FAQ's and solutions


Website Feedback


I understand certain posters who I shall not name, lost their minds a while back, but the rest of us should not have to deal with the FAQ silence.

I don't care if increased moderation of post and booting of people from the site takes place. I just never believed in the concept of mass punishment. Each of us are adults, and those that are not adults should still know how to conduct themselves. If a person can not behave like an adult then they can have their posting privileges suspended. Someone might ask what if they need to post a question to customer service. That is a good point. More than likely the site is set up so that you either have full access to the site or no access to the site, and that might include purchasing capabilities. At the least you have full posting privileges or you don't from what I understand. I guess locking people out of certain forums might have to be an option. I know it is not fair for Gary to come up with code, just to put people in time out, but it is also not fair to allow people to remain on the site, and have the rest of us suffer* for it.

*I think the word suffer is a little over dramatic, but I could not think of a better word at the moment.

Anyone else have any solutions feel free to chime in.


Don't have a immediate solution but I do agree with you Wraith.


I dont really disagree with the spirit of your post.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that if your solution is reasonable then it implies that a consequence of being open and available to engage with the customer base via frequent FAQing is a need to increase their policing activities. As such, maybe it's just not worth the effort.

I like the intelligent way the players argue about the rules here - it teaches me heaps. When they start getting sarcastic and over-entitled though it's frankly embarassing.

Liberty's Edge

I was kind of under the impression that the development team was answering some questions, but we're busy gearing up for GenCon, hence the main reason for the lack of activity. Hopefully we can start getting some answers to some of the questions that are out there.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I dont really disagree with the spirit of your post.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that if your solution is reasonable then it implies that a consequence of being open and available to engage with the customer base via frequent FAQing is a need to increase their policing activities. As such, maybe it's just not worth the effort.

I like the intelligent way the players argue about the rules here - it teaches me heaps. When they start getting sarcastic and over-entitled though it's frankly embarassing.

I think most of us are civil even when we are really far apart on how things works. I just don't like when people are rude to the devs. I understand it may mess up a character at home, but the devs are responsible to making rules that are as playstyle neutral as possible. If you(not your specifcally) don't like the ruling then talk to your GM. I know that not all GM's are open to discussion, but that is a GM issue, and not something that should be taken out on any posters or developers. I don't always agree with rulings. I don't even agree with the rules as I interpret them sometimes.

What I mean is if I look at the book and figure out how a rule works I might think to myself "why did they make that rule", but I am not going to insult them(devs). I will either houserule it or hope that my GM(when I am not GM'ing) likes my version of the rule better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately, there are those who respond to delay or an unfavorable design decision with snark and sarcasm. I can understand professionals choosing to just get on with the job rather than engage with the community when the negativity becomes personal and hyperbolic.

Your suggestion to target the troublemakers rather than to reduce official participation in the discussion means extra work. Effort and energy which could otherwise be spent making awesome gaming products. I'd love it if the designers would continue to regularly discuss the rules and the thinking behind them whilst temporarily banning those who make it personal. But I can totally sympathies with getting fed up when amateurs continue to pop in with useless, derogatory remarks. It's disrespectful and (as I said) embarassing.

I think it's a shame because there are many fans making really positive and respectful contributions to the contentious issues (it's pretty hard to get offended at dabbler's pro-monk posts, for example - as well as many more monk devotees who are posting lots of constructive critique and suggestions). Nonetheless, a thought provoking wall of text loses some impact when its in a thread titled something along the lines of "why paizo hate the monk....STILL!"


When WoTC did their "Rules of the Game" articles they were not open for comments. That might also be a solution. I know Paizo likes to interact with the customers, but if someone has a question of "why" they could open a thread. If the devs feels the desire or need he could answer questions at his option. If people get out of control again then ignoring that thread, and future threads is also an option. That way those of us that like answers can get them, and those that want to rant just get ignored.


wraithstrike wrote:
When WoTC did their "Rules of the Game" articles they were not open for comments.

There were plenty of comments on those columns on the Wizards of the Coast message boards, believe you me!


hogarth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
When WoTC did their "Rules of the Game" articles they were not open for comments.
There were plenty of comments on those columns on the Wizards of the Coast message boards, believe you me!

I was not saying you could not open a thread on them. I was saying the article itself was a one-sided conversation.


The Bottom Line

I would do it the same way as they did.

The Reasons Why

The Paizo news releases give precedence here for articles without comments, but they're not about engaging the community. And, you don't need a "FAQ attack" blog post to be distant and impersonal with rules clarifications; that happens just fine on its own.

Whether or not it's possible to have stepped-up suspensions for incivility in "FAQ attack" discussion threads, there would be no point from a business perspective. They got the feedback that they needed, which was that this thing that could (at best) only increase the satisfaction of current customers -- not get them new ones -- was actually antagonizing some current customers. So, that would be something to stop.

I don't expect anyone to like that answer. I don't like it myself. But just as an individual's issues sometimes get in the way of having something nice, so too with a community, when it must be considered from the system-as-a-whole perspective (rather than system-as-component-parts). And they can't pick and choose which components of the community to affect with their posts.


It is actually a bad move, IMHO. As it has been pointed out if you don't fix(clarify) the core rules it only interferes with new rules even more. That makes the rules less clear, which is the same thing as a drop in quality, which leads to a loss in sales. How much, I don't know, but I know I have yet to purchase a hard cover of the CRB yet. I will get one soon though, but my first one would have been worn out by now had I gotten one by the second printing. I am basing that on the condition of my friend's books, and I would now be on book number 2. None of this has an immediate impact. It is more of a trickle-down affect so nobody can probably really say how much money is lost by not answering questions.


I pretty much agree with the OP. I'd love to see the Dev's come back and give answers, and just squish the rude folks like bugs. Adults need to undertand that you *can* and *have to* voice disagreement without being a jerk.

You don't have to agree with Anyone. You do have to be civil when conversing with people, or there are consequences. I'd just rather the "consequence" be applied to the offenders rather than to the populace in general.

Squish the rude folks, and allow the rest of us to enjoy your company. Or at least- enjoy the discussion.

-S

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry to ...sort of side track this conversation but I do have a question about the forum.

This character profile [My main Pathfinder Society Organized Play character... now "retired"] I'm posting from seems to not be allowing me to modify it or update it anymore.

Currently it has 9,168 words, 52,765 characters{no spaces}, and 61,736 characters with spaces included.

When I try to update it I keep getting the same error statement...

[Sorry, there was a problem handling your request. The system administrator has been notified.

Please contact webmaster@paizo.com if you continue to have difficulties.]

I sent two e-mails to the webmaster@paizo.com and still have gotten on response or resolution on the problem. I even called customer service and left messages as NO ONE ever picks up the phone.

My question is ... Is there a limit to how many words or characters a specific singular profile is allowed to have in it?

...oh and on banning people from the site "don't be a dick...", is plenty self-explanatory to me. If one can't disagree without being disagreeable... the community really doesn't need rude and obnoxious input.


Create a thread for the single issue in the subforum(Website Feedback). I don't know why your can't modify it. Most likely it is a forum bug.


Thanks for the latest FAQ..


I love learning how the game is intended to play, so I really appreciate the FAQs and the news that they'll be playing a larger role in a bit.


One of the problems with these "FAQ" threads is half of them seem to be attempts are corroborating that poster bad or wrong interpretations of the rules. And when they are presented with mounds of evidence to contrary they have a hissyfit, even if a developer has presented the evidence. The next majority are people trying to be nitpicky, or trying to close what they see as loopholes they can't control in their own game.

As a long time forum moderator on some large forums over the years, another issue is the whole anonymous nature of posting and the trolling culture of internet interaction, which infuses everything from paizo.com to cnn.com.

I have noticed in a very rare case that a rule or interpretation needs to be address by developers, they do.

Can't you just picture Gary Gygax reading thousands of letters demanding he make rulings on the old set of rules?


If Gary was around(just starting) when the internet was around(popular) he would have used a different business model most likely. Standardization is a lot easier now so "Ask your GM", is less acceptable unless you are playing a game that is more story than mechanics based.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure this could all be solved by simply giving me the power to suspend posters. As soon as someone questions whether the lead designer is aware of the RAI, BAM! No more drivel for months! ;)


Malach the Merciless wrote:


Can't you just picture Gary Gygax reading thousands of letters demanding he make rulings on the old set of rules?

No, but I can imagine Skip Williams doing it. Even in 1980 he was commenting on the high volume of mail to Sage Advice.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / FAQ's and solutions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Website Feedback