Pathfinder 1E My New Pathfinder Policy

[Anguish]

The rules bloat is certainly a concern. As far as PDFs go, those cost me extra, because I buy my books at the FLGS to support it. Which brings me back around to another point you touched on. I've noticed on message boards people are quick to assume that gamers have access to computers, but I know several people at the FLGS that really don't use computers for their RPG gaming at all.

By the way, sorry for transposing the characters in my short-form of your name. Think-o.

I do the same as you; I buy my rules books at my FLGS and then buy the PDFs online, for the exact same reason. Part of my point was that you don't necessarily need every book though. If Carrion Crown (to continue your example) references a handful of monsters in Bestiary 2, you can easily pick up the PDF without ever buying the book. Yes, that's an extra $10 to run CC, but you only need to ever buy the book if a} you want to, b} you decide you like the content.

As for assuming gamers have computer access, frankly I assume people in general have computer access. It doesn't much matter if you've got access at the gaming table. The GM can print the four pages from Bestiary 2 he needs, before the session. The player who's drawn on three different PDFs for Feats/magic items/racial abilities/whatever should have copied & pasted the text onto his character sheet. I don't use electronic goodies at the table... I've already extracted what I need, no matter what side of the table I'm sitting on.

Anyway, your concerns aren't invalid. They're yours. But I personally don't feel troubled by them. I buy what I want to buy when I want to, and don't worry too much about the rest. Just like every other product line.

 

[IronWolf]

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.

I was saying that the posts you quoted looked like they were from the time frame of Paizo announcing they were coming out with their own ruleset and shortly thereafter.

It looks to me like they had achieved the goals you quoted with the release and subsequent success of the Pathfinder Core Rules. They accomplished the goal of having a 3.5 compatible rule set that they could continue to base their Adventure Paths on.

Then it looks like they felt they could improve on some things and since they seemed to be doing well with their Pathfinder ruleset they decided to start releasing rules that added to what had been out there before. That's where we start getting the APG and the Ultimate books.

I think our definition of churn differs slightly as I am not quite feeling the churn of rules heavy supplements yet. Especially when I continue to see APs coming out and the revised Campaign Setting Guide.

 

[Celtavian]

re

As far as I can tell the entire Bestiary 2 is up on the d20 PFSRD. Is that not good enough?

 

[IronWolf]

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)...

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.

Agreed - no issues with someone poking their head up to voice concern. Helps make discussion boards go around!

At least from my perspective I've enjoyed the conversation.

 

[BobROE]

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.

I find this interesting (in a general sense) that something written by a Paizo designer and put up on the Paizo website is less valid that something written by the same designer and put up elsewhere on the same website because it's not under the FAQ.

 

[pawsplay]

I just don't understand the "churn" and "bloat" accusations. Ultimate Magic is something I want; I was never happy with the Spell Compendium at all, and the Tome of Magic tantalized but did not wow, but I always liked the idea of more magic. Ultimate Combat isn't something I had anticipated, but if it fulfills to some extent the promise of the title, I'm all for that. I like the idea of one big book covering each topic worth covering. If Paizo didn't do that; I'd be disappointed. Moreoever, I'd be motivated to, directly or indirectly, see that someone produced such books.

I bought the Inner Sea Region Guide recently. Partly, to see what all the cool kids were into these days, but also because it looks really well made. I appreciate and enjoy it. The problem, IMO, is not that WotC produced too many books, but that they produced so many books with really uneven quality.

I've never purchased an AP, and it's doubtful I will ever purchase more than one or two. My interest in Golarion is only incidental. My plan is mainly to purchase one of each four or five-star Pathfinder book that comes out. Then, in about five or six years, assuming not much else changes for me or for the industry, I'll purchase a copy of Pathfinder Revised. Then Ultimate Magic II: Electric Bugaloo, which cleans up a couple of dozen spells from the first one that turned out not to be such a hot idea. etc.

I'm not ideological when it comes to games. I purchase games to play, and to read, and to a minor extent, to analyze. I don't purchase them based on some overarching thinking of what Paizo "should" be doing. I recognize that I occupy one end of a spectrum, with someone still running the free Pathfinder Beta and converting APs on the other. I don't care if Paizo puts out one rulebook a year, or twenty; I'll try to buy a copy of anything they put out, if it's good. If it's not good, I won't buy it. If I run out of money, I stop buying. I don't really comprehend the idea of "too much" Pathfinder since I can always choose not to include material. There are physical limits to storing books, which is one practical limit on how much Pathfinder I could deal with.

 

[thundershot]

I just play the game and have fun. Occaisionally, we'll buy a new book and use it and still have fun.

 

[ggroy]

I'm not ideological when it comes to games. I purchase games to play, and to read, and to a minor extent, to analyze.

...

I don't care if Paizo puts out one rulebook a year, or twenty; I'll try to buy a copy of anything they put out, if it's good. If it's not good, I won't buy it.

I agree.

Recently I stopped buying any and all Pathfinder books. I was getting bored of Pathfinder over the last year or so.

I wasn't much of a customer for the Pathfinder rpg rulebooks. My main interest in Pathfinder over the last several years, was in the Golarion setting supplements and adventure path (AP) books. (I used Pathfinder's Golarion in one of my previous 4E D&D games).

I was buying the monthly Pathfinder AP books over the last several years, largely due to my previous fondness and "weakness" for Dungeon Magazine. At the present time, this personal "weakness" is no longer able to sustain my interest in Pathfinder. (ie. I'm basically "burned out" on the monthly Pathfinder APs).

With all this being said, there is probably very little to nothing that Paizo can do to change my mind about Pathfinder at this point. (ie. I do not expect them to change according to my whims and interests).

 

[BobROE]

I just don't understand the "churn" and "bloat" accusations. Ultimate Magic is something I want;

I think you may have hit the nail on the head here. People who want the products being released are not going to consider their release as churn or bloat. People who don't want them (or want something else more, like an up to date FAQ) are going to see them as churn or bloat.

 

[Erik Mona]

*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.

For the record I have absolutely no problem with people referring to me by my last name. If I did I would never have survived junior high.

Thanks for your long response. I'm still chewing it over.

--Erik