Pathfinder 1E My New Pathfinder Policy

[Scurvy_Platypus]

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.

I'm not calling them out. It kinda irks me that you're making it out like I am too. All I've done essentially is say, "Paizo has claimed [this], which means people are going to expect it."

Are you now claiming that Paizo's goal has changed and their intent _is_ to churn out rule supplements? To try and step up and copy WotC? Because that's certainly a possible interpretation of what you're saying.

There's already enough annoyance kicking around online about the whole "backwards compatibility" thing; if you think that doesn't irk people still, try reading around a bit. If supporters of Paizo (because this is about the company, not their ruleset) want to say that Paizo is perfectly justified in switching over to churning out rulebooks, that's fine. But you can expect there's going to be fallout over it, just like there is about the backwards compatibility and its effect on the rules.

 

[concerro]

I live out in the middle of nowhere. My internet has gone down several times, and the local ISP takes their time fixing it. We do have a public library, and another one in a bigger city a few miles away. My point is that not having internet access and not having it at your home are two different things. I don't live where you live, but I am hard pressed to believe that nobody has any internet access and that the mostly likely 10 cents a copy is your local library might charge you is too much to print a page out. Even if it is bring your own paper and hand copy it. I know it is not perfectly convenient, but I don't think it is as bad as some are making it out to be.

PS: I need to read entire threads before I post. I would delete this one, but I don't know how so I will say this. The look "up other books" is an experiment. If enough people complain they will go back to doing things the other way.

 

[Erik Mona]

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.

Mona doesn't do a lot of rules clarifications on message boards.

--Erik

 

[Erik Mona]

Are you now claiming that Paizo's goal has changed and their intent _is_ to churn out rule supplements?

If supporters of Paizo (because this is about the company, not their ruleset) want to say that Paizo is perfectly justified in switching over to churning out rulebooks, that's fine.

Just out of curiosity, is there a number of rulebooks per year that you would consider acceptable?

Fewer than one per quarter is "churning it out," I get that. But what would you say is an appropriate release schedule?

 

[DumbPaladin]

Just out of curiosity, is there a number of rulebooks per year that you would consider acceptable?

Fewer than one per quarter is "churning it out," I get that. But what would you say is an appropriate release schedule?

You didn't ask me, but I think 2 or 3 per year is pretty good.

 

[Crothian]

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.

Yes, if you can't handle peer pressure you will be in trouble and not just in regards to gaming.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Mona doesn't do a lot of rules clarifications on message boards.

--Erik

*cough*

You seem like a stand-up fellow, so I'm picturing a wry smile when you type that. In my defense, I tend to think of people in terms of their last names and sometimes I make the mistake of letting that slip out. I apologise if that bothers you; some folks take it amiss to be referred to in that fashion.

On a more serious note, I'm pretty sure you don't spend much time doing rules clarifications on message boards either (for a variety of reasons I'm sure). My invoking of you was in respect of what I remember being a contentious topic: Vital Striking and the whole wording of attack action and whether or not it could happen from... a Spring Attack I think it was. As I recall, people (including yourself) weighed in on whether or not they'd allow such a thing in a game they were running; but it also was made clear that regardless of what someone posts on the (a?) message board, that doesn't really mean anything as far as official rules are concerned.

Just out of curiosity, is there a number of rulebooks per year that you would consider acceptable?

Fewer than one per quarter is "churning it out," I get that. But what would you say is an appropriate release schedule?

Before I answer that question, I'd like to say "Thank you for taking the time to address me and for doing so in a non-hostile or aggressive manner. Especially because I understand that some of what I've said in this thread could be viewed in an uncharitable light. I have tried to keep my responses from sounding like a rant or attack, but I'm not sure how successful I've been."

Now, in answer to your question:

Actually, fewer than 1 per quarter isn't "churning out books" as far as I'm concerned. I personally am not arguing that Paizo _is_ churning out books. I'm also quite aware that Paizo has put out a rather hefty number of modules/adventures, especially in comparison to the number of actual rulebooks produced.

I definitely understand that gamers _want_ something more than just modules/Adventure Paths and Paizo is a business that people rely on to be able to put food on the table. It'd be... foolish... of me to suggest that Paizo shouldn't provide a product that makes their customers happy; it makes customers happy, which means they continue to support the company, and it means that people get to earn a living.

And even more, I'm also a realist: rules-bloat is going to happen. A company can try and deliberately manage it, but in the course of providing product that a significant portion of their customers want, it's inevitable. And to a certain extent, the people that don't like it are just going to have to harden up and quit being a fainting princess about it; either step-up and be willing to ignore/ban things, or step-up and buy the product.

So when does it become "churning out rule supplements" then? *shrug* In the case of Paizo, I'd say it happens when it becomes the focus/point of the product being produced. If Paizo drops their adventures and focuses primarily on rulebooks, putting out a module once a quarter and a rulebook every month? Yeah, there's churning going on.

If the adventures/modules/Adventure Paths are being created with an expectation that people will buy the additional rulebooks? Technically not churning out rulebooks perhaps, but it'd sorta leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth if it was the standard approach taken; having some modules/whatever that use the additional rulebooks isn't a bad thing, but not really giving an option for a "core rulebook only" group except for a module every 6 months or something isn't cool in my opinion.

I'm not claiming Paizo does any of this, nor am I claiming it's their plan. I've really tried to avoid passing judgments on what is essentially a personal preference with respect to product acquisition and usage. My own personal approach when it comes to RPG products isn't something I've seen other folks take, so it's really not my place to judge them for their approach.

So where's that leave me? Same place as why I posted to the thread in the first place... a dude has stepped up and said, "I'm not dropping cash unless [these things] happen". To which I say, "Good for you for taking a stand (being a reasoned consumer) and saying something." I have a very low opinion of someone that's going to take a stand on something and either A) Not actually take a stand (by spending their money anyway) or B) Take a stand but keep their mouth shut.

A) isn't really taking a stand, it's whining. It really irritates me when I see someone go, "I hate the movies they're making, they're so shallow." and then they go out to one of them and when you ask why, they say "Well... I wanted to see something."

B) is pointless, because you're hoping a company (or person or whatever) will behave in a particular fashion without actually telling them what you want them to do or do different.

I've tried to engage in a conversation and recognise that neither side in the discussion is some sort of wild-eyed lunatic; and there really isn't a "right" answer either. Ummmm.... I'm starting to ramble here... so.... whoever is actually still reading this: thanks for taking the time.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Yes, if you can't handle peer pressure you will be in trouble and not just in regards to gaming.

Heh. Yes and no.

I mean, I certainly grant that if you can't harden up and take a stand, you're going to be in trouble in life.

But in this particular context, I don't think it's quite as cut and dried.

We're engaged in a social hobby and not only that, we happen to be engaged in talking on a message board. For better or worse, we're sensitive to a greater or lesser degree to being influenced. Not even addressing the whole topic of advertising, peer approval, etc, there's a whole bunch of kinda complicated social dynamics going on here. And by "here" I mean "participating in the community that exists to talk about and participate in the rpg hobby."

Because message boards are their own sort of creature. The fact that WotC estimates there to be 6 million players of D&D but ENWorld is sporting a lot less than that, tells me that if you actually want to be a part of _this_ community, there are certain expectations.

And honestly, one of those expectations is to be a consumer. Talking about the newest product that's come out, looking forward to what's coming out.... product consumption is an expectation. It's not a requirement, just an expectation.

People sometimes have blinders when it comes to this stuff. Sure, buy a book, ban a book... it seems like a straightforward enough proposition. But it produces ripples, not just at the game table, but also with the other rpg players and GMs you might interact with. Sometimes it's helpful to remind people that it's not always an obvious or easy call to make for everyone.

Me personally? I maintain a policy of 3 books or $150 for a gameline; anything past that has to be exceptional in some fashion. It's a personal choice, it's an unusual one, and it's not one that I expect anyone else to understand. I bring this up because I want to illustrate that it _is_ possible to be a (semi) active participant on rpg forums (I float between 3) and I'm not one of those "armchair" rpg hobbyists that's simply buying books so I can feel like I'm still involved in a hobby that I've otherwise dropped out of. I'm involved, I'm active, and I'm probably dead-weight in terms of supporting the rpg industry.

But in the context of what you're quoting... I'm also aware that I'm kind of excluded. It's by my own choice, but that doesn't change the fact that past a certain point, I don't count. Some people find it more difficult to juggle being a non-participating participant than others. Turning around and saying, "Oh well, it's your choice as to whether you want to buy a book or not" is easy to do, but there actually are ramifications to someone doing that. Ramifications beyond the "I'm not interested in having these additional options in my game" statement that's made by not buying the book.

*shrug*

I'm sure that as far as some folks are concerned, I'm way overthinking things. And for them, yeah I probably am. But social interaction is a funny creature and folks react one way or another for all kinds of reasons. It never ceases to amaze me how sometimes dysfunctional things become in a hobby that's dedicated to folks hanging out and playing Invisible Barbie together; for such a socially focused activity, you'd think we'd have a better understanding of social interactions.

 

[IronWolf]

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.

Yes, that discussion took place here within the past few days I believe.

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.

They are clarifications, not errata though. So many rules are technically written just fine, there just happens to be some ambiguity about them subject to interpretation. That is bound to happen anytime a game involves a large amount of rules, some of which deal with confusing situations. In the end it is up to the GM to adjudicate how things are played. Things like forum posts, blog posts and the such can go a long way to helping a GM decide how to run a rule or determine the intent of the rule.

In regards to the poison clarifications recently posted to the Paizo blog there were several people that suggested a sidebar in a future core rulebook printing would be useful. It probably would, but in the meantime a GM has a great resource to get clarification.

One of the complaints noted in this thread is that Paizo was too busy "churning" out rulebooks to help clear up any of these areas. I have been trying to show they have been making efforts here and things are not being completely ignored. It may not be official errata, but we're GMs we make the clarifications and they are providing input on helping make better decisions.

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 think for interested parties it isn't difficult to keep up with the blog. I have it added as an RSS feed and it was pretty easy to realize Jason had started a new column to help further insight on confusing situations.

And if you don't want to that's fine too. Make a decision as a GM and run with it. But don't complain that Paizo isn't doing anything ever to help clarify various rules and situations if it is more a matter you don't want to view the resources they have provided.

 

[IronWolf]

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.

Ah - I've always found the 3rd party SRD site to be much better than the Paizo provided one so it hasn't bothered me that Paizo's is slipping behind. If my preference was reversed I could see more frustration about the lack of updates on Paizo's own PRD.

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.

I know I have been coming across as raving lunatic Paizo fanboy in this thread. But I do think it is good you've mentioned some of these things. Nothing wrong with that. Concerned fans voicing their opinion and uncertainty can be better than concerned fans walking off leaving no reason why.