It was not a new edition that killed Hero. It was a company that did sweet mother of nothing to try and drawn in new fans. While catering only and I mean only to new fans. Did absolutely nothing to try and draw in new blood. Took what was already a big rpg book and made it into two. With a fanbase that wanted nothing to change yet expected to draw disenchanted Hero fans back into the fold. With a rpg community who imo are more interested in less rules heavy, crunchy complex rpgs by...giving them more of the same. If your going to offer more recycled, rehash with better production values and people are not buying well don't be surprised. I am a Hero fan yet I put blame where it is due imo. Blaming a new edition is the easy way out because it makes it easier to swallow then actually look at the root causes. Hell even SJG cut back on Gurps because the last two release sold poorly.

Quote from: sureshot;1054630It's not about having older material so much as not really enthusiastic with the new set of rules and mechanics. I just can't get excited and plan to use PF 1E material. As for them planning to publish 1E material I will believe it once I see it.

I hear that. I'm on the fence as to the game so far. We haven't tried using the rules yet but reading them over is.....meh. Some things I like (class feats aka 4e powers lol) but some not so much (cant change them ever??). Actually playing it and tinkering with the game is needed before I discard it to the "never play pile" lol

Quote from: sureshot;1054630Most rpg companies in their books usually write some suggestions to the DM along the lines of " don't be a jerk, be fair, allow anyone and everyone into your game/table no matter their gender, creed or race. Be fair and make sure everyone is comfortable and having fun". In 2E Paizo to show how "woke" they took that section and went "YOU will be inclusive and diverse at your tables. You will bend over backwards to accommodate your player desires. You will be a part time or was it a full time psychologist as well a mind reader because players are not obliged to tell you if they are uncomfortable with something". Written in a very heavy handed manner smacking you over the head with it. Picture someone talking down to you instead of at you poking a finger in your chest and wagging it in your face. I just found it disrespectful of the company and for what to pander to a demographic that usually does not play rpgs imo.

I completely skipped over that section of the PDF I downloaded haha. After going through and reading it, it simply seems to be a reminder to players "Don't be a fucking turd" and to DMs "keep an eye out for fucking turds". I thought it was funny they mentioned players doing or saying shitty things "in character" as a way to escape any backlash. Ive seen that in person, dude was booted - easy peasy. I find it unfortunate that reminders even "need" mentioned in the book to begin with

Quote from: Batman;1054648After going through and reading it, it simply seems to be a reminder to players

This has to be the biggest understatement of all time. Either you are too woke to have noticed or your head is well buried in the sand.

If Paizo really cared about social justice, they would rewrite monsters like orcs, drow and lamia to be less racist/sexist/whateverist compared to the goody two shoes PC races. Tolkien compared orcs to asians (he called them mongoloids), so clearly orcs are "problematic" or whatever.

Instead, Paizo labels all female lords of hell as "whore queens" and makes passive misogyny demons lower on the totem pole than rapist demons. Also, they associate chaos with femininity and order with masculinity... just like Jordan Peterson!

They're insane and have no consistent political ideology. They just pay lip service to the radical left for brownie points.

It's always a bad business strategy to attempt to appeal or appease hate groups.

Quote from: Gagarth;1054657This has to be the biggest understatement of all time. Either you are too woke to have noticed or your head is well buried in the sand.

Batman's always "woke". Besides, you should know they always write to the lowest common denominator. It's hard to get mad at notions I already do so...

Quote from: Batman;1054672Batman's always "woke". Besides, you should know they always write to the lowest common denominator. It's hard to get mad at notions I already do so...

SJWs are not the lowest common denominator. They are a lunatic fringe with unwarranted authority.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1054674SJWs are not the lowest common denominator. They are a lunatic fringe with unwarranted authority.

No. They are a hate group.

It doesn't matter what percent they are, if they ever have fun it's not as an SJW. You are only an SJW when you are attacking someone. It's not market nor is it something you can ever really appease.

Quote from: Batman;1054648I completely skipped over that section of the PDF I downloaded haha. After going through and reading it, it simply seems to be a reminder to players "Don't be a fucking turd" and to DMs "keep an eye out for fucking turds". I thought it was funny they mentioned players doing or saying shitty things "in character" as a way to escape any backlash. Ive seen that in person, dude was booted - easy peasy. I find it unfortunate that reminders even "need" mentioned in the book to begin with

The D&D Players' Handbook also mentioned inclusivity, as it should have, but it didn't hit you over the head with it.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;1054729The D&D Players' Handbook also mentioned inclusivity, as it should have, but it didn't hit you over the head with it.

JG

Yeah, that might be the wrong way to get a bumpy forehead...


- Ed C.

Quote from: James Gillen;1054729The D&D Players' Handbook also mentioned inclusivity, as it should have, but it didn't hit you over the head with it.

JG

Yeah I'm just not seeing how this is either A) Bad or B) pandering to SJWs? Is the notion of calling out poor behavior at the table somehow only held by SJWs? If someone's being an ass-hat player or disruptive or making others feel uncomfortable and another calls that person out or makes them leave a SJW?

It's not the message it's how Paizo wrote it in the book. Writing it in such a way as has been pointed out unnecessarily heavy handed. While trying to make sure they crossed all their t and dotted all their i on being woke. I wonder how their new found wokeness will impact society play.

Given what i have seen on their forums and others. Any and all topics  can apparently set off everyone and anyone. Membership in society play will drop badly imo. No one likes walking on eggshells.

If I'm running a game where red dragons are the villians and not tell me that anything fire is a phobia at the start. You either try to bear with the game. Or find another table. I'm willing to change some minor elements of a campaign
 Not a entire campaign especially for one person.

Quote from: Batman;1054739Yeah I'm just not seeing how this is either A) Bad or B) pandering to SJWs? Is the notion of calling out poor behavior at the table somehow only held by SJWs? If someone's being an ass-hat player or disruptive or making others feel uncomfortable and another calls that person out or makes them leave a SJW?

What about the parts where it implies inclusion is mandatory regardless of the composition or preferences of the group, or that some types of discomfort should not be respected?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1054746What about the parts where it implies inclusion is mandatory regardless of the composition or preferences of the group, or that some types of discomfort should not be respected?

I took that to mean if you're running sanctioned Society groups and games. Obviously Paizo isn't sending Seal Team 6 into your home because you didn't invite Kendra (who was originally Keith) from the office to do the new Pathfinder 2e playtest.

If you're going to a Society event as a player, there might be gay people or trans or whatever. So if that's not your cup of tea, don't play there. If you do and someone makes an inappropriate reference to (in or out of game) them about that, it shouldn't fly.

But all of this BS is basically why I only do home games with my friends.

Quote from: Batman;1054739Yeah I'm just not seeing how this is either A) Bad or B) pandering to SJWs? Is the notion of calling out poor behavior at the table somehow only held by SJWs? If someone's being an ass-hat player or disruptive or making others feel uncomfortable and another calls that person out or makes them leave a SJW?

The way it's written, it feels like poor behaviour is judged by who it is behaving badly. They aren't just saying "don't be an asshat" and "don't tolerate asshats".

I prefer the "5 Geek Social Fallacies" and I think people should play with people they like playing with. Of course if playing at a public event they should abide by the social norms appropriate to the event and the venue. That normally means being accommodating to a wide variety of fellow players - but those players in turn should be equally accommodating.*

Because Paizo push a particular political slant IMO their advice is actually going to encourage some people such as SJW types to be asshats in games. There are always people looking for justification to be asshats, and Paizo's tone-setting certainly will.

*I've GM'd for I think a few hundred people over the past ten years and while a few have been obnoxious, it's almost always in traditional RPG-nerd ways that would not fall into Paizo's protected categories. But I can recall one player 5 years ago who was looking to be offended by stuff, and I can imagine Paizo's advice would have been encouragement to do that even more.