Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JeffB" data-source="post: 5196939" data-attributes="member: 518">I think its just confusion of terminology- when I hear people say &quot;PF is great at &quot;story&quot;- I'm talking fluff- not just in APS, but in their world/setting products. But if the Osirion book (thx for the reminder)&nbsp; is supposed to support the AP why would it be &quot;less good&quot; than the AP itself, from a &quot;good story&quot; (or &quot;good fluff&quot;) standpoint? And why not the standalone adventures, or the Golarion CS book either? I suspect that regardless of whether it's a support product with &quot;fluff&quot;, a stand-alone module, the CS, or the AP itself, Paizo is putting out the same quality and type of writing. Maybe not, but that would be kind of stupid to write awesome APs, and then mediocre support products and standalones.I have experienced APs through the first two 3.x versions in Dungeon Magazine (and 4E's scales of war)&nbsp; - it's not an adventure format I like, regardless of who publishes it or system (as I explained in my first post)At any rate, Paizos &quot;style&quot; is not to my tastes (despite all the claims I hear to the contrary about them&nbsp; being better at storylines/fluff), and my point was I'd hate to see WOTC go that way. I'm not sure why thats so hard to understand.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JeffB, post: 5196939, member: 518"] I think its just confusion of terminology- when I hear people say "PF is great at "story"- I'm talking fluff- not just in APS, but in their world/setting products. But if the Osirion book (thx for the reminder) is supposed to support the AP why would it be "less good" than the AP itself, from a "good story" (or "good fluff") standpoint? And why not the standalone adventures, or the Golarion CS book either? I suspect that regardless of whether it's a support product with "fluff", a stand-alone module, the CS, or the AP itself, Paizo is putting out the same quality and type of writing. Maybe not, but that would be kind of stupid to write awesome APs, and then mediocre support products and standalones. I have experienced APs through the first two 3.x versions in Dungeon Magazine (and 4E's scales of war) - it's not an adventure format I like, regardless of who publishes it or system (as I explained in my first post) At any rate, Paizos "style" is not to my tastes (despite all the claims I hear to the contrary about them being better at storylines/fluff), and my point was I'd hate to see WOTC go that way. I'm not sure why thats so hard to understand.:confused: [/QUOTE]

Verification