This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Jaeger

Pages: [1]
So a while back we had this prediction/thread about RPGPundits video on Pathfinder 2e: Postulating that PF2 will split the base and cause Pazio problems:

(By all means feel free to ruthlessly berate each other for inaccurate predictions.)

So it’s about 18 months since PF2 hit the shelves and this is what we know so far:

Baizuo currently employs 73 people, which is larger than it's ever been.

Pathfinder is declining in popularity since 5E came out. Activity on Paizo’s forums is way down, adventure paths get far fewer reviews than they did 6 years ago, very little fan content is being released on Youtube, etc.

Pathfinder 2 was an attempt to stem this tide.

Oh, wait a minute, the same things still apply to Pathfinder 2.

So some things are pointing to PF2 not being the great POC hope that Baizuo might have been banking on.

But where is the evidence?

In the time of the Kung-Flu, online gaming has taken off!

But maybe not so much for PF2…

PF1 is still in the lead on Fantasy Grounds: PFRPG vs. PFRPG2

PF2 games are less than half of the PF1 games on Roll20

Of course over time I do naturally expect PF2 to overtake PF1 on these platforms.

But almost a year and a half in a lagging PF2 is suboptimal.

But there is good news as well!

Pinnacle is doing a SAVAGE WORLDS version of 1e pathfinder adventure paths…

Wait what? Well, it is a good way for Baizuo to monetize some old product.

I guess that’s good if you want to play through PF1e AP with a system that Fucking Sucks.

But why don’t they do more 5e conversions?

Maybe beacause Baizuo is not quite ready to raise the white flag just yet...

As of 12-7-2020

The PF1e 1e subreddit averages 36 posts per day.

The PF2 subreddit averages 19 posts per day.

Best Sellers in Fantasy Gaming (amazon listing 12-7-2020)

#89 Call of Cthulhu Rpg Keeper Rulebook:
#90: PF2 Tome of beasts 2
#91: Baizuo PF2 core

Beaten out by a game released in 2016 is not a good look. (Even if it is a temporary sales spike from CoC)

Naturally this is all relative. HERO games would love to have PF2 sales figures.

But Baizuo is no HERO games. They have things like sales projections, and a marketing budget.

Of course, in a post Nov 3rd 2020 world; Proof is the new Evidence.

And not having access to internal Baizuo financials no one can say anything for certain.

So have the tea leaves been read wrong?

Or are we seeing a train-wreck in slow motion…

Help Desk / No multi-quote option anymore
« on: September 03, 2020, 04:24:44 AM »
The Multi quote tag was seriously useful in the past forum format.

One could click on several posts and flag them as you were reading through a thread and then reply to multiple points at once.

Now I would have to remember who I wanted to reply to after reading the thread and go back and reply one at a time.

It would up my post count, but also be cumbersome.

Please, Please, bring Multi-Quote back - even if Pundit has to pawn his cat.

In the not sure if serious files:

A Che Guevera T-shirt meant to be pro-LGBT...


So, what do you guys think?

Clever right-wing troll job?

Or your typical SJW at work?

So while discussing with some friends why D&D never had a real challenger until a series of WOTC own goals led to pathfinder...

It became clear, that whether by accident or design, D&D just got certain things right pretty much straight out of the gate. That in addition to being first, (Which is a big deal) led to them being virtually unchallenged for over 30 years:

The 5 points that secured D&D's early dominance:

1: Easy PC creation: You could make a character and begin play in a matter of minutes. A selling point for new players.

2: Graspable Rules complexity: The first levels are not rules heavy. The mechanics were understandable. New players gradually got introduced to any additional complexity, easing the gateway for new players.

3: Easily grasped Default play mode: The Dungeon, an easy to understand and grasp mode of play. New players knew what they were gonna do right away. Explore a forgotten crypt, kill things and take their stuff.

4: Easily understood setting: Common fantasy tropes of 'Tolkienesque" Elves Dwarves, Halflings/Hobbits, Fighting evil Orcs, Trolls, monsters, etc...  And Dragons! New players could easily imagine the kind of medieval fantasy land their PC's were adventuring in.

5: Straight-forward reward mechanism: The leveling mechanic is a great 'gratification' reward for killing things and taking their stuff. New players unambiguously knew how many XP they needed for the next level, and what to do to get it.

Yes you can point to the rules bloat of 2e and 3e, and legitimately argue that some of those points got stretched more than a bit. But at the time it didn't really matter as D&D had already cemented its market position.

What is particularly interesting is that when you really think about things, virtually all of D&D's early competitors failed miserably on more than one of these points.

In almost every case, D&D was delivering a more newbie accessible, better overall game, than any of its early competitors.

My attempt to split this discussion off the "Are RPGs Getting Better, or Worse?" thread.

Based on the few comments so far in the thred mentioned above,and if you read the "So what is the consensus on PF2e?" thread on the Big Purple's d20 ghetto. Current word of mouth does not seem so hot.

It's looking like Pundit will be proven right in his prediction: (starts at 2:00 minutes in.)

To summarize: Pazio hit lightning in a bottle with PathFinder due to a combination of several WOTC own goals: culminating with 4e going over with the D&D fanbase like a fart in a cathedral.

But those conditions no longer exist.

I believe Pundit is correct, and Pazio should recognize the 5e market shift and quietly slow their support for PF and start dual stating all their modules/adventure paths with 5e.

A gradual shift/downsize back to what made their name in the first place would have been the safe bet.

Now IMHO, if they were gonna take a chance on a PF 2nd edition. They should have been more bold: Go even more back to the roots of D&D than 5e did...

The PF 2e design goal should have been to be the B/X rules set to 5e's "advanced" rules. Take out all the crunch you can whilst still being able to dual stat the modules/adventure paths so that PF 2e would be more or less "Upwards Compatible" with the worlds most popular RPG...

They'd get to ride 5e's successful coattails, and PF2e would still have a reason to exist as its own thing.

Now whether or not enough of the current PF fanbase would follow that big paradigm shift to make it worth the time and money? That is a different question. (I tend to think probably not.)

But as it stands now, I think Pazio is proving that when left to their own devices game design is not their forte.

But the game isn't out yet.

So, have the tea leaves been read wrong?

Or is Pundit right, and we're gonna see a train-wreck in slow motion?

So what do you think the good people at Pazio will do with Pathfinder when D&D next comes out?

Do you think they will be compelled to put out a new edition of pathfinder?

If 5e is a big hit do you think they will make a comparable clone - or will they go with a re-imagined version of the 3e rules set?

Will they make a 2e Pathfinder if 5e is met with a lukewarm reception?

Personally I think that they will make a new edition of some kind, but it will come out a year or so after Next.

It would be really interesting if they were working in secret on a new edition that came out the same year as D&D next.

Everyone Speculate!


I foolishly got involved in a thread over on TBP...

Anyway I though I would float it here to see if I am off base in my opinion

It is this thread:

The previous six pages aren't really needed because evidently I've pulled the thread off on a bit of a tangent...

My posts start towrds the bottom of page 7 (post # 67) and my position is basically that:

If you are trying to deliver a message don't make your allegory so ham handed, self-righteous, and annoying, that it can make some people actually root for the bad guys.

Why am I giving such a fuck?


Inspired by the “back to the cave” blog entry…

And a recent re-reading of Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six… I got to thinking, what would the world be like if they pulled it off?? And only around 500 million or so were left?

What would the fallout of such an event be like?

It would have to be some kind of engineered bio-weapon with a really long gestation and airborne contagious period, but a 90% plus kill rate. And once the symptoms hit, people drop within a few days.

Would there be a viable RPG setting??

Just a few ideas:

1: A general bio-weapon plague…

The 500 million or so survivors of a 90% death rate plague are more or less spread evenly around the globe. With a few hidden compounds set up by the Eco-wacko’s, getting ready to gather and lead the survivors; whether they like it or not.

2: An ethnic bio-weapon plague…  (Or, a (pick-a-race) supremacists wet dream)

The Eco-wacko group decides they’d like to keep a little more of “their” civilization and infrastructure, so they make and use an ethnic bio-weapon that kills everyone 99.9%, but (pick-a-race) who are ethnically “immune”.  

And by “immune” I mean the relatively healthy– those with sickness, disease, or compromised immune systems probably won’t be strong enough to fight off the plague.

3: A mutagenic bio-plague - it mutates the survivors and other random animals! Giving them Kewel powerz!!

For Gonzo/special snowflake minded people. Someone would suggest this anyway.

4:   A general bio-weapon plague… But one or a few governments find out the world is infected a few weeks before people start dropping.

They hunt down the Eco-wackos and get a cure. But can only make the cure in very limited amounts given the time they have to work with.

 Any other ideas?

Which one has your vote as the most workable as an RPG setting?



After seeing RPG's with multiple editions I am beginning to start to wonder how many it takes to get a system "right".

 In my opinion I can only see 2 or 3 editions at the most. But this naturally assumes effort was made to have a solid, well thought out system to begin with...

I think that every game will go two editions. There are things that come up when many people are playing a game that playtesting could never catch. And for a lot of small press games the 1st edition is basically a playtesting release anyway.

The only reasons I can see for going beyond 2 or 3 editions would be:

1 - Fundamentally changing the system of the game. i.e. a "redesign". This can be done for the hell of it, or for any of the following reasons:

2 - Core, or highly used parts of the 1st edition were broken, or gave wonky results, which lead to reason #1.

3 - Great setting idea, but the system is made of ass. Which also leads to reason #1.

  So how many editions do you think a game would take before it is declared well and truly finished...


They can go by many names: Hero, Fate, etc. But the general idea is the same.

A group of replentishable point that players can spend to help thier PC's.

The type I like:
Hero points that give bonuses to PC actions. Like when you're finally confonting the big bad, or you just have to make the jump on to the leaving ship. It's nice to have a little something to ensure the badassness of your PC is not in doubt in such situations.
Player:"I attack the black knight and spend a point to boost my roll..."
GM: " Ohhh nice roll.. you did nasty damage..."

The type I hate:
The kind that allows narrative control... this drives me nuts. If players want to dictate enemy action then they should play a solo game where nothing unexpected could happen.

Player: "Actually that didn't happen, I spend a point to make his guns jam and blow up in his face..'
GM: "The fuck!?"

How do you feel about them...


While surfing ENworld and reading about D&D edition wars, I was struck by some of the significant differences between editions.

 AD&D was noticably different to 3.x, as 3.x is to 4e. With many crying about each edition not being D&D. But each edition was/is still the #1 selling RPG of its time, in spite of any changes made to the game.

 Personally I'm of the opinion that the current game with D&D on the cover 'is' D&D. And I think that D&D has become its own genre to the point that so long as the game had a d20, and a few other D&D tropes, it could be changed fairly radically and still be the #1 RPG.

So, how far could things be taken? How much could the game be changed and still be D&D? If you were in charge of 5e... what would you do??

I was 3 at the time, but...
 D&D is the 800lb Gorilla - but what if something got in there before it really hit?

What game System+Setting do you think would have given AD&D a run for its money back in the day?

 Given an equal level of promotion could another system have claimed the crown?

  Or did the D&D brand have enough traction back then to take on all customers?

 To clarify: What System + a Fantasy setting could have done the deed.

Please, no mentions of d20 or any such derived games.


We've all come across those RPGs that deserved beter than they got. The problem usually was that they had an element that held them back from becoming more popular, and instead headed down the road to being out of print.

 You know, that one game so full of goodness - except for that one glaring issue.

  For me that game is: SPACE 1889

 Good writing - great Setting - hell, it even had good suplements. But the system! If ever a game idea got shackled with a wonky system it didn't deserve, it was this one.

If the system had just been made with a consistent resolution mechanic the game could have done so much better.

 So what games do you think could have been great, if only...


Something as I was surfing some of Pundits old blog entries. The bold-type stuff was done by me.

Quote from: RPGPundit

...And now, Mongoose somehow got the rights to the name Runequest. As far as I understand it, that's all they had the rights for, though they apparently are also publishing the Glorantha setting so they must have worked out the rights for that too.

One thing I know they DON'T have the rights for is the Chaosium rules for Runequest. Those rules being the "basic roleplaying" system, the same one that powers Call of Cthulhu and Elric.

So what does Mongoose do? It rips off the rules anyways.

You see, little known fact here: game companies can't actually copyright the rules of a game. They can copyright the specific rulebooks, so you can't just cut and paste the rules and publish them yourself. But as long as your actual rulebook is original, your RULES don't have to be. Anyone can publish D&D, or Call of Cthulhu, or Vampire the Masquerade, or True 20, as long as they re-write the rulebook.

Frankly, I'm surprised that more companies haven't decided to do that. I'm also kind of surprised that Mongoose would be the first, and not some small-time no-name company...

  I'm suprised too, I thought mongoose had a little more ground to stand on when they made MRQ. It seems I missed a few threads when MRQ came out.

  I'm am suprised that there hasn't been more "borrowing" of system mechanics by other small press publishers in light of the precedent made by mongoose.

  However this may be due to the fact that d20 is already "open".


Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / D&D and change?
« on: October 11, 2006, 03:51:57 AM »

What is D&D anyway?

I think this is a real question. Just how far can WOTC diverge from the whole classes, levels, hit points thing, and still call their game D&D?

Many would say C&C is more D&D than 3.5. Others have said D&D3.5 is D&D as it currently stands. And some still lament the changes that were made to the game in the switch from AD&D to 3.5.

The game has changed over time. We are a long way from the 70's, but people still call it D&D.

How much does WOTC have to stick to twenty year old plus mechanics to still be able to call it D&D?

If they were to make some real changes, would it really alienate that much of their market? Even with the marketing campaigns telling joe gamer how cool it will be?

I would be inclined to think that the D&D brand name, is far more important to the game than any specific set of mechanics.

Is D&D is what WOTC/Hasbro tells everyone D&D is?

Or is it such a sacred cow that they would ruin the 300lb. Gorilla if they made one too many changes?


Pages: [1]