For example:

I won't buy any C&C stuff because they are always changing the trade dress and it would lead my core set to look funny. The sole reason I didn't buy the Castle Keepers Guide was that it didn't match the books I already had.

You?

I would really prefer not to ever buy any Paizo stuff again because they employ Sean Reynolds.  His opinions about AD&D are shit.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;585338I would really prefer not to ever buy any Paizo stuff again because they employ Sean Reynolds.  His opinions about AD&D are shit.

What are his opinions? I haven't paid much attention to him on that front.

I'd like to hear about Sean Reynolds as well.  The only thing I've read from him on the Paizo forums that I don't care for is the stonewalling on Monks being deliberately bad, but the same could be said of JB and James Jacobs as well, so this seems to be the company line and not an SKR exclusive.

I don't think I have any pet peeves of this variety, or at least I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

Do people really make buying decisions based on personalities? I couldn't care less who produces a product as long as the product is good. Same with music. Then you get to the complex conundrum of changing personalities, will you burn all the books created by a certain writer if he joins the KKK and gets a Hitler tache tattoo after a lifetime of social service?

My favourite example here is Charles Dickens, by day proponent of improving the conditions for the impoverished of London, by night a genocidal lunatic that wanted to personally murder all the "Hindoos".

Frankly I don't care, as long as I don't feel they are pushing an agenda through their work, that irritates me. Admittedly I would have a problem with the radical ink klansman above, but that's an edge case.

Petty? Okay here's petty.

I have not purchased (yet) "Dogs of W*A*R", the Barbarians of Lemuria modern day spin-of because of its terrible cover.

I have not purchased Fate variant "Awesome Adventures" because of it's title.

I have not purchased "Cartoon Action Hour" because even if my games all play like Saturday morning cartoons I don't necessarily want to advertise that fact.

The thing is when I buy a new game I am looking to "buy" the players' goodwill and generate a bit of buzz. I could persuade my players to try any of the above systems and given time win them over. What I would not get is that initial player buy-in and full-hearted commitment to their characters that I might get with a system that inspired more confidence (through reputation, personal experience or just production values).

And the catch is that player buy-in and commitment are at least as important than the rules themselves to the success of a game, if not more. So you get a viscous circle. The players start off skittish, the player's attitude, however subtle, has impact on the quality of the game so that at the end of the session the player's initial misgivings about the game are confirmed.

So yes, it's petty, but it's also pragmatic.

You may now mock me.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;585463I'd like to hear about Sean Reynolds as well.  The only thing I've read from him on the Paizo forums that I don't care for is the stonewalling on Monks being deliberately bad, but the same could be said of JB and James Jacobs as well, so this seems to be the company line and not an SKR exclusive.

I don't think I have any pet peeves of this variety, or at least I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

I am not very fond of Sean K. Reynold's errata regarding the Monk, in that most of the time it ends up nerfing an already underpowered class.

Quote from: Soylent Green;585489I have not purchased "Cartoon Action Hour" because even if my games all play like Saturday morning cartoons I don't necessarily want to advertise that fact.

Solution, get a cover and hide the name and just use the game?

I run CAH fairly often, and I'm pretty up front that don't let its name fool you--it can do a lot of things, its just got some tools to make the Cartoon like aspects easy.

Quote from: Silverlion;585519Solution, get a cover and hide the name and just use the game?

I run CAH fairly often, and I'm pretty up front that don't let its name fool you--it can do a lot of things, its just got some tools to make the Cartoon like aspects easy.

Hehe, sneaky, sneaky.

However it doesn't really work that way. Hypothetically speaking, disguising the game might avoid negative vibes, but it does not create positive vibes either. And it's positive vibes that I want from a new game.

If players are excited about the new game chances are they will put more energy into the game and that in turn helps everyone get passed that initial learning curve. If they are a little skittish or even just neutral about the game to start with things can still work out fine, it's just harder.

Quote from: Soylent Green;585489I have not purchased (yet) "Dogs of W*A*R", the Barbarians of Lemuria modern day spin-of because of its terrible cover.

I have not purchased Fate variant "Awesome Adventures" because of it's title.

Ah, well if that is petty then include me there.  I won't buy a product with bad art or a stupid name even if I'm okay with it otherwise (at least not at full/high prices).

I'm perfectly capable of using some amateur's well done game published for free online that has no art at all.  If I'm paying a lot of money then I expect the art, art direction, and layout to be good.

Quote from: LibertadSean should just be honest that he doesn't like Monks and makes them weak in order to discourage people from playing them.

Since they have already included the class in the game that they publish I don't think an admission of guilt really helps.  Perhaps if they included a disclaimer in the class write-up, but that seems pretty damned unlikely and really isn't an ideal solution anyway.

I don't really like Monks either.  I think it's a bad idea for a 'core' class because it doesn't easily fit into most campaign settings, even ones with an ersatz east Asia.  I legitimately nerdraged over it's inclusion in the 3e PHB.  I think they probably should have been left to a distinctly non-occidental supplement.  

That said I think some of the Paizo staff's critiques of the class from a design standpoint are very obtuse and so is their refusal to give ground on the subject.  I sort of expect everything in the core rules to be functional and not wonky, even if I don't care for the aesthetics.

There are a lot of spells on the core lists that I think are particularly cheesy that I'd rather see not present rather than have them be not viable options if they are present (unfortunately the cheesier a spell is from an aesthetic standpoint the more powerful it is!)

Quote from: Soylent Green;585489Petty? Okay here's petty.

I have not purchased (yet) "Dogs of W*A*R", the Barbarians of Lemuria modern day spin-of because of its terrible cover.

Seriously you should get "Dogs of W*A*R". Its made of awesome. If it was anymore awesome it would make you a taco, and hand you a beer.

I won't buy ICONS even though I'm curious about it because GMS is a douchebag, and the art is fucking atrocious.

Quote from: Ronin;585557Seriously you should get "Dogs of W*A*R". Its made of awesome. If it was anymore awesome it would make you a taco, and hand you a beer.

I know,  I know. BoL is superb, and I don't even like fantasy.  I am sure I will eventually will get it. Just hoping one day it might get that deluxe edition, you know?

I know I should not judge a book by its cover...but I do.

Quote from: J Arcane;585565I won't buy ICONS even though I'm curious about it because GMS is a douchebag, and the art is fucking atrocious.

For what it's worth, ICONS is now owned entirely by Steve Kenson (his company bought the rights off Adamant). It is a great game.