Kevin Mack's page

Okay folks, I was not going to voice my opinion in this thread because I still actively participate in PFS, but the direct, personal comments towards some of the leadership is ridiculous and needs to stop. Disagreeing with the decisions that were made is one thing, but each campaign coordinator has done what they thought was right for the community. You might disagree, but to say things like "can't stand Mark" is just insulting and has no place in a forum that is supposed to at least appear to be civil.

If you think the leadership made some decision/s that you disagreed with and that led to your leaving the community, fine, feel free to share the specifics of 'that' decision, but I will flag any thread that says things like I quoted above. If you feel that is inappropriate, so be it. I would do the same if a player/GM/organizer was receiving forum-hate.

I was going to post here, but the violence and intolerance displayed by DV has put me off.
There is no profit in having any form of discourse with a person who preaches equality by denying people their rights to freedom of thought, freedom of association and freedom of belief.

So, you created this thread in the wrong forum deliberately because you knew it wasn't going to help with the playtest, and you're publicly stating that you want to stir up trouble out of spite?

I think we are in fact done here.

You are mistaken as to who is responsible for "every negative change" to the monks since they came out.

I am not functioning alone. The design team works together on these things. And before it goes to print, Jason reads all the rules content as a last-minute check.

How brass knuckles interact with monk attacks was a decision the design team reached after discussing it.

Monk vows were a decision the design team reached after discussing it. (Mind you, in the design turnover for the vow, the benefit was you got +1 ki for every 5 monk levels. So it's not like I took what was presented and nerfed it, I felt it needed more of a boost than as it was originally written. Clearly most people think it deserved more, but don't paint this situation like I did this to punish anyone or that I hate monks or vows.)

The wording for flurry of blows in the Core Rulebook was written by Jason (and as that TWF reference isn't in the Beta, it was probably added very late in the design process for the Core Rulebook). At the time, Jason felt his intent was clear. The blog preview for PFRPG monks shows flurry-as-TWF was his intent. "Sean's ruling" on how flurry works isn't my personal belief (derived independently with no input from Jason) of how the rule should work, it's the result of me checking and re-checking with Jason about it over the course of the boards discussion to make sure I understand what he meant by the text in the Core Rulebook.

As it turns out, the rules for the monk flurry aren't clear. I got it wrong when answering an earlier FAQ (perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough to Jason when addressing that FAQ issue, perhaps Jason misrembered that he changed how flurry works in PF). Other people on staff got it wrong when they built or developed stat blocks. Freelancers got it wrong when they wrote archetypes for the monk. Like much of the rules text in the Core Rulebook, the flurry text could really benefit from being rewritten and reworded. The design team hasn't decided what to do about that yet, but that doesn't change that Jason intended it to work like TWF. This isn't "Sean's ruling," this is "how Jason the designer wanted it to work."

It's really easy to make me the point man for your outrage and rude comments because I'm the guy who's always answering FAQ questions. And it's easy to want to "go ask mom" if you don't like the rule answer from "dad." But that's not how it works. If you don't like my answer, you can't ask Jason to override me... because what we say in the FAQ is the result of a discussion and consensus with the other designers, regardless of whose name (mine, Jason's, Stephen's) is attached to that specific FAQ. It's fine to disagree with a FAQ, or say you won't do it that way in your campaign, or ask for the design team to reconsider a FAQ decision, but you can't single out me or Stephen or Jason and say "that guy is wrong, I want another designer to correct them." That just makes you look foolish.

Yes, ProfessorCirno, your information is wrong about me designing the gunslinger. I have no idea where you got the idea that I had anything to do with the design of that class. Maybe you should think about what other information you think is true is actually wrong. And that goes for everyone in this flurry meta-topic. I've been reading all of this, and I can't help but laugh at some of the ridiculous and provably false things some people are quoting as the truth. One really good example is "Jason couldn't have meant flurry to work like TWF, that would make the sohei invalid, and Jason designed the sohei, and he wouldn't have designed the sohei that way if he meant flurry to work like TWF." Except that Jason didn't design the sohei (at least, Jason Bulmahn didn't... it was designed by freelancer Jason Nelson). You guys don't know who designed which parts, or who developed which parts, or what discussion led to a particular choice of wording. Talking as if you do know really puts you on shaky ground.

Does the brass knuckles ruling hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a weapon choice that would become the default weapon for monks if you don't want your monk PC to suck.

Does the vow of poverty hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a two-paragraph option for gearless monks that doesn't address the greater campaign issues of wealth by level, wealth in a party, and so on.

Does the flurry-as-TWF rule hurt the monk? Well, it certainly doesn't help that it breaks or forces weird interpretations of certain archetypes, and is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.

I don't want the monk merely patched, I want it fixed. I agree that it's hard to play an effective monk, the monk rules are convoluted, and it's expensive in terms of magic item and ability score needs. But I don't know that the monk can be sufficiently fixed without requiring significantly more explanatory text in the Core Rulebook--which we can't add without messing up the layout for pages and pages, which we can't do because we have that book and other books referring to things in the Core Rulebook by specific page number. I--and the other designers--don't want to just slap a bandage on it and call it good; this is a significant concern, just like the stealth rules, and deserves careful consideration.

My much-earlier point from the other thread still stands: I go out of my way to engage with people on the boards, discuss rules, and figure out what people want in the FAQ. When Jason and I discuss something in the rules, if I disagree with his ruling (for example, I think the trip weapon property is really weak), I'm not afraid to (1) explain the official ruling, and (2) admit that I disagree with that ruling. Yet too many people here think that I'm some kind of FAQ-lackey, making rulings without talking it over with other members of the staff, and think it's okay to be rude to me or go "over my head" when they disagree with the official ruling from the design team. I got tired of that attitude. And I stopped posting answers to rules, and stopped posting FAQs, because I didn't want to deal with it any more (which is sad, because I actually like answering rules questions). Because I'm not required to deal with rudeness and personal attacks, I won't do it.

And since I stopped posting rules clarifications and FAQs, there have been zero new FAQs posted.

Take that as you will.

Nice abilities but hate the art for them, the bestiary 3 version is an awesome pic but this just horrible.

I disagree. I work in software. There is no greater "my ideas are better than yours" industry. But, at the end of the day, the customer is always right.

<berserkbutton>

FSM, if I never hear that phrase again, it'll still be too soon.

"The customer is always right" is, and always has been, a load of crap. It places the dollar on a pedestal and everything else be damned. Paizo has no obligation to satisfy you. They are not your client. They make what they want to make, and we buy it or don't as we like. The goal for both, at the end of the day, is to game and have fun. Otherwise, I'm sure they could make quite a bit more money doing something else.

If you aren't having fun with the system, there's a built-in method for fixing that--change the system! Nobody is stopping you from handing out feats like candy or rewriting Core from scratch. Ask <b>TriOmegaZero</b>; from what I can see, he's been pretty busy on that front, and more power to him. If you aren't in PFS, the sky's the limit!

If you're complaining for PFS reasons, well, that's a shame, but in the end PFS is just another group--a really big one--with its own set of rules that (mostly) coincides with RAW. There are other groups. Go out and find one, or start one. Unless you live in Population: Tire, chances are there are half a dozen people in your area wondering why they can't find anybody that games.

Change the system until it's goodrightfun for you. But the sense of entitlement folks like you exhibit in these threads is not conducive to anybody having a good time. It's the reason people get fed up with a job (or a whole industry) and quit. In short, stop whining.

"The customer is always right." The hell with that.

</berserkbutton>

Removed a post. Please post civilly, thanks!

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

NO

The unfortunate thing is that Bob's infractions were nowhere near as bad as some of the other competitors during round 2 (albeit they didn't make it to round 3). I understand why the judges did this, and there were repeated warnings in round 2 about this.

I hope Bob bares no ill will and holds his head high on getting this far in the competition, to which he must be given his due credit.

Q: A player in my PFS game is intentionaly mis-reading the rules and claiming that they have validly interpreted them, even though it's completely obvious that they haven't. What do I do?

A: Seriously? We need a FAQ for this? Okay, use your judgment - if the rule has two possible interpretations, one of which is broken on its face and the other of which is sensible and looks balanced, go with the later. Also, consider replacing all regular scissors in your home with safety scissors.

Wait...to reach this absurd situation, you have to intentionally mis-read the actual rules and then intentionally mis-read the PFS rules?

Yeah, this is definitely a FAQ issue. I'll write it up now:

Q: A player in my PFS game is intentionaly mis-reading the rules and claiming that they have validly interpreted them, even though it's completely obvious that they haven't. What do I do?

A: That person is a douchebag. Do not play with them. On behalf of PFS, tell them to go play, oh, I don't know, let's say GURPS.

I've never read much RPG Superstar feedback in the past so I really don't have anything to compare it to but I do agree with the OP that the comments from the judges give an impression of "best of the worst" rather than "best of the best". I just thought this was deliberate behavior by the judges because you need to have thick skin to be an RPG designer and they need to expose you to that fact early in the process.

...and in the spirit of thick skin...I don't find Mr. Danceys criticisms to be "superstar judge" level. Maybe he's just too busy to put a great effort into the process but it seems like he is mailing it in compared to what the other judges provide. Running GW I'm sure is taking a ton of his time. I thought his mention of "beholders" in one of his criticisms was both funny and enlightening. Using auto-reject terminology (non-Paizo owned IP) in a criticism is a little odd.

This thread is sounding fishier and fishier.

Everyone has been giving the OP sound advice, from altering combats, talking to your players, to switching systems...

Yet all the OP does is lament his complaint-heavy players (and using censored sexist language, repeatedly) and bash the Pathfinder system and laud the D&D 4E system.

Here's what I recommend:

Stop complaining now that you've been given advice from all angles. If you do not want to up combat, and you feel talking to your players is pointless, and you're not happy with quitting the campaign/switching systems then try this:

Remove all social skills from the game. All players have to roleplay without skills. Run combats normally, and do not make them the only focus of your game. Instead, as recommended above, focus on your storyline and engage your players. Do not create an arms race. If they're amazing at combat at this level, that's fine. If your other players stink, let them stink and complain, and eventually they will adapt to keep up, die and make a new character, or quit the game. All positive outcomes.

Pathfinder is not steriley balanced like 4E tries to be. Real life isn's balanced. There are people that outshine others. Deal with it. Pathfinder is not a system that supports nearly free-form storytelling. There is a lot of crunch, and optimized choices are rewarded.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sorry, I was a little distracted when I wrote that.

Then I'm glad you're finally agreeing that the FAQ entry as written was a mistake.

Nice try, but I was referring to my "Let him spend 21 days crafting" comment in this thread, not to that FAQ entry, which I and Jason stand behind.

I can't count the number of roleplaying friends and associates who were absolutely thrilled to see the new FAQ entry! All the groups I've ever played in, BAR NONE, have handled wealth and crafting this way for over a decade now.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Reynolds, and don't let the naysayers get you down.

I'm going to be removing a bunch of posts here, but before I do so, I would like to point out that the best part of the phrase "flag it and move on" is the "move on" part. If you see something that's uncool, please do flag it. But do not crap all over the thread by saying "I totally flagged this s$*!." That is uncool and does not help the conversation and will just get removed.

The other sources are something I've been working towards for the past few years, and will come about when I'm ready for them to be. Working for Paizo as a freelancer is still slightly limiting compared to what I'm aiming for.

I know you're not supposed to feed the troll, but sometimes that's why you come to the zoo, right?

Every year I am amazed at the arrogance and lack of humility that the contest's losers (more on that term in a second) display, compared to the class and humility of the contest's winners. There is a connection. Figure it out.

RPG Superstar isn't the only avenue for getting discovered. It isn't the most consistent sometimes, it isn't always the most fair, and it certainly isn't the most painless and risk free. But it is by FAR the best.

It refines you and teaches you if you're willing to swallow the pill and listen.

No method for skipping decades of lonely mediocrity and crawling from one freelance job to the next while waiting on opportunity to show up in your inbox could be perfect. RPGS offers a chance to build a fan base, strut your best ideas under pressure and show prospective publishers an ability to grow. To accomplish what the game's best publishers never had a chance to. RPGS isn't perfect, but it's a better chance than most authors have ever had, and it's closer to perfect than perhaps any other method.

I've submitted for RPGS every year. I critiqued Boomer's stuff before he submitted the first year (and those were some fun emails). I always have a good but not good enough item and always feel that if I could get over the hump I'd shine. Me and fifty others each year. But I have listened and learned and improved on a lot of things, and even gotten some work by being a regular here. As have a lot of people. This contest only has one category of losers - those who come to win and not to learn or give their best effort. When you prefer to smart off at the most accomplished people in gaming because they didn't like your (clearly ridiculous) item, you aren't learning anything. You aren't improving at anything. And that kind of arrogance is not going to get you work or get you fans.

So, just thought I'd throw that in from a non-employee and non-judge. This contest is bad-ass, and offers committed, talented humble writers a chance to step up and play at the next level.

All it would mean is throwing around flasks of oil or ice storms will take a bit of thinking. Perhaps thinking is bad when playing an MMORPG?

No, not really, but if it will make people stop talking about friendly fire then I'm fine with pretending that thinking is bad, or that the problem with friendly fire is that it requires too much brainpower (which, presumably, the people pushing for friendly fire must have, while those of us against friendly fire hate using our brains).

All snark aside, we've already explained countless times that the problem with friendly fire isn't that it requires too much thought. The problems with friendly fire are as follows:

1. It would make grouping with AoE characters more hazardous than grouping with non-AoE characters, marginalizing AoE characters.

2. It would make AoE characters reluctant to make use of their abilities in group situations.

3. It will lead to group strife due to mistargeted abilities.

4. The "behind-the-head" nature of MMORPG camera controls makes it difficult to quickly and accurately target AoEs in hectic combat situations.

5. AoE characters will be more prone to receive blame for party failures, because mistargeted AoEs are very convenient scapegoats.

6. It enables a whole slew of new griefing possibilities.

7. The above factors will contribute to a scarcity of AoE-capable characters in the game, which will in turn necessitate avoiding the creation of encounters that depend on having an AoE-capable party member.

Oh, and

8. It means we have to think and we hate thinking so much!

PvE games other players do not wait to ambush and gank you after you and the guys you teamed up with completed the Dungeon.

You can't justify it, it is what it is. Bulling and rewarding folks who take things from other players.

Hope you enjoy But, I will not be wasting my time or money on such a game.

To tell the truth, for basically every feature request related to our messageboards you can probably just go to my profile page, click on my posts tab, and search my posts for keywords related to the feature you're requesting. Or search the website feedback forum. It's rare that we get a request that hasn't been made before. And when I reply to a request with a bunch of links to previous posts where I've talked about that particular feature, that's what I'm doing to find those posts.

So, signatures: No. Animated gifs: No. Smilies: No. Inline images: No. Private messages: Someday. Volunteer moderators: No. Private avatars: No. Switching to 3rd-party bulletin board software: No. Firing the twelve-year-olds responsible for our website design and getting us out of the '90s: Someday. Using PHP: No. Outsourcing website design, maintenance, moderation: No. Adding features like focus, dots, x new, aliases, enhancing play-by-post, etc: ongoing.

If you mean the thing where you insert tags that will embed an image hosted somewhere other than paizo.com directly in the page, no we will not be doing that. The main reasons are: Remotely hosted images can be changed maliciously to become pornographic or shock images. It is a security risk. And most importantly, we prefer people to use their words rather than depending on a "U MAD BRO" image macro to communicate. There's lots of places on the internet for that kind of thing, just not here.

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

Your inability to comprehend my desire to not have my game interrupted by being killed by you is pretty much the precise reason why I can't tolerate you having the ability to kill me.

Said differently: I humbly submit that those people who insist a game must have non-consensual PvP are precisely those people who should least have access to it.

Said still differently: if you can't have fun without killing me when I don't want to be killed then I don't want to play with you.

Said differently yet again: if the only way you can get your jollies is by ruining mine, we don't game together.

Joke or not, this is pretty offensive. Please don't do this again.

Cartigan, you've made it clear that you think this is a stupid thread. Why not leave it alone instead of repeatedly telling everybody how stupid it is? Apparently not everybody plays the game exactly the same way you do, and that's OK.

Sara Marie: http://cheezdailysquee.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ccfbe172-36dd-41e3-bf02- ce54577ce0a7.jpg

Sara Marie: "A featherless penguin chick was recently born at Laohutan Pole Aquarium in Dalian, China, and though it was abandoned by its parents, the aquarium decided to adopt the baby as its own. With the help of aquarium staff and some friendly, non-judgmental stuffed animals, the penguin chick eventually sprouted some feathers to call its own and was released back to its waddle in literally fine-feathered form."

Ross: "friendly, non-judgmental stuffed animals"?

Ross: That's right. Teddy bears don't judge.

Gary: mine did

Gary: they also mocked me mercilessly

Gary: and then one day

Gary: all there was was fluff as far as the eye could see

The Keeper of Forbidden Lore watches the multiverse spine and weave. She watches tells turn, worlds spin and lives lived. She watches events unfold across the multivers .Sees the tales told, bears witness to victories and defeats. Records glories, sadness and shame of her subjects. Looks on in moments of greatness and times of great loss.

Today she looks to another world, another when. She peers in on the great city of Sasserine. On the isle of the same name southernmost island of the Lhazaar Principalities, southwest of the gnome dominated island of Lorghalen on the world of Eberron. Something is unfolding and she feels it, so she watches and waits for what is to come, as another tale unfolds.

Hi James--

I am slowly making my way through The Brinewall Legacy and just wanted to let you know how impressed I am by this adventure. I'm really looking forward to running it. My favourite part so far is--perhaps unexpectedly--the ** spoiler omitted ** It just seems so neat and well-designed. Nice work!

--Mike

Thanks! :-)

*blink*

I believe I am popping in to say hello quickly.

I believe that the current trend of evil/broken/polititroll threads have made the forum poisonous.

I believe that although the moderators and staff of Paizo are proud of their allowing of political posting, that their assumptions of basic member civility are based on a much smaller membership from three years ago.

I believe that if these threads are not contained, either with a separate subforum, or a complete ban, that by the time the 2012 election rolls around there will be a huge outpouring of venomous crap, flowing over the boards in a tidal wave of bile.

I believe that this will be very counterproductive to Paizo as a company, especially with the looming release of the Basic game and the inevitable influx of web-savvy children to the site.

I believe that even a grizzled old board member like myself is seriously pondering cutting ties and walking away at this point. I may be alone in this, but somehow, I don't think so.

I believe I will spend a little more time away from the computer and ponder my descision at this point. Until later folks..

*blink*

By that metric, maybe the right thing to do is to fire editors who make mistakes, which then keeps the rest of the staff so frightened than they never make mistakes ever again.

FEAR will keep the star systems in line. Fear of this battle station!

I note that ShinHakkaider's frothing attack on Scott Betts has had seven people so far flag it as a favorite. Is this the level to which Paizo has sunk? Even if you don't like Scott's posts on 4e, a personal attack on the man is in your favorites? I'm disgusted that the people on this site have sunk to this.

I ran this at Origins, with a low-level all-caster party (two 2nd-level bards, a brand-new 1st-level wizard played by someone new to Pathfinder, a 3rd-level druid, and a 4th-level witch);the animal companion and summoned creatures were the party's hand-to-hand fighters.

Like clockwork, the wizard and one of the bards lined up right in front of Dalsine to cast close-range spells at the image. He stepped up, killed the wizard (the 23-point shocking grasp itself would have killed him) and dropped the bard.

The wizard's player was disgusted that I would attack the character like that, using an attack that was virtually guaranteed to hit, and virtually guaranteed to kill such a character. This was his first and last encounter with the Pathfinder game system. He left the table immediately, before the rest of the party could talk about pooling funds and selling equipment in order to buy a raise dead for him.

He was right.

I should have soft-balled that encounter. Dalsine might have toyed with them, or perhaps he shouldn't have been invisible. Maybe he should have just attacked with a rapier, instead of using his Magus abilities.

We lost a player, and all his friends who he'll steer away from Pathfinder. And it's my fault.

No it's the player's fault. One cardinal rule of playing a 1st level wizard. You don't set yourself up as the first thing the melee target can get to. The player was so anxious to get an attack in the first round, he forgot basic caution and tactics. Pathfinder had nothing to do with it. I know the encounter in question and encounters just as challenging were the meat and potatoes of Living Greyhawk. I do tend to softball damage a bit for first comer newbies, but in that case he still would have gotten enough damage to give him the hint the first time around. Soft-balling isn't a requirement though. It's a discretionary choice.

There will be no char op board.

I really hate how this keeps coming back to my item.

This really isn't about why or why I didn't get rejected.

The reason it keeps coming back to you—and it's you much more than your item—is that you came onto our boards, trashed our judges and employees, and called us a bunch of glorified copy-and-pasters, with posts dripping in sarcasm and attitude, painting yourself as the victim all the while.

I'd especially point out these parts:

...looking over the stuff [Clark's] company has published and the comments he's made before, and listening to his stuff here, I just don't see how his opinion is worth anything.

And in your very next post, you state:

Now nothing I said so far has been inflammatory...

Either you don't understand how you come across, or you don't understand the meaning of the word "inflammatory."

And then you write this:

I think you should realize that you are representing yourself and your company to your audience, the people that buy your stuff.

You know, you also need to realize that people are judging you by the things you say, and though you called Clark a "a giant, over-glorified troll," well, I'll just note that the trolling being done here is all by you.

I'll tell you this: if Paizo *had* ever given you an assignment, after seeing the way you conduct yourself on our forums, I'd ensure that we never gave you another one.

I don't look forward to the next contest knowing he is a judge.

I hope you follow through with the indications you've given that you won't be entering. You'd be wasting everyone's time, because you're disrespectful, and in comportment, you're as far from an RPG Superstar as you can be. I'm glad you think highly of Neil, because you could learn quite a lot from him—and I'm talking about in life, not just in game design.