Pathfinder 1E My New Pathfinder Policy

[Jared Rascher]

In addition to continuing to release rules options they have continued to steadily release the APs, PFS scenarios, Pathfinder Tales. They seem to be continuing with their other objectives quite well so far.

Except for the objectives of putting everything in the PRD, or getting their FAQ system running smoothly, or, until today, updating the PFS guide. There are things falling through the cracks, but its not new rules releases.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I think one has to remember there is always someone that wants more options to choose from. They want the Complete Splat book replacements done in Pathfinder rules. I still see requests all the time on the Paizo boards for various rule areas - epic, psionics, etc.

Yup. It's a fundamental part of what makes rpgs what they are today.

It is still your game - if you do not feel comfortable adding more material at the rate it comes out then that is a viable choice and option.

There's a flip side to that though...

I've seen criticism leveled at the Pathfinder game, where the immediate response by fans is, "Oh, you need to by the APG. It takes care of all [whatever]".

As well, people get a little... grumpy.... about the whole banning things. Sure, you as a GM are allowed to ban something. But if you do and later you complain about some aspect of the game, you're going to get jumped with "Well, if you were actually willing to buy [whatever], it'd solve your problem. It's your own fault." and there's a pretty strong implication that you should just shut the heck up.

What I'm saying is that sure... in _theory_ you've got the right to ignore/ban something. But the practical reality is that by doing so, you're basically cutting yourself off from a decent chunk of the community; a community which feels people _should_ be going out and buying all the options, because _someone_ is going to want them.

I'll just about guarantee that if you come out on the forums and look for help on something and add the stipulation "I will not buy another product", you're going to get basically no help. If you talk about using a 3.x bit of material and how to incorporate it, people are going to tell you not to do so because Pathfinder is so much better balanced and/or that Paizo has that covered in such-and-such (out or coming out) product.

This isn't an anti-Paizo thread and I'm not making an anti-Paizo stand here.

I'm saying that not everyone feels they should have to buy product and that it bothers some people how they might as well have stayed with 3.5 or switched to a whole new system if they happen to suggest skipping buying new product and recycling what they've already got. Or just homebrewing it.

No, I'm not saying that people in this thread are acting that way explicitly; just that it's the sort of thing you see online in general.

This is nothing particularly new. A portion of the consumers want new rulebooks. A portion don't. A portion of consumers feel entitled to use those books they bought, and a portion feels like that's their problem and they don't want to have to allow it.

Consumers vs non-consumers vs reasoned consumers.

All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

 

[Jared Rascher]

How old are those quotes? They covered most of that in the release of the core rulebook. With that down they chose to expand a bit and release the APG with more options. And so on and so on.

I don't even know where to begin, but there were several comments about the APG taking care of all of the "Complete" style books in one shot, so they didn't keep publishing similar player option books.

Again, I understand that plans change, and no one said, definitively, that they would never, ever do another player focused book of options, but I did think there might be more than one book between them, given the tone of the comments about why Paizo was doing the APG.

Also, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I love the APG. I seriously love it. I'm just not the type that says "I loved that, so I should love ten more just like it."

 

[IronWolf]

Except for the objectives of putting everything in the PRD, or getting their FAQ system running smoothly, or, until today, updating the PFS guide. There are things falling through the cracks, but its not new rules releases.

The d20PFSRD keeps up reasonably well and is cleanly formatted. I guess I am not too into splitting hairs when the information is getting out there. Sometimes crowd sourcing works and let's a small company do the things thatnkeep the revenue coming in.

Yeah, I would like to see the FAQ system improve, but they are taking steps to get them out there. Also Jason has started clarifying thing like poisons, animal intelligence and such via the Paizo blog.

There is Mark and Hyrum working on all the things that need done to keep PFS running. They are pretty active onnthe forums and have had a good amount of things to catch up and get put out. They too have been posting to the Paizo blog to help clarify where things are at. Neither Mark nor Hyrum would be contributing on the rules end of things regardless.

 

[BobROE]

Except for the objectives of putting everything in the PRD, or getting their FAQ system running smoothly, or, until today, updating the PFS guide. There are things falling through the cracks, but its not new rules releases.

I'd say two things to this...

These things may be slipping through the cracks (as you put it) but they're still releasing everything else. So what other products would you like the be put on hold to get these things out?

Paizo is a print product publisher, not a digital product one, they're primary goal will always be to get their print products done (whatever they may be) at the expense of the digital additions that they are willing to do (since those things are not part of their core business nor bring in revenue).

That said, I do feel your stand is fair, and if that's what suits you go for it. I don't have the APG and wont be getting the UM or UC, however I'll let my players buy them.

(and on a personal note, I always felt that the FAQ stuff was more of a side project for paizo, not really a promise of any sort, but perhaps I just didn't read the right threads. And honestly I'd prefer it didn't exist because it just makes me feel I need to check it before I make rulings.)

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

How old are those quotes? They covered most of that in the release of the core rulebook. With that down they chose to expand a bit and release the APG with more options. And so on and so on.

With respect, the age of the quotes really doesn't mean anything. Paizo said they had an explicit goal with Pathfinder as an rpg: to have a set of rules in print so that they could continue publishing adventures.

If Paizo has changed that goal, that's fine. They're allowed to do so. But it also means that people can call them on it too. I'm not speculating on whether their goals have changed or how well they've delivered on them. I'm simply saying that some people have an idea in their minds of what to expect from Paizo, and that idea is based in part on things that Paizo themselves have said.

In addition to continuing to release rules options they have continued to steadily release the APs, PFS scenarios, Pathfinder Tales. They seem to be continuing with their other objectives quite well so far.

And again, I'm not saying they aren't releasing other material than rules.

 

[IronWolf]

With respect, the age of the quotes really doesn't mean anything. Paizo said they had an explicit goal with Pathfinder as an rpg: to have a set of rules in print so that they could continue publishing adventures.

If Paizo has changed that goal, that's fine. They're allowed to do so. But it also means that people can call them on it too. I'm not speculating on whether their goals have changed or how well they've delivered on them. I'm simply saying that some people have an idea in their minds of what to expect from Paizo, and that idea is based in part on things that Paizo themselves have said.

Goals change all the time *especially* once you have achieved a goal. It is only natural to set more goals and move towards them. To call them out on a goal from a couple of years ago that they have met seems odd to me.

I would hope given successfully meeting a goal that one would set new ones to strive for.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Also Jason has started clarifying thing like poisons, animal intelligence and such via the Paizo blog.

There is Mark and Hyrum working on all the things that need done to keep PFS running. They are pretty active onnthe forums and have had a good amount of things to catch up and get put out. They too have been posting to the Paizo blog to help clarify where things are at. Neither Mark nor Hyrum would be contributing on the rules end of things regardless.

I seem to recall it being said before that regardless of what people's opinions are on the forum (even if it's Mona), just because they've got an _opinion_ on how something should work, doesn't mean that's _actually_ the way it works. I seem to recall a bunch of stuff about Vital Strike and the whole attack action thing. I _really_ don't want to go looking it up, but I can try and dig it out if it'll make you happy.

So clarifications or whatever posted to the Paizo blog somewhere? *shrug* Nice idea, but that doesn't make it official, as per Paizo themselves saying so.

Plus, it sorta seems like you're suggesting that people should have to go look at the Paizo blog, in addition to relying on the document that they themselves maintain. It's not entirely unreasonable for someone to suggest that if they can take the time to clarify it on the blog, they could take the time to clarify it in their reference document.

I'm not saying that, as I understand the realities of some things, but it's not an unreasoanble assumption for some folks to have.

 

[Jared Rascher]

I'd say two things to this...

These things may be slipping through the cracks (as you put it) but they're still releasing everything else. So what other products would you like the be put on hold to get these things out?

Products like Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, because not only are they time intensive and take away from some of the other goals, they also compound the problem. They create more to add to the PRD, and potentially add more to what needs to be added to the FAQ.

I wouldn't be as concerned with the FAQ, except that when Paizo has clarified some rules, I find that my "common sense" doesn't match up with theirs (not a dig, its just people coming from different assumptions), and the more rules you put out, the more those rules are built on other rules, so the rules everything is built on should be pretty clear.

 

[Jared Rascher]

The d20PFSRD keeps up reasonably well and is cleanly formatted. I guess I am not too into splitting hairs when the information is getting out there. Sometimes crowd sourcing works and let's a small company do the things thatnkeep the revenue coming in.

I'm not thrilled with the site in question, and I have a hard time saying its "good enough" for volunteers to do something on another site when the company promises to update their own site.

I'm actually really impressed the Paizo does have the PRD, and I really like their official site. But I guess I'm a pain in the rear when it comes to stated intentions and following through. But I am really glad they have the site, and I really hope they do update it soon, and keep it up to date. Its a valuable resource.