[Pathfinder] Just to kick a man when he's down.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:40 pm

Kaelik wrote: Really Roy? Didn't we just fucking talk about this? Do you ever learn?

You said every single instance of trading offensive power for defensive power is turtle fail. I pointed out multiple occurrences where sacrificing offense for defense is very justified.

Your response: "Only a retard would ever defend trading offense for defense."

Go sit in time out.

Yeah, this is exactly the type of crap that Roy needs to stop doing, because it's a zero content meme post. All we get out of it is that he doesn't like your idea, but we have no idea why.

Since his only objection is that your post is "irredeemably stupid."

Without any back up of any kind. Is he saying that you shouldn't cast spells like blink or greater mirror image? I seriously don't know. Because he's reverted to just memes. He was doing decent up until then, but as soon as someone disagreed with him, he just went to his usual meme bullshit.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:45 pm

And now people are either just feigning retardation to try to annoy me, or it isn't an act. Being dismissed with 'meme bullshit' means your idea has no merit whatsoever. Do I have to fucking spell and define those words? It means you need to go back to the drawing board, you fucking fucker.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:32 pm

That just means you may need to find a new phrase. Your meme have no real context behind them. Everyone else at least adds the reason why they don't like something some more than other. Throwing memes around constantly pretty much makes them lose the punch they would have had if used sparingly. It really makes you look like you are trying to be clever but failing miserably. I see that some of your post have reasonable thing in it but I have to sift through a torrent of half thoughs and memes.

---------------------------------

So back to the Pathfinder preview classes.

What in the fuck are they trying to show off here. It doesn't really show off much of the changes when they have three new feats out of 16 in the fighter. So people actually use these characters in test games/one shots and these seem to be worse than the ones you could find in quick play rules for diablo d20 and Dnd.

Also if the final product is supposely different then the beta* (some of the paizo forums hope) then that will piss off people who either loved it or hated. Seriously Caderus had a point about why the pen and paper gaming is dying. People will buy anything if it even slightly changes the rules and doesn't actually try to fix anything. It seem most people are just better off checking forums for fixes then shelling out cash for a couple of rules.

*My mind is still blown from when people actually bought the beta, at least computer/console gaming company actually lie because they think customers won't buy.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:58 pm

Who knows? It's not their character design competence, and it's not their game design competence. Unless they really are that delusional, which I would not put past them.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:09 pm

The Pathfinder crew are completely unconscious when it comes to the mechanical aspect of the game. That's really all there is to it. They don't understand that a Cloak of Resistance (or similar) is mandatory. Think about that.

They really are like every kid ever who came up with some homebrew ideas that they think are cool; with no interest in actually finding out which of their ideas, if any, are any good. The only difference is that these kids have a publishing house and some rocking art to wrap up the stuff they pulled out of their butts in.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:17 pm

Leress wrote: So back to the Pathfinder preview classes.

What in the fuck are they trying to show off here. It doesn't really show off much of the changes when they have three new feats out of 16 in the fighter. So people actually use these characters in test games/one shots and these seem to be worse than the ones you could find in quick play rules for diablo d20 and Dnd.

Also if the final product is supposely different then the beta* (some of the paizo forums hope) then that will piss off people who either loved it or hated. Seriously Caderus had a point about why the pen and paper gaming is dying. People will buy anything if it even slightly changes the rules and doesn't actually try to fix anything. It seem most people are just better off checking forums for fixes then shelling out cash for a couple of rules.

*My mind is still blown from when people actually bought the beta, at least computer/console gaming company actually lie because they think customers won't buy.

Well, here's the thing, a lot of the audience doesn't see the problems. I just joined a core-only 3.5 dragonlance game (and yeah, I don't want to start on the issues involved), but the group as a whole is... less than aware. They wouldn't see the any problem with the preview characters posted. Nevermind that in an effort to not break the game for them, I made a fighter 4/rogue 4, which is actually better than the pathfinder preview fighter.

The guy playing the mage in the group has actually mentioned pathfinder a few times, and I've tried to discourage it at little by pointing out that it doesn't actually address any of the real problems with 3.5. But when you get down to it, these folks strike me as 'typical' D&D players. They aren't looking for optimization, or for the holes in the rules, or anything like that. They're looking for a functional base for their character ideas, but not much else. They are, as a whole, supremely unaware that the entire game runs (or breaks) on the math, and frankly they're probably happier not knowing.

And angel raises a good point. The best (or worst) aspect of this campaign is that we're 8th level characters with a single custom magic item each (because out of the book magic items would be too boring, according to the DM) and assuming that we can somehow manage CR appropriate encounters without the gear. I suspect Paizo folks are similarly unaware.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:56 pm

Typical? Hardly. While it is granted the typical player is probably not striving for optimization, they also are not striving for immense stupidity. The Paizo products are bad because most of the user feedback they get is bad. This isn't mere ignorance - it's active delusion.

Which, given that PF does not provide such a functional base...

It even actively discourages intelligence. I still get a kick out of being banned for proving AC is worthless, with math and then threw in more math to illustrate how to fix it. Which means I basically did the work for them.

But then, between their active delusion and them getting paid solely based on quantity, none of this should surprise anyone.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:09 pm

Nah, they're simply aware that most of their audience doesn't care. Like most editions of D&D, its functional enough for most of the people who play it. It honestly doesn't matter if its perfect, just that its good enough to roughly model the kind of game they want to play.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:26 pm

Voss wrote:Nah, they're simply aware that most of their audience doesn't care. Like most editions of D&D, its functional enough for most of the people who play it. It honestly doesn't matter if its perfect, just that its good enough to roughly model the kind of game they want to play.

I agree. By definition, their current customers must like playing 3.5 D&D (or something like it); I doubt that the market segment of "folks who don't buy 3.5 products, but who would buy them in a minute if fairly major changes were made to Pathfinder" is a vast, untapped resource.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:44 pm

'Functional' does not get mainstream attention or even that of other tabletop gamers.

Seriously, would anyone even care about this project if it didn't have 'D&D' slapped onto the logo?

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:10 pm

IIRC, it literally can't have D&D slapped on the logo.

But functional isn't the selling point, so thats OK- its damned useful for a system to be functional, but that isn't how you market it. Paizo has literally targeted a niche of a niche market, specifically, 3.5 players that don't like 4e, the folks who are a fan of their modules and their magazine fanboys, well as people who have decided they're personally offended by some aspect of WotC's business model (naturally there is some overlap). They're actually relying more on their own brand loyalty (and a quick browse of their forums shows that they have some seriously attached fanboyz) than they are on D&D.

Those are the only people they're aiming at, and ultimately they're going to find that it a problematic business model. There isn't much room for expansion, and they have very little influence on people who don't already know (and like) them.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:22 pm

Voss wrote: Paizo has literally targeted a niche of a niche market, specifically, 3.5 players that don't like 4e, the folks who are a fan of their modules and their magazine fanboys, well as people who have decided they're personally offended by some aspect of WotC's business model (naturally there is some overlap).

Their target markets are "3.5-ish players" (I don't see why hating 4e is a requirement) and, to a much lesser extent "non-3.5 players who like their products as reading material".

Considering that the pool of 3.5 players has (presumably) shrunk since 4e came out, I have doubts as to their long-term success, but they haven't gone out of business yet.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:45 pm

hogarth wrote:
Voss wrote: Paizo has literally targeted a niche of a niche market, specifically, 3.5 players that don't like 4e, the folks who are a fan of their modules and their magazine fanboys, well as people who have decided they're personally offended by some aspect of WotC's business model (naturally there is some overlap).
Their target markets are "3.5-ish players" (I don't see why hating 4e is a requirement) and, to a much lesser extent "non-3.5 players who like their products as reading material".

Considering that the pool of 3.5 players has (presumably) shrunk since 4e came out, I have doubts as to their long-term success, but they haven't gone out of business yet.

Their whole reason for starting this is because they didn't like 4.0. So I'd say hating it is a requirement.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:35 pm

Roy wrote:And now people are either just feigning retardation to try to annoy me, or it isn't an act. Being dismissed with 'meme bullshit' means your idea has no merit whatsoever. Do I have to fucking spell and define those words? It means you need to go back to the drawing board, you fucking fucker.

You did define words. You defined Turtle Fail as any time ever that someone ever give up even a single bit of offense for defense.

So answer the question, not with a meme, not with Turtle Fail, not by calling the speaker retarded. Just answer the question.

Should a caster ever, for any reason, prepare or cast Greater Mirror Image?

If the answer is yes, Then your definition of Turtle Fail is stupid and wrong, and needs to be revised.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:54 pm

Roy wrote:
hogarth wrote: Their target markets are "3.5-ish players" (I don't see why hating 4e is a requirement) and, to a much lesser extent "non-3.5 players who like their products as reading material".
Their whole reason for starting this is because they didn't like 4.0. So I'd say hating it is a requirement.

What happens to someone who plays both 4.0 and 3.5 and who buys a Paizo product? Does his head explode? Do the police arrest him?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:34 pm

Roy wrote:Their whole reason for starting this is because they didn't like 4.0. So I'd say hating it is a requirement.

Actually, I'd wager that they saw that many players didn't like 4e, so they were like, "Let's milk this cash cow for all it's worth."

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:06 am

Psychic Robot wrote:
Roy wrote:Their whole reason for starting this is because they didn't like 4.0. So I'd say hating it is a requirement.
Actually, I'd wager that they saw that many players didn't like 4e, so they were like, "Let's milk this cash cow for all it's worth."

Also don't forget about WOTC taking back Dungeon and Dragon Magazine.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:52 am

hogarth wrote:
Voss wrote: Paizo has literally targeted a niche of a niche market, specifically, 3.5 players that don't like 4e, the folks who are a fan of their modules and their magazine fanboys, well as people who have decided they're personally offended by some aspect of WotC's business model (naturally there is some overlap).
Their target markets are "3.5-ish players" (I don't see why hating 4e is a requirement) and, to a much lesser extent "non-3.5 players who like their products as reading material".

It isn't. Thats 3 separate but sometimes overlapping groups. Don't like != hate.

Considering that the pool of 3.5 players has (presumably) shrunk since 4e came out, I have doubts as to their long-term success, but they haven't gone out of business yet.

They haven't, but its important to realize that most of their business is simply acting as a distribution house and/or publisher for people too small to do it themselves. They themselves have a few writing projects: their modules, the attached campaign world, and jason's little hobby (Pathfinder), but there is a reason the only 'job opportunity' they have is warehouse monkey.

Seriously according to this page, (except for the above monkeys, and I would suspect, the sales monkeys), Paizo is about 20 guys: http://paizo.com/paizo/about/contact

And, huh. Sean K Reynolds is listed as Pathfinder's Developer. Much that was unclear is now explained.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:08 am

I believe Erik Mona's stated reason for developing Pathfinder was that they got anxious when WotC kept dragging its feet about releasing what would eventually become the GSL. Whatever their failings as designers, Paizo correctly deduced that the GSL was going to be onerous and that the most certain way to keep up their module business was to make their own OGL game to support their product.

Seriously, the Pathfinder game is just there to sell the Pathfinder modules. They assume that 90% of people who buy their modules will also buy the game. If they also draw some disaffected 3.5 players, that's just icing on the cake.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:07 am

I suspect they have a vague (and probably vain) hope that they will somehow come out of it as the 'real' D&D, with several of the 3rd edition designers on their team/side to give them what passes for legitimacy in the RPG biz.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:32 am

I was talking with Deesix earlier today. Or maybe yesterday, my sense of time is a little confused at the moment.

He said that he had fun with people rolling poor stats, getting stuck with Fighter, and then going, "Shit, I'm a fighter, I'm going to go ahead and have a real character sheet ready for when he dies..."

He also said that 4e satisfies as a quick, easy-to-run game.

When I pointed out that there's some people who will have fun regardless of what they're playing, he admitted that while he knows that there's only a few viable builds for fighters, he can still have fun playing one.

So, yeah. While we care about balanced rules, unbalanced or poor design doesn't interfere with the fun of a lot of people.

Which, I suppose, leads to them resenting us for making a big deal over crappy rules--after all, THEY still had fun with them, so what exactly is the problem?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:59 am

I can only imagine 4e qualifying as a "quick, easy-to-run" game if you're playing with 3e veterans.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:09 am

Voss wrote: But when you get down to it, these folks strike me as 'typical' D&D players. They aren't looking for optimization, or for the holes in the rules, or anything like that. They're looking for a functional base for their character ideas, but not much else. They are, as a whole, supremely unaware that the entire game runs (or breaks) on the math, and frankly they're probably happier not knowing.

I would say this is true. Most players don't know why evocation sucks, and frankly don't care. They don't care that healing is a suckers game or the fighter's don't stand up past 6th. Everyone I've ever played with like fireballs and guys in plate and clerics who heal. They make it work. It means that the DM has to tone down enemies but most DMs I've had don't play opponents to the hilt without be conscious of it. And that seems to be how Paizo staff and their crowd tend to play as well.

Now that's not a defense of Paizo's shitty designing, but an observation of why they seem to be thinking the way they do.

And I'd definitely say that while I knew something was deeply wrong with 3e before I came here, I didn't feel hopeless about it until I came here. So I might have been better off, as far as enjoying the game, if I hadn't learned about optimization and major faults in the system.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:02 am

ckafrica wrote:And I'd definitely say that while I knew something was deeply wrong with 3e before I came here, I didn't feel hopeless about it until I came here. So I might have been better off, as far as enjoying the game, if I hadn't learned about optimization and major faults in the system.

Ah, to be happy and ignorant again...

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:37 am

Maybe I'm just weird, but 1) I was never that ignorant. I always knew casters rocked. 2) I do remember when I was more ignorant. I do not remember then game being better then.