Missing FAQ support for Pathfinder products

Hi,

On behalf of the rules forum, I'd like to enquire about the general silence in the forums and the lack of published FAQs for the Pathfinder game system these last few months.

Way back in 2015, it was mentioned that the design team would answer some of the most pressing questions about once a week.

While once a week may have been a little over ambitious, we generally still received about one or two rulings each month. However, since about 3 months ago, new FAQs have been conspicuously absent. People are starting to wonder what's going on.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate how interactive the Paizo staff have generally been in the forums, and the frequency of their replies. I just hope they return to doing the excellent job they are known for soon, as this is genuinely one of the factors which determines my purchasing decisions, and other contributions.

-Byakko

The FAQ's have never really been consistent for an extended period of time. There will be a good amount of time where we get weekly FAQ's then due to the RPG Superstar competition, Gencon, trying to catch up on getting a book published in time, or various other reasons there are weeks to months of no FAQ's at all.

They probably will get back to them once Starfinder is out.

In this case, it was basically holiday season combined with my extended absence (I returned to the office yesterday) with a little bit of Starfinder on the side. This is not a promise, but I expect an FAQ this week.

Yay! Welcome back!

In this case, it was basically holiday season combined with my extended absence (I returned to the office yesterday) with a little bit of Starfinder on the side. This is not a promise, but I expect an FAQ this week.

But if the frequently asked question is "when do we get another FAQ?" and you just answered it, your prediction has already come true ;)

Mark Seifter wrote:

In this case, it was basically holiday season combined with my extended absence (I returned to the office yesterday) with a little bit of Starfinder on the side. This is not a promise, but I expect an FAQ this week.

But if the frequently asked question is "when do we get another FAQ?" and you just answered it, your prediction has already come true ;)

While "when do we get another FAQ" has been asked a few times that I've seen, it probably isn't quite frequent enough yet to count as frequently asked :D

Should we start a FAQ request thread for it?

Good stuff. Thanks and welcome back!

I know this has been asked before Mark, but is there anything we as a community could do to help with the process. I know making sure we have clear concise questions is one thing but whould there be anything else?

I know this has been asked before Mark, but is there anything we as a community could do to help with the process. I know making sure we have clear concise questions is one thing but whould there be anything else?

The best FAQ questions are clear and concise, and posted by someone who legitimately sees both (or all for multi-interpretations) interpretations as valid and expresses the strongest evidence of each interpretation (generally, we will receive that anyway by mining the FAQ thread and clearing through the grar to examine everyone's arguments, but that takes time). However, there's also a factor you can't control involving questions where anything less than a massive treatise won't be a helpful or good answer, and there's not much you can do on that front because those are going to take substantial resources to make them available (simulacrum is a good example). We're trying to design fewer and fewer mechanics that lead to those sorts of things, to help out on that end, but those are just going to be hard, period. Chances are if a FAQ is high profile, highly asked, unanswered, and seems straightforward, there's a cascade of consequences involved or some other massive complication or a yes or no question has a tentative proto-answer among ourselves that looks something like "Clearly in X case it should be yes and in Y case it should be no, so it can't just be a flat yes or no."

Talonhawke wrote:

I know this has been asked before Mark, but is there anything we as a community could do to help with the process. I know making sure we have clear concise questions is one thing but whould there be anything else?

The best FAQ questions are clear and concise, and posted by someone who legitimately sees both (or all for multi-interpretations) interpretations as valid and expresses the strongest evidence of each interpretation (generally, we will receive that anyway by mining the FAQ thread and clearing through the grar to examine everyone's arguments, but that takes time). However, there's also a factor you can't control involving questions where anything less than a massive treatise won't be a helpful or good answer, and there's not much you can do on that front because those are going to take substantial resources to make them available (simulacrum is a good example). We're trying to design fewer and fewer mechanics that lead to those sorts of things, to help out on that end, but those are just going to be hard, period. Chances are if a FAQ is high profile, highly asked, unanswered, and seems straightforward, there's a cascade of consequences involved or some other massive complication or a yes or no question has a tentative proto-answer among ourselves that looks something like "Clearly in X case it should be yes and in Y case it should be no, so it can't just be a flat yes or no."

Thanks for the feedback Mark!

Good to hear, Mark! There's been quite a few questions that popped in the last month or so with irreconcilable interpretations.