Doomsday goals


General Discussion


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My last thread got derailed and sucked into a hyperbolic crapshoot while I was at work and I got home to it being closed, let's not do that again.

In the aftermath of our efforts to get the devs talking we have a new blog with the goals of the game finally being communicated clearly to us, and they are as such:

  • Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.

    Simpler to learn is correct. I do like how easy it is to teach the d20 engine to people, and I've been praising it since the blog era. The customization is a flat out falsehood however, narrow paths that branch out into predesignated feat chains bring the very worst aspects of what came before, instead of having a list of meaningful choices I can freely choose from at each of my levels. I do feel like I'm 'rewarded' for mastering the rules, but only after doing a long mathematical analysis to realize that builds that aren't built to be optimized and using d12 weapons simply fall short. Batman does not function in this system, I've tried.

  • Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.
    Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).

    Impossible. Complete failure to meet this goal. Goblins are good guys now? How would that go over with the first encounter in RotRL? Magic is neutered, meaning the same amount of encounters per day, and the narrative significance of spellcasting are completely different. This plays like Sword & Sorcery where PF1 was High Fantasy. You can't switch genres and still expect the same stories, that's a literary axiom.
    There are some innovations brought in, like the action economy. I've said from the beginning however, that using action taxes to 'balance' the action economy defeats its purpose and artifically re-creates the old action system so it doesn't play differently. There's some good stuff in there that open up the options, but in execution I'd say PF1 with the Unchained action economy is still the superior experience.
    Retraining and downtime along with the background stuff being core is a good thing, I want more of the evolution that came from the later releases in PF1 to be absorbed into PF2, fulfilling and expanding on the class niches to grant more freedom and customization.

  • Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.

    It's only balanced if you're in an environment where every player is making the absolute most powerful build possible, any deviation from that and the 'balance' falls apart against the players. My starknife fighter/rogue multiclass couldn't do anywhere near as much damage as the stock paladin with a bastard sword, even though I built for Feinting to enable me to crit more often (which I did). Defining the roles is gaslighting for something, I'm sure. While balance matters to make sure you aren't killing trees unnecessarily when you release the final product, you gotta make sure that the actual playing of the game isn't tailored to one specific gaming philosophy, like power-gaming or [whatever name you want to use for its antithesis].

  • Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.

    I don't feel welcome. I'm Hispanic, and I've dealt with silly nonsense my whole life, like getting called names, being accused of cheating in Spanish class in school, you name it, I've dealt. I'm familiar with the idea of racism and such. What I've learned is pushing people on these things often leads to you not being invited to game anymore, because either you ruined the experience for everyone by deciding your personal needs were more important than the game, or because they genuinely thought they hurt your feelings too much and don't think you like them enough to show up to the game anymore. The language has also been used as an open license for blatant racism/sexism/bigotry/hate speech targeting a specific group of people (whom I shall not refer to, but I definitely have gamed with and do game with regularly) that Paizo seems to not care about offending. I find the need for such language harmful, though I respect and laud the goal, I think there must be a better way to communicate it other than literally telling people they don't deserve to play the game in the rulebook. This shouldn't be political, it has nothing to do with politics, and giving people a licence to interject it derails conversations and ruins the experience.

  • Silver Crusade

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    I like how you express hope for your thread not go up on flames and right away you self- sabotage it by invoking a discussion on politics :)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    This shouldn't be political, it has nothing to do with politics, and giving people a licence to interject it derails conversations and ruins the experience.

    Silver Crusade

    8 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    But the game is political. The fact that Pathfinder has artwork of gore but doesn't have artwork of full nudity is political. The fact that animating dead is evil is political. Paladins are political. Succubi are political. Demon lords of child abuse are so political AF. If you want an apolitical game, well, I guess chess is a better choice.

    And honestly, you're yet another person who takes the statement "the game is for everyone" and twists it into some kind of weird assault on your values. Seriously, just what amount of bad will and political agenda you need for that?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Gorbacz wrote:
    But the game is political. The fact that Pathfinder has gore but doesn't have nudity is political. The fact that animating dead is evil is political. Paladins are political. Sucubbi are political. If you want an apolitical game, well, I guess chess is a better choice. Can't escape that.

    "Morality, is political!" *as said by Senator Keely/Gene Hackman in The Birdcage*


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Oh look Gorbacz is trying to ruin another thread....

    Silver Crusade

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    No, I'm merely picking up a discussion on something you posted. What were you expecting, that everybody will nod and move along? This is a discussion forum, not a blog with comments turned off.

    You still can fix your mistake and edit that part away. C'mon, I'm trying to help you. Give me something to work with.


    1. So far this is the most complex iteration/version of D&D/PF1, so far, to me, byzantine and a very technical read. I would not introduce a new player to this system, as is.
    2. I am not sure about that, if that means Golarian, or in general.
    3. I would like some examples, all I am seeing is pretty much the Unchained RAE.
    4. The "defined role' line seems to contradict a lot of what was previously stated.
    5. Again, not welcoming to new players, this seems like a game for advanced players.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gorbacz wrote:

    No, I'm merely picking up a discussion on something you posted. What were you expecting, that everybody will nod and move along? This is a discussion forum, not a blog with comments turned off.

    You still can fix your mistake and edit that part away. C'mon, I'm trying to help you. Give me something to work with.

    The fact that you're calling it a 'mistake' for me to prioritize the game over the politics is blatant flaming and yet again you are the poster attempting to derail and ruin a discussion I want to have about the content of the game.

    If the politics is a discussion you want to have, start your own thread and we can discuss it there, I want to talk about the game, because like I said, bringing politics into it takes away from that as you are clearly demonstrating. Take the discussion elsewhere.


    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Gorbacz wrote:

    No, I'm merely picking up a discussion on something you posted. What were you expecting, that everybody will nod and move along? This is a discussion forum, not a blog with comments turned off.

    You still can fix your mistake and edit that part away. C'mon, I'm trying to help you. Give me something to work with.

    The fact that you're calling it a 'mistake' for me to prioritize the game over the politics is blatant flaming and yet again you are the poster attempting to derail and ruin a discussion I want to have about the content of the game.

    If the politics is a discussion you want to have, start your own thread and we can discuss it there, I want to talk about the game, because like I said, bringing politics into it takes away from that as you are clearly demonstrating. Take the discussion elsewhere.

    The oddest part is, if one thinks it was a mistake/inappropriate, why would they pick up a discussion on that, and how/why do they think they're actually helping, and with what?

    Anyway, as I said in another thread, this obnoxious cycle plays out every time a new edition hits, those that deride pretty much everything, and those that defend/justify pretty much everything, then you get the normal folks that like to discuss and critique.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    1. So far this is the most complex iteration/version of D&D/PF1, so far, to me, byzantine and a very technical read. I would not introduce a new player to this system, as is.

    I do find the immense volume of keywords to cause problems, because I'm stuck constantly flipping through pages and pages to find definitions of the keywords instead of being able to understand the abilities outright.

    I like the idea, but the execution needs work. It feels like it was written by a programmer, and it plays like a computer program. (That might be a goal, in case they want to do a MMO again later on with this system implemented.)

    Quote:
    2. I am not sure about that, if that means Golarian, or in general.

    I never really played the APs or modules, I use my own setting because I like having more narrative control. It is easier to have more challenges that aren't invalidated by the PCs abilities at certain levels, but part of the fun for me was including those benchmarks as being the gates to what makes certain challenges 'high level' things. My favorite big ending to a campaign had the PCs using Interplanetary Teleport to get to the moon where the Lich's lair is, and needing to use spells and items to make sure they could survive in the airless, radioactive environment. They also had to fight a Lunar Dragon who guarded the entrance to the fortress. Obviously this is impossible now.

    Quote:
    3. I would like some examples, all I am seeing is pretty much the Unchained RAE.

    Retraining from Ultimate Campaign, and the Backgrounds replacing the profession skill seem to be what they're referring to here. I think. Fighters getting martial flexibility is certainly something that wasn't core.

    Quote:
    4. The "defined role' line seems to contradict a lot of what was previously stated.

    Yeah, this is where all the Thanos jokes are coming from for me. I'd totally pay for that Coppertone skin changing purple stuff and ship it to them if Jason would be willing to wear it for his inevitable Design Musings video on game balance.

    Quote:
    5. Again, not welcoming to new players, this seems like a game for advanced players.

    For sure, I've been recruiting newbies and it's getting difficult to teach them how complicated the system is. It's daunting even for advanced players thanks to layout and clutter. I noticed in the rules survey there actually is a question on removing the 'everyone gets this' stuff from the class tables and I like that.

    The tables themselves feel empty to me, because I'm used to the spreadsheet laying out exactly what resources my character has so I can look at it and read it like a graph and understand what my character class gives me.

    Silver Crusade

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Gorbacz wrote:

    No, I'm merely picking up a discussion on something you posted. What were you expecting, that everybody will nod and move along? This is a discussion forum, not a blog with comments turned off.

    You still can fix your mistake and edit that part away. C'mon, I'm trying to help you. Give me something to work with.

    The fact that you're calling it a 'mistake' for me to prioritize the game over the politics is blatant flaming and yet again you are the poster attempting to derail and ruin a discussion I want to have about the content of the game.

    If the politics is a discussion you want to have, start your own thread and we can discuss it there, I want to talk about the game, because like I said, bringing politics into it takes away from that as you are clearly demonstrating. Take the discussion elsewhere.

    No, sorry, it won't be that easy. I want you to clarify some things you wrote.

    "The language has also been used as an open license for blatant racism/sexism/bigotry/hate speech targeting a specific group of people (whom I shall not refer to, but I definitely have gamed with and do game with regularly) that Paizo seems to not care about offending."

    This is textbook vague reference meant to incite a discussion BUT not as to spell out something loudly because ... what, you're afraid of something? Who is the "specific group of people Paizo seems not to care about offending"? What do you have on your mind? And I apologize, but the good old "well it's OBVIOUS so I won't say anything more" vagueness won't do. Put your money where your mouth is.


    master_marshmallow wrote:
    I like the idea, but the execution needs work. It feels like it was written by a programmer, and it plays like a computer program. (That might be a goal, in case they want to do a MMO again later on with this system implemented.)

    Yes, this is very much a feeling, and as I said in another thread, it feels like a sci-fi game, converted to the fantasy milieu.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The item levels made sense in Starfinder, because I could understand things like levels of security on a computer system, or levels of complexity/power on a digitally developed laser blaster.

    It just feels arbitrary in a fantasy game.


    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    4. The "defined role' line seems to contradict a lot of what was previously stated.
    Yeah, this is where all the Thanos jokes are coming from for me.

    I am not aware of these, and have not seen the last Avengers film, please share, sounds amusing, I would really like to hear them.


    master_marshmallow wrote:

    The item levels made sense in Starfinder, because I could understand things like levels of security on a computer system, or levels of complexity/power on a digitally developed laser blaster.

    It just feels arbitrary in a fantasy game.

    While I am not fond of item level, the whole game has a sort of sci-fi like build to it, to me for some reason.

    Grand Lodge

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    It just feels arbitrary in a fantasy game.

    Just like spell levels, amirite?


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    To quote a different game publisher in a completely different medium, they seem to want a game that is "easy to learn, hard to master" while still being fun for both learners and masters. I don't think they've succeeded, if my group's experience with the playtest is at all representative.

    Character creation is unpleasant and draining and cumbersome - unless you just want an obvious cookie-cutter option. I can't say how that works for the new-to-the-hobby folks, because my table had none of those. But it was decidedly unfun for my players, who range from a few years to a few decades of experience. In fact, loathing of the character creation process was a major factor in why the group voted not to continue the playtest, and go back to playing PF1E for the time being.

    Advancement and investment don't feel rewarding, they feel obligatory to just stay even on the things you are supposed to be 'best' at. There are folks who will argue that that's great game design and fun - and for some it may be. It's not for my group, or for me.

    Golarion was always fantastical and high-magic, but the new iteration feels artificial, rather than 'organic by the rules of this cosmology'. The immersion is lost when assigning something to a nebulous category changes their entire DNA (see goblin PC vs. goblin NPC).

    I will note, as many of us who overall dislike the direction of the 2E playtest have, that there are things in there that are great and our groups LOVE them as implemented or at least see the rough diamond of a great idea. The new action economy, for example. The expanded use of skills instead of initiative, CMB/CMD, etc. Character DC. Scaling cantrips and innate heightening. Bulk.

    But the core game is a really different game. It's more about control, and less about creativity. I keep hearing about the stories Paizo wants to tell, and I understand that desire is a compelling thing. But at the end of the day, my players (at least) play to tell *their* stories, and those adventure paths and modules are just the amazing stage sets for those stories.


    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    4. The "defined role' line seems to contradict a lot of what was previously stated.
    Yeah, this is where all the Thanos jokes are coming from for me.
    I am not aware of these, and have not seen the last Avengers film, please share, sounds amusing, I would really like to hear them.

    Thanos is mostly known from the comics for the Infinity Gauntlet story, where he gets his hands on all the infinity stones and then snaps his fingers, killing half the universe.

    In the film, Thanos is obsessed with being "Perfectly balanced, as all things should be."

    By the end of the film, he snaps his fingers and kills half the universe-as in the book. The joke my player made was that Paizo snapped their fingers and half their customers dissipated.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    It just feels arbitrary in a fantasy game.
    Just like spell levels, amirite?

    Honestly kinda.

    Though in my own setting, I have spell levels represented as a form of mathematical complexity, explaining magic as an exploitation of energy waves coming from a specific type of star and influencing matter at various energy levels (like the energy levels which determine the complexity of an atom).

    I put a lot of effort into trying to make my own setting make sense, still doing some of the silly bits of math that no one would think to do.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    I don't feel welcome. I'm Hispanic, and I've dealt with silly nonsense my whole life, like getting called names, being accused of cheating in Spanish class in school, you name it, I've dealt. I'm familiar with the idea of racism and such. What I've learned is pushing people on these things often leads to you not being invited to game anymore, because either you ruined the experience for everyone by deciding your personal needs were more important than the game, or because they genuinely thought they hurt your feelings too much and don't think you like them enough to show up to the game anymore. The language has also been used as an open license for blatant racism/sexism/bigotry/hate speech targeting a specific group of people (whom I shall not refer to, but I definitely have gamed with and do game with regularly) that Paizo seems to not care about offending. I find the need for such language harmful, though I respect and laud the goal, I think there must be a better way to communicate it other than literally telling people they don't deserve to play the game in the rulebook. This shouldn't be political, it has nothing to do with politics, and giving people a licence to interject it derails conversations and ruins the experience.

    Wtf does this even mean.... I just have no words.... wut

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

    Edit: Dire Ursus, just understand that equality looks like oppression to people who are used to doing the oppressing.

    master_marshmallow wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    It just feels arbitrary in a fantasy game.
    Just like spell levels, amirite?
    Honestly kinda.

    Should we get rid of character levels too?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    It just feels arbitrary in a fantasy game.
    Just like spell levels, amirite?
    Honestly kinda.
    Should we get rid of character levels too?

    Depends on the system, but I think keeping one form of levels matters and making sure the rules make sense. If something like D&D 5th existed or there was a one-shots only kind of game where accuracy and such was bounded in a game that's designed around the e6 paradigm that might actually work. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what that playstyle is.

    Item levels don't feel attached to the item, they feel arbitrary. I don't hear Doubling Rings and think "oh boy a 3rd level item!" I think it's an item designed to help me use two magical weapons, and it retains its usefulness far beyond 3rd level.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    I like the idea, but the execution needs work. It feels like it was written by a programmer, and it plays like a computer program. (That might be a goal, in case they want to do a MMO again later on with this system implemented.)
    Yes, this is very much a feeling, and as I said in another thread, it feels like a sci-fi game, converted to the fantasy milieu.

    Actually, that’s exactly what I thought when D&D 3rd Edition was released almost 20 years ago, and I was happy about it, and I am happy about it now. I am a software developer, this kind of analytical structure appeals to me. This has nothing to do with the MMO idea, I couldn’t care less about a game like that, but I like it because, to me, it makes the game easier to quantify and to adjudicate and to run, in general.


    Zaister wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    I like the idea, but the execution needs work. It feels like it was written by a programmer, and it plays like a computer program. (That might be a goal, in case they want to do a MMO again later on with this system implemented.)
    Yes, this is very much a feeling, and as I said in another thread, it feels like a sci-fi game, converted to the fantasy milieu.
    Actually, that’s exactly what I thought when D&D 3rd Edition was released almost 20 years ago, and I was happy about it, and I am happy about it now.

    Right on, I do not feel that way about any other edition. *cues the Different Strokes theme tune*


    I'm now curious about the balance levels of power in the APs, since I don't play them, don;t they usually only ever get to like 16th level tops?

    Do you ever get to 9th level spells?

    I like the idea of "e6 edition" where your "level" merely determines your feats (and thus character complexity) but the power balance of the game remains relatively similar.

    I think however, that may be the underlying mechanism for 5e.


    Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Item levels don't feel attached to the item, they feel arbitrary. I don't hear Doubling Rings and think "oh boy a 3rd level item!" I think it's an item designed to help me use two magical weapons, and it retains its usefulness far beyond 3rd level.

    3rd level item basically means "this item is of appropriate power for a character from level 3 on, but not before". Just as your level 3 class ability may remain useful later in the game, so can a level 3 item remain useful. The class ability might even scale to your higher level, just like the ring you mentioned scales, as you can use it for higher level weapons when these become level-appropriate for you.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Zaister wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Item levels don't feel attached to the item, they feel arbitrary. I don't hear Doubling Rings and think "oh boy a 3rd level item!" I think it's an item designed to help me use two magical weapons, and it retains its usefulness far beyond 3rd level.
    3rd level item basically means "this item is of appropriate power for a character from level 3 on, but not before". Just as your level 3 class ability may remain useful later in the game, so can a level 3 item remain useful. The class ability might even scale to your higher level, just like the ring you mentioned scales, as you can use it for higher level weapons when these become level-appropriate for you.

    Sure, but items that retain utility like this need a level of system competence to understand in order to know that making say, a 10th level character may still want to grab these even though they would have come online way sooner.

    Compare that to the difference in a +2 and a +3 weapon, and it's obvious that the +3 weapon is better.

    So I'm not sure how well I think the system is actually functioning.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    master_marshmallow wrote:

    I'm now curious about the balance levels of power in the APs, since I don't play them, don;t they usually only ever get to like 16th level tops?

    Do you ever get to 9th level spells?

    I like the idea of "e6 edition" where your "level" merely determines your feats (and thus character complexity) but the power balance of the game remains relatively similar.

    I think however, that may be the underlying mechanism for 5e.

    Typically the games tend to end around 14-16, yes. It's basically right about the time when the game starts to become particularly swingy(i.e. a full attack from a dangerous badguy is going to drop a character if it happens, full spellcasters can poof you from existence, ect). You rarely get access to 9th level spells. I've never seen someone drop a wish spell in an AP, ect.

    Typically the encounters are balanced around the idea of a 15-20 point buy party of 4 without having to resort to 'knifes edge' optimization. Some encounters are just plain hard for certain parties while others make it look easy. Generally speaking, they are built in a way that most everyone has a chance.

    That has been my experiences at least.


    Asurasan wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:

    I'm now curious about the balance levels of power in the APs, since I don't play them, don;t they usually only ever get to like 16th level tops?

    Do you ever get to 9th level spells?

    I like the idea of "e6 edition" where your "level" merely determines your feats (and thus character complexity) but the power balance of the game remains relatively similar.

    I think however, that may be the underlying mechanism for 5e.

    Typically the games tend to end around 14-16, yes. It's basically right about the time when the game starts to become particularly swingy(i.e. a full attack from a dangerous badguy is going to drop a character if it happens, full spellcasters can poof you from existence, ect). You rarely get access to 9th level spells. I've never seen someone drop a wish spell in an AP, ect.

    Typically the encounters are balanced around the idea of a 15-20 point buy party of 4 without having to resort to 'knifes edge' optimization. Some encounters are just plain hard for certain parties while others make it look easy. Generally speaking, they are built in a way that most everyone has a chance.

    That has been my experiences at least.

    So, in meeting a design goal of telling the same stories, would it be fair to say that the last few power levels could be chopped off, and then you could level up faster, making something like RotRL play from 1-20, while retaining the same power balance?

    Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    Locked until Customer Service gets a chance to sort this out...

    Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

    8 people marked this as a favorite.

    I did not remove any posts. I am keeping the thread closed. Since the derail to this thread came from one specific point, I'm going to address that. Our community is made up of many different people with different backgrounds, different identities, different ethnicities. We are endeavoring to reflect the diversity that already exists in the community, to provide representation for those who may not have always felt represented in this media and to encourage those who want a seat at the Pathfinder or Starfinder gaming table to see a wide variety of inclusive characters.
    Representation in media, even fantasy worlds with dragons and magic, is important to a robust and healthy society and it is important to us as a company.

    Why On-Screen Representation Actually Matters By Sara Boboltz and Kimberly Yam

    Quote:

    "We spoke to several sociologists and researchers about the power of representation, and what the lack of it might mean for people who don’t see themselves up there on the screen. Since the 1960s, research has found expressions of unequal power in media that, according to Michael Morgan, can be “very dangerous” and “very damaging” to people watching.

    “I think the moral argument is self-evident. Stories matter,” Morgan, former professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and author of dozens of reports on media effects, told HuffPost.

    “Stories affect how we live our lives, how we see other people, how we think about ourselves.”
    ....

    Viewers might not think that the shows and films that enrich our lives and let us happily escape after a day or week of the usual routine may affect our view of our neighbors, fellow citizens, or people around the world. And it’s true that Middle Ages fantasy with a reputation for bloodshed or a tap-dancing couple in a sunny dreamland, on their own, might not have too much of an impact. But they are part of a much larger force that consistently dilutes the richly diverse experiences of lives enjoyed by people of color and women.

    “We can sit by as this continues for another decade,” wrote some of the researchers who diligently record the makeup of the on-screen population, in a recent report, “or can act to ensure that equality and inclusion are the hallmark of entertainment in the years to come.”

    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Doomsday goals All Messageboards
    Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion