Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 5519365" data-attributes="member: 43283">*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.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.</blockquote>

Verification