Quote from: Haffrung;1029492What a mean thing to say. I suspect it's absolutely true. Jacobs let it slip in a forum post once that Paizo knows half the audience for their AP books don't actively playing, so the adventures have to be written in a way that's enjoyable to read.

Though many of them play - just not at the rate that the APs are released.  I have a buddy who used to be a subscriber and he did run them from time to time, but we couldn't get together often enough for how many various APs/modules he had piling up, and he eventually cancelled his membership.

I would subscribe if they offered converted ones. Some of the adventure paths look super cool. I would have run Iron Gods in a heartbeat. I bought the first two, but realized they would be too much work to convert to something playable.

Quote from: estar;1028424Also note that according to Ryan Dancey one of the points of putting out the d20 SRD under the Open Game License was.

Hobbyists forget how close we came to losing D&D during the collapse of TSR. In regards to Pathfinder versus D&D 4th edition, the OGL operated as intended. Ultimately forced a course correction on Wizards that resulted in 5th edition.

1: That is what he has said after the fact. But he has said other reasons as well so it is impossible to say if that was the intent or not.

2: The OGL though opened the door to rampant design and sometimes nigh whole game theft though and engendered a surge in parasite designers and worse. And in the end it was the OGL that prompted 3.5 and 4e to be made. And take note that according to Dancey and others have stated that WOTC was planning to replace 3e even as they released it due to their infatuation with the damn "5 year plan."

Quote from: Omega;10295931: That is what he has said after the fact. But he has said other reasons as well so it is impossible to say if that was the intent or not.

If he had said that at the time, he would and should have been fired immediately. As it is, the damage is done, and a whole lot of original D&D monsters are public domain.

A plus for Paizo with Pathfinder 2E is that they can release edited versions of all their adventures and maps for 2E and sell them again!

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1029456There is a ton of stuff in that Mythcreants article that is flat out wrong, starting with how a CL1/W19 prepares spells and going from there. Not going to provide a catalog, since nearly everything was wrong.

My complaints are generally limited to: There are separate ability scores and modifiers; Known spells vary from a fixed set to unlimited depending on class; The shaolin monk is a class but a brawler is not; Saving throws work completely differently from attack rolls; Armor class is separate from saving throws; Death is an annoyance that brings an adventure to a screeching halt until the dead character is revived; There are numerous casters with unique mechanics, probably more than we really need; Synergy between race and class discourages character concepts like elven barbarians.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1029510I sometimes wonder why debates about "failing forward" erupt on other forums, and then I remember that the #2 publisher in the industry puts out garbage like this.

The concept of pass/fail in task resolution mechanics is flawed. Whenever a task fails, or a PC dies, then the adventure comes to a screeching halt. Introducing a more complicated "yes/no and/but" mechanic does not change that. It makes vastly more sense to use a pass/pass system for task resolution. Whenever you encounter an obstacle it gets resolved either way, but one outcome may be less or more circuitous than the other. Of course, that may have more to do with rail-roading being fundamentally at odds with pass/fail task resolution, which fosters a "choose your own adventure" style of story, than pass/fail task resolution itself.

This works better if PCs are not allowed to die unless the GM wants them to, rather than because the dice rolled a certain way. The GM is god, so the GM can and should alter fate and destiny so that circumstances contrive to keep the PCs alive for as long as necessary to keep the adventure moving. This is, in fact, how all fiction operates: the writer does not let characters die unless the writer wants them to, because the writer is the god of the story. Would all of fiction be just as enjoyable if the cast repeatedly died due to a random die roll and the plot had to constantly take detours in order to revive them, trivializing the concept of death in the process?

Quote from: Omega;10295931: That is what he has said after the fact. But he has said other reasons as well so it is impossible to say if that was the intent or not.

2: The OGL though opened the door to rampant design and sometimes nigh whole game theft though and engendered a surge in parasite designers and worse. And in the end it was the OGL that prompted 3.5 and 4e to be made. And take note that according to Dancey and others have stated that WOTC was planning to replace 3e even as they released it due to their infatuation with the damn "5 year plan."

Without the OGL allowing for Pathfinder and the OSR, I doubt WotC would have gone in the direction that they did. 5e was made specifically to compete with the retroclone movement after the embarrassing failure of 4e. Why else would 5e throw out many of the genuine improvements from 4e, such as unified saving throws and armor class, but introduce bounded accuracy analogous to THAC0?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1029689This works better if PCs are not allowed to die unless the GM wants them to, rather than because the dice rolled a certain way. The GM is god, so the GM can and should alter fate and destiny so that circumstances contrive to keep the PCs alive for as long as necessary to keep the adventure moving.

I thought it was impossible to be more wrong than Christopher Brady.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1029689Would all of fiction be just as enjoyable if the cast repeatedly died due to a random die roll and the plot had to constantly take detours in order to revive them, trivializing the concept of death in the process?

RPG are not books or movies, as the Game part of Role Playing Game indicates.

RPGs are fiction now? Is it 1999 again?

RPGs aren't fiction and the goal isn't to tell a story.

Quote from: Celestial;1029632A plus for Paizo with Pathfinder 2E is that they can release edited versions of all their adventures and maps for 2E and sell them again!

It works for the college textbook industry.

JG

Quote from: Ulairi;1029711RPGs aren't fiction and the goal isn't to tell a story.

It would make Pathfinder quite different than D&D 5th edition if they adopted this stance, however.  Very, very different.

I wonder if this news has already screwed up production for anyone. I am sure there's a few kickstarters that won't happen now.

I backed Kobold's Midgard (I just got the books, so it's on my mind), and I got the 5e versions because Pathfinder isn't really my bag. I think I'd be a little miffed if I spent $200 on Pathfinder books that I know no one will want to play in a year or so.

Quote from: joewolz;1029811I think I'd be a little miffed if I spent $200 on Pathfinder books that I know no one will want to play in a year or so.

TBH, I don't see this as realistically being a killing blow to 3rd Ed D&D: I think there will continue to be a reasonable market for 3rd party products for some time to come. What will be interesting is if a smaller company decides to release there own 3rd edition based core books to cater to that market.

To myself at least rpg are to a certain extent fictional. It's a world of make believe where a bunch of people devote time to play and/or run as a hobby. It's important to separate reality with fiction because I have seen one too many friends forget to keepboth separate. Withdrawing too much into the world of rpgs and mmos because fiction and make believe is easier to handle than reality.