Dear Paizo Staff


Paizo General Discussion

51 to 59 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Umm, OP, have you even bothered to post a list of these horrible typos and errors?

Please do so.

I don't understand what this will do to help the conversation. Do you think he just made it up? What's the point? But further than that, it doesn't add meaning to the discussion.

1 of 4 possible outcomes

1) He is telling the truth, and you apologize. Result - status quo.
2) He is telling the truth, and you still think his claims are unfounded. Result - a Dr Deth messageboard troll-off (read: status quo-global)
3) He is lying and you call him out on it. Result - a Dr Deth messageboard troll-off (read: status quo-global)
4) He is lying and you don't call him out on it. Result - status quo.

In any case, this doesn't do anything good for the conversation here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

5) Paizo adds it to their list of errors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
5) Paizo adds it to their list of errors.

As has already been stated by Paizo staff in this thread: not likely to happen with PFS scenarios. Which is what the OP was talking about.


BigDTBone wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Umm, OP, have you even bothered to post a list of these horrible typos and errors?

Please do so.

I don't understand what this will do to help the conversation.

As TOZ said 5.

But all errors are not created equal. If they spelled "rogue"= "rouge" then that'd be grinworthy, not some horrible thing that stops my enjoyment.

In any case, if he had submitted the list of errors rather that start such a general complaint thread, then action could be taken, we could discuss the errors, and no one would have any issue with the OP.

No matter what- NOT submitting the list is a bad thing. No matter how huge the errors, listing them is always better than a general complaint about not editing.

Silver Crusade

Skeld wrote:

I didn't realize how good Paizo's products were until I spent 2 years as a judge for the Ennies awards. I had to read through a huge pile of RPG products from a wide range of companies/individuals/authors/etc. Some of it was truly awful and gave me a deep appreciation of how much time and care Paizo puts into their Pathfinder products.

James Jacobs wrote:
I love the passion that gamers bring to the industry... but that same passion can be incredibly self destructive. To ANY genre industry. Fans have a lot more power than they realize when it comes to supporting and directing the development of the things they're fans of, and when they don't realize they have that power, they often end up ruining the very things they love.

This is so very true of comics, movies, RPGs and so on.

-Skeld

I've been GMing for...oh gods...20 years now and I have to agree with both Skeld and James. I've played many systems, but raised on DnD and that is where I will always stay. To be clear, to me, as with many, Pathfinder is DnD. I actually had a player refuse to play in my game because I was "Being hypocritical about third party crap junk downloaded off the internet." Every book I've read starting with the CRB back in the very beginning (I still have a copy of the beta printed out somewhere) Paizo has taken the time to edit and balance their products, but we are all human mistakes get made. If someone wants a perfect game they can make their own and claim "I have the Perfectess game." Whenever a new book comes out I will read it over, but in general I can trust that the latest book will not have any game breaking issues like I encountered at the end of 3.5. Pathfinder was a life raft in a sea of splat books.

Now, do you realize how much work it takes to edit something? My mother is a retired newspaper editor, I've worked as a copy editor (for her) it takes hours to tediously go over every word and letter in an article. At the end of the day you just have to say "OK, I think this is as done as it is going to get." You might have someone else you can say, "Here you read it now." With everything else going on with running a company, like paying attention to forums, hundreds of PMs daily and emails, you can miss something.

I applaud Paizo for contributing to my fun on a weekly daily basis (gaming weekly and reading these daily).

~Tamec

PS before anyone says anything "perfectess" is a Shakespearean word and anyone wanting to create a more perfect game has to be quoting the Bard in everyday conversations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Merchants Wake - pg. 14, the last step in the chase scene: Barricaded Door - Batter it down (DC 17 Swim) or Take off the hinges (Knowledge [Engineering] DC 22)

Weapon in the Rift - pg. 5, a spell is referenced called mass phantom steed which I do not believe is a real spell. I know regal procession is a spell from 3.5 that is close or I could assume mass phantom steed is a higher level version of phantom steed. However, in PFS, we run as written. This is something that has been stressed by Paizo staff. That makes it incredibly important that the text is correct.

pg. 9, 3rd paragraph down, 6-7-9-blank should be 6-9-7-blank; and 2-5-1-0 should be 5-2-1-0 (We solved it locally, the GM figured out the right answer while prepping and we reached the same conclusion. This was later clarified on the boards.)

Sealed Gate - pg 15, 10-11 tier; the number of girallons in the combat isn't listed. If you read in the tactics you are able to extrapolate there should 5 girallons using "The fifth one teleports to the nearby rocky outcropping."

Two non-PFS specific issues -

pg. 17, vial of efficacious medicine priced at 700 GP, it should be 9000 GP.

pg. 215, potion glutton changes how drinking a potion functions. "Normal: Drinking potions is a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity." Since this is in a hard cover book, precedent states that this changes how drinking a potion functions.

We are actually putting a list together, these are just quick grabs so you have an answer.

Most of these have been resolved in the forums, however, a number of people do not check the forums on a regular basis if at all. Further, we run zeros often the night after the game is released so we can run them on our Saturday game day. What I'm asking for is more oversight in the editing process to ensure fewer errors. This will help everyone in the community.

While I understand and appreciate that in many cases, this is a labor of love for the Paizo staff, it is still a product that I have to pay for. Not only am I paying for the scenarios, I am volunteering to run these at our local game day. This already requires me to spend time and money as a paying customer to spend additional time and effort correcting these mistakes. In any industry where you have customers, the customers do have a right to ask for more quality control. You have previously exhibited the ability to put out more scenarios with fewer errors. I simply am trying to state that this is a recent issue that I would like addressed.

EDIT: Please note, I love Pathfinder. I don't plan on changing game systems. I subscribe to three of the offered subscriptions and am not currently planning on changing this. I'm offering constructive criticism in an effort to increase the enjoyment for open society games.


Re: mass phantom steed

I think it is suppose to be communal phantom steed.


pres man wrote:

Re: mass phantom steed

I think it is suppose to be communal phantom steed.

Cool. Thank you for posting this. It will help when I edit my personal copy that people borrow.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Believe it or not, I think this is a good thread to have. I believe it's been almost entirely constructive.

I've very much noticed a dramatic increase in errors in things that have been published in 2014. If I look back to my issues of Dungeon or Dragon Magazine, I remember reading through them and sure there were some errors, but I could go through 80 pages and maybe feel like I saw one or two. I've very forgiving on punctuation. :)

I think I remember a single adventure through years of those magazines with a single typo in read-aloud boxed text. I feel like this season alone I've been finding many per 15-20 page scenario. And most of the typos come up on the first play-through as I read boxed text to the players. It's actually affected some of the reviews I've left on scenarios (I usually drop them down a star when it seems like the scenario was hastily cobbled together at the last moment versus a thoughtful "labor of love" from the writer). This to me is the difference between a 2 to 3 star scenario that "meant well" and a 4 to 5 star scenario that I'll forever treasure and will see folks lined up to play because word of mouth is so strong.

I hope the Paizo employees don't take this as any form of personal slight, but can simply use this thread to indicate to project managers or decision makers that customers are starting to feel a small bit of quality eroding - I imagine due to hasty deadlines. As customers, we can kind of tell when a scenario is rushed and potentially not play-tested, so these are important corners to not cut from the development process.

I imagine there are dozens of VC/VL-types who would gladly take a review pass through a scenario on their exclusive forums and post a bullet list of things they noticed. Crowd-sourced QA is a very popular practice in the digital era, especially among smaller shops that can't afford a large QA team that also has highly engaged early-adopters (which I'd imagine the tabletop RPG industry qualifies as).

As an aside... Vial of Efficacious Medicine ... 13 FAQ votes and rising for an item that is multiplying like Calistrian bunnies on sheets in organized play!

51 to 59 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Dear Paizo Staff All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.