Kae'Yoss
First Post
Quartz said:Why can't Paizo have mini-adventure path?
You could always get GameMastery modules.
Quartz said:Why can't Paizo have mini-adventure path?
SPECTRE666 said:Also 1,000,000 people send WotC $10.00 a month to play MMOD&D, for one year. Think about it. Thats a lot of $.
Stereofm said:Now the TRUE design flaw of 3.X ... you want to know it ?
It's an empty rules system with nothing to remember it by !
WhaddI meanby this ? People do not remember 1.0 because of the rules. They remember it because they were scared shitless in I6 : Ravenloft or because they slew Lolth in Queen of the Demonweb pits.
WOTC has kept publishing various rules supplements over the 3.X life, but the adventures were here only at the very end. Who has played them ? Did anybody ?
The source of fun for 3.X was DUNGEON. DUNGEON, yes. Made by ... PAIZO.
It's not a surprise to me that it was the first thing to eliminate to make way for their new line.
Between this and the not-so-friendly attitude of a lot of 4e "fans", I am convinced that I will not buy 4e or anything related close or far, but I'll stick by Paizo whatever their choices.
Thank you for all the good work, and excellent adventures guys.
Stereofm said:Now the TRUE design flaw of 3.X ... you want to know it ?
It's an empty rules system with nothing to remember it by !
WhaddI meanby this ? People do not remember 1.0 because of the rules. They remember it because they were scared shitless in I6 : Ravenloft or because they slew Lolth in Queen of the Demonweb pits.
WOTC has kept publishing various rules supplements over the 3.X life, but the adventures were here only at the very end. Who has played them ? Did anybody ?
Whilst I agree with other posters that this value is too high, think about this for a second:SPECTRE666 said:Also 1,000,000 people send WotC $10.00 a month to play MMOD&D, for one year. Think about it. Thats a lot of $.
delericho said:At the present time, it looks like I won't be switching to 4e. That being the case, the above would represent a 'best case' outcome for me. That it even represents a possible outcome is good news indeed.
Glyfair said:I'm a bit worried about Paizo if this statement is Erik's. If he truly doesn't understand the difference between playtesting a game and having a set of rules they can give to 3rd party publishers I have to be concerned about Paizo's playtesting of their modules.
I do find that hard to believe that he doesn't understand the difference. Maybe he was feeling a bit petulant at the time he wrote it.
Is it me, or do people seem to be missing this particular bit of Erik's post? Airing your worries and actually expecting them to happen are two seperate things.Erik Mona said:If 4.0, on the other hand, is robust enough to emulate the kind of play we're all used to I'd much rather go with the "sure thing" and publish Pathfinder in a way that fully supports 4.0. I honestly trust and expect that 4.0 will allow us to do that, so my default assumption, to be frank, is that we'll convert whole hog to 4.0 at some point or another.
But I haven't seen the rules and I haven't seen the new OGL, and until I do I've got to keep our options open.
Games Workshop has a huge turnover in their customer base as very few keep playing Warhammer/W40K outwith their teens. So they've essentially 'fired' all their customers many times except it's more like the customers quit and they recruited a lot of new ones.DaveMage said:One of the miniature companies (Games Workshop?) essentially did this a while back. They came out with an entire new mini line that was not compatible with the old line. Apparently, this strategy *was* successful for them.