I've done that before.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
House rules are really just that, a set of guidelines that apply to a group. It can be anything from a pre-approved content list to who pays for pizza and what toppings it has.
Unless it's anchovies, which is not an option RAW.
To be fair, if you're a player, you want to be able to look through the menu of what's available when thinking about your character. Sites like the PRD and ArchivesOfNethys make this even easier. If the GM has set out ahead of time what's legal, that's fine. If it's "on a case-by-case basis", it becomes much more cumbersome to make a character, as every thing you think about you have to ask about.
As GM, the larger the rules base gets, the heavier the burden of figuring out what's allowed. Once upon a time, a GM could say "everything Paizo", and have a chance of having some sense of what all of it was. Now, the burden on the GM is higher to select out the things he wants. Sure, you could just select individual books, that makes it easier -- but in reality, you probably want bits and pieces of everything. So, either you have a huge task of vetting stuff ahead of time, or you have to do "on a case-by-case" basis. In that latter case, even if you do have amenable players who agree with you that it's OK to ban some things, when a player asks for something, you're going to be tempted to want to let them have it.
So, while everybody seems to say "just disallow the things you don't like! what's the big deal?", as the base of mechanics (including classes, class abilities, archetypes, feats, spells, etc.) grows and grows, it gets tougher and tougher for the GM to have a handle on enough of it to actually do that.
I'm not saying that added options are bad. All I'm saying is that they do add a burden of things to keep track of in any event, and it's unrealistic to deny that, or to insist that it won't be a problem if you just have the right players.
rknop does a great job here of summarizing the majority of my concerns as a GM. Another thing I've had problems with is resources like the d20pfsrd and herolab make it very easy for some (more appropriately certain) players to accidentally (or "accidentally" on occasion) start grabbing feats, archetypes, and spells that aren't on the list of allowed source materials. So even if a GM does his homework ahead of time to lay out a list of allowable source materials, he may STILL be stuck policing character sheets on a regular basis. While I am not familiar with herolab, d20pfsrd at least lists the source material at the bottom of the page.
It's gotten to the point that enough stuff was done wrong with enough character over the years made using herolab that I plan to say "no herolab" the next time I start up a game. My hope is that having players write up their character sheets by hand will prevent them from making so many source material errors. Of course, they'll probably make other errors this way, but I don't mind helping a newer player write character sheets out up front as this helps build positive relationships between GM and player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Herolab allows you to toggle what it shows.
Herolab allows you to toggle what it shows.
Thanks guys, this is good to know. (I did say that I wasn't familiar with Herolab.) Though with this knowledge, I can safely say that it was much more willful ignorance on the part of my player(s)... Ugh, infuriating...
On a side note, another reason I'm feeling cooler and cooler towards Herolab is that I have a growing number of houserules, which players seem to forget more frequently when using herolab. (However, this may also be willful.) Of course, is not a negative reflection on herolab, but more of a "the tool doesn't necessarily work well for me".
Eh, the Herolab interface can be a little tricky if you're not used to it. I've been using herolab for a few weeks now and I am nowhere near proficient.
I still haven't figured out how to make it show me how my saves break down, for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to entertain the concept of too much "bloat" when people can present another business model for Paizo that works as well as the current one does.
Every product to date with only the possible exception of the core rulebook (and I would suggest even there) has been one specifically asked for repeatedly by the people on these very forums.
As such when you have two people and one says, "Too much don't want more." and the other says, "Hey I really want a product that covers (x) and am willing to pay for it." and you are business I'm willing to put dollars to doughnuts that you are going to supply the second guy what he wants instead of the first.
Especially when the first can have what he wants already and the expansion doesn't actually affect him, whereas it does give the second guy something he wants.
|
Herolab allows you to toggle what it shows.Thanks guys, this is good to know. (I did say that I wasn't familiar with Herolab.) Though with this knowledge, I can safely say that it was much more willful ignorance on the part of my player(s)... Ugh, infuriating...
Once can certainly be an error, but after you explain what to toggle on and off it becomes much less understandable.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with Paizo publishing new rules.
However, I do have a problem with them publishing poorly-designed rules and false choices (which is what I call "bloat") in order to artificially inflate page count.