| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder whether part of it is a matter of perception - the Core Book has had multiple revisions and each has had some corrections. Presumably that means the first printing contained a high number of errors (?)
Perhaps back then Paizo were the plucky underdog duking it out against a big corporation, now they're the tall poppy. In other words, maybe it's the expectations that have changed rather than the rate of error.
The first CRB had a few rules conflicts, but a lot of it was rules that would not written as well as they could have been. I think the ACG is making things look like it is worse than it is. Now if the next book comes out like the ACG I will think it is a problem. However if the next time it happens is not until the next Gencon release I will think it is the Gencon rush that needs to be handled better.
Fingers crossed the spacing out of PaizoCon and GenCon will help with that somewhat.
Well, one thing that can be said is about language used in rules descriptions. That has been growingly inconsistent and produced all kinds of stuff.
There is a rules names database when you translate works from english to german, to which the german publisher sticks, so people recognize the words and names from old D&D times on. Some of that makes for weird language today, but it still has a point.
Would Paizo take the time and go through the pain to do the same in english for the rules and ablities and make sure designers stick to that in the rules relevant text parts, a lot of trouble and future mistakes could be avoided. The product quality would even rise.
Something like an internal power rating of abilities, maybe in form of an easy to follow flow-chart, could also greatly help sometimes to avoid things that are just too weak or too strong.
This would also be a scientific system theory approved coordination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other than the ACG error what are examples of quality slipping?
Yeah Mythic rules won't make it to my table, but not all of them are terrible. I just don't have time to fix the really bad ones, nor do I want to play mother may I as a GM with the book.
Actually Mythic Adventures and Wrath of the Righteous is the perfect example of why I would consider the quality of Paizo's books to be lower than it was before the release of MA/WotR. The ACG has some bad things I've noticed, like the dex-to-damage issue and Divine Protection (although I haven't really read carefully through, waiting for that until I get a hardcopy), but otherwise it seems like a fine book.
But Mythic Adventures and Wrath of the Righteous showed once again that Paizo shoves out new rules and sub-systems without really testing them or, if they make a playtest, really listening to the feedback from fans.
Those new rules don't work at all, at least in the context of CR appropiate mythic opponents providing any type of challenge to a mythic party. Paizo really screwed up in their calculations of what kind of power mythic player characters have at their disposal, as is evident from what those monsters are supposed to dish out and take as damage.
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the biggest problem with Mythic Adventures was that Paizo listened too closely to their fans. Most of the big issues with the system can be traced to changes that players wanted during the playtest, including the comparative value of mythic tiers, the strength and implementation of some of the more troublesome abilities, etc.
I think that if you think Paizo isn't listening to its players, you aren't paying attention.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if you think Paizo isn't listening to its players, you aren't paying attention.
But, but, but... PLAYERS ARE NEVER WRONG!
Right? Right?
I love Mythic Adventures. Especially when you compare it to its evil antecedent Epic Level Handbook. That thing was TERRIBLE. MA manages to make epic cool for all levels and that's a heckuva thing. Does it have issues? Sure, but once again: mature rulesets always have issues. It's because they're complex and the level of variations rise exponentially with each release. You simply cannot anticipate every possible permutation of the rules. Gamers are far too clever and far too enamored of their rules-mastery for that.
No release is going to hit all the happy-places for every consumer. Period. You may dislike certain ones and you may think them unnecessary and bloated, but I guarantee you there's somebody out there that will buy it and love it. It's the nature of the business.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree about how small the gaming "pond" is. But seeing as most gaming companies are privately held and therefore do not release sales figures (and I don't blame them - I won't tell you mine, either), I can't point at any numbers to refute you.
Regardless, the World's Leading Game Company is not a small gaming company of any sort.
They may not be a small gaming company, but gaming companies in general - and the profit margins thereof - are not large. Case in point. "Big Fish of a Small Pond" could not BE more accurate.
...this is less about Paizo slipping, and more about the fact that they are a small gaming company whose popularity is still on the rise.Bolding mine.
I personally think the problem is that Paizo think of themselves as a "small" gaming company, as do many others - it is actually a cherished aspect of their identity.
....
I would have liked to see them toss the word "small" in the trash and replace it with "World's Leading." That would have been something truly remarkable to behold, and this thread wouldn't exist, methinks.
And I couldn't disagree with you more.
The fact that Paizo still has that small-business mindset is one of the things I love most about the company. Because almost universally, once companies and corporations stop thinking of themselves as small fish, it turns out poorly for the customer.
I can't think of any large company that involves itself with the fans and customers the way Paizo's development teams do. And I tie that 100% to their small business mindset.
So no, nothing would bother me more than to see Paizo drop that core part of who and what they are by the wayside in favor of trying to make themselves appear "remarkable to behold". Because as far as I'm concerned, that will never end well. Especially for us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
my feelings exactly Orthos!
(get out of my head! Its overcrowded as it is)
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps back then Paizo were the plucky underdog duking it out against a big corporation, now they're the tall poppy. In other words, maybe it's the expectations that have changed rather than the rate of error.
I think the expectations have changed, but not because of the "David versus Goliath" perception of Paizo, but because Paizo's audience has changed significantly.
In 2007 (when the AP launched), Paizo's audience was basically "people that liked what they did in Dragon and Dungeon magazines, wanted periodic adventures, and/or wanted a new campaign setting."
In 2008 (when the RPG was announced), the audience grew and added "people that wanted to stick with 3.5e."
Since then, Paizo has added tons of new players (necessitating products geared towards new players) and so-on. The audience today (if the messageboards are any indication) is far more demanding than in 2007.
Interesting stuff about language.
Something like this (using a consistant set of well-defined words and phrases as game terms) is a great idea, but probably requires rewriting the entire ruleset. If they wanted to this, it's basically a new edition.
-Skeld
Actually, the biggest problem with Mythic Adventures was that Paizo listened too closely to their fans. Most of the big issues with the system can be traced to changes that players wanted during the playtest, including the comparative value of mythic tiers, the strength and implementation of some of the more troublesome abilities, etc.
I think that if you think Paizo isn't listening to its players, you aren't paying attention.
I said that they are not testing their new systems properly. Which includes feedback from fans, yes, but in the end they have to test out their math by themselves. Which obviously did not get done with MA.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said that they are not testing their new systems properly. Which includes feedback from fans, yes, but in the end they have to test out their math by themselves. Which obviously did not get done with MA.Actually, the biggest problem with Mythic Adventures was that Paizo listened too closely to their fans. Most of the big issues with the system can be traced to changes that players wanted during the playtest, including the comparative value of mythic tiers, the strength and implementation of some of the more troublesome abilities, etc.
I think that if you think Paizo isn't listening to its players, you aren't paying attention.
The biggest problem I see with Mythic/WotR was that the rules and the AP were developed concurrently. If they had put out a Mythic Module at launch and waited a year on the AP, I think the AP would have worked out better (from a rules standpoint; story-wise it's awesome like it is).
-Skeld
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
my feelings exactly Orthos!
(get out of my head! Its overcrowded as it is)
I can get someone in for cleanup. Just step into this machine here....
Interesting stuff about language.Something like this (using a consistant set of well-defined words and phrases as game terms) is a great idea, but probably requires rewriting the entire ruleset. If they wanted to this, it's basically a new edition.
-Skeld
Most of the language exists and it should be CRB oriented anyway, the problems arise when new books use different language or there is stuff in the fluff which is not or contradicts crunch.
Or new and different language is used for existing things and effects.
Don´t think that needs to be a new edition, only needs to be recognized in new books, because this problem grows with every book.I´m actually looking forward to those rules flash cards because of that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said that they are not testing their new systems properly. Which includes feedback from fans, yes, but in the end they have to test out their math by themselves. Which obviously did not get done with MA.Actually, the biggest problem with Mythic Adventures was that Paizo listened too closely to their fans. Most of the big issues with the system can be traced to changes that players wanted during the playtest, including the comparative value of mythic tiers, the strength and implementation of some of the more troublesome abilities, etc.
I think that if you think Paizo isn't listening to its players, you aren't paying attention.
The biggest problem I see with Mythic/WotR was that the rules and the AP were developed concurrently. If they had put out a Mythic Module at launch and waited a year on the AP, I think the AP would have worked out better (from a rules standpoint; story-wise it's awesome like it is).
-Skeld
Part of me suspects this may be the reason we are not getting a Vudran or psychic magic heavy AP to coincide with Occult Adventures. Developing an AP that makes extensive use of new rules at the same time as new rules are being developed and playtested is madness
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really believe that, had Paizo NOT considered themselves a "small" gaming company starting the day their game took the #1 position, then 5th Edition would not have a snowball's chance in hell of dethroning them. But, because they held on so hard to that "small" gaming company identity, they likely will be dethroned.
I'd be interested to know what you think Paizo should be doing to act like a "big" company.
They seem to have a lot of licensing deals out there and have been building their brand significantly since 2007. They made Forbes' list as one of the fastest growing companies not too long ago.
I'm not sure whether you're arguing this case as a fan or from a hypothetical business standpoint, which is one reason I'm curious. Maybe from a business standpoint, they could do something like become a publicly traded business. But from a fan's perspective, I think a cap on growth helps the quality quite a bit - a lot of my dissatisfaction with the direction of D&D, for example, seems to stem from decisions made at a Hasbro corporate level.
As to whether D&D will retake first place in sales rankings, I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with Paizo's mistakes but rather than fact that Dungeons & Dragons is a huge brand by RPG standards and that many people will buy in out of sheer curiosity if nothing else. I'm also not entirely sure that D&D will crush Pathfinder's place in the market the way some people assume. Not only is there a lot of overlap between the two fan bases, but Paizo releases a lot more product and has a good amount of momentum right now. I think it might be just as likely that while D&D tops sales charts for a while, Paizo remains right there with them - at least by the increasingly inaccurate ICV2 rankings.
But at least that hypothetical situation of mine would make for fun little fan wars about which game has the bigger audience? (Although really, why do fans care that much which company is selling more - unless they own stock in said company?)
I said that they are not testing their new systems properly. Which includes feedback from fans, yes, but in the end they have to test out their math by themselves. Which obviously did not get done with MA.Actually, the biggest problem with Mythic Adventures was that Paizo listened too closely to their fans. Most of the big issues with the system can be traced to changes that players wanted during the playtest, including the comparative value of mythic tiers, the strength and implementation of some of the more troublesome abilities, etc.
I think that if you think Paizo isn't listening to its players, you aren't paying attention.
The biggest problem I see with Mythic/WotR was that the rules and the AP were developed concurrently. If they had put out a Mythic Module at launch and waited a year on the AP, I think the AP would have worked out better (from a rules standpoint; story-wise it's awesome like it is).
-Skeld
Sure. But that didn't happen.
|
The amount of errata a product receives probably says more about the number of people playing the game and the complexity of said game than it does about the quality of the game.Well, that could have been the case, but at least with ACG a lot of erratas/FAQ have to be with editing issues and unclear language. And there are a lot of those.
And I think is valid to point this out. I have no idea why, but the quality of the ACG is a problem. I have seen what otherwise have been and still are paizo fans saying that they are very dissapointed with the book, and that they will not be buying anymore 1st printing unless they totally know beforehand what is in the book. Personally I can't honestly recommend buying the physical copy, not until a second printing with all the Erratas.
I agree 100%
|
|
Certainly it is valid to point out a very specific example of a product you find to be less than acceptable. It is not valid to say wild things like "Well, a lot of people are saying that the quality is slipping and everything is terrible and you're doing too much and I blame the Paizo." That would be a gross over-generalization, which is exactly what I said in my original post.
And I think is valid to point this out. I have no idea why, but the quality of the ACG is a problem. I have seen what otherwise have been and still are paizo fans saying that they are very dissapointed with the book, and that they will not be buying anymore 1st printing unless they totally know beforehand what is in the book. Personally I can't honestly recommend buying the physical copy, not until a second printing with all the Erratas.
Who else is responsible for the quality of their books if not Paizo? It there an editor in the ether and that dude shafted them? It seems a perfectly valid complaint to tell the publisher of a book that you are not happy with the quality of their book.
As to the packed schedule, one (if not the only) common comment shared by all the Paizo folks who post regularly is how busy they are. This has been a veritable mantra for 4 years. There always seems to be too much going on and not enough time to do it. Many posters noticed the drastic drop in editing quality between the CRB and APG but many others apologized for Paizo, then UM and UC (skipping other product line mentions such as the adventure's armory that got stats for a buttery knife in two separate printings) which had some major issues, one of which left references in for an entire level of spells throughout the book that wound up on the editing room floor. That's when everyone I knew decided to stop buying first print books from Paizo. It came as no surprise that ARG and UE had issues, as well as no surprise that the ACG would have issues.
Good editing doesn't seem to be...
Very Well spoken +5
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very Well spoken +5
Friend, please take this as a friendly note. In the upper right corner of each post is a little square with a + in it. This means you agree with and are 'favoriting" a post. No need to quote a post in full then add "I agree 100%".
Thanks!
;-)
|
|
There is absolutely no one better to judge the acceptable level of quality than the consumer.
I dont know if that's true.
The consumer as a whole is a broad term. The bigger the consumer base, the more base the product must be to appeal to the broadest group of people. Appealing to consumers on a broad level tends to make things dumbed down and uninteresting.
The Consumer is ultimately a big o' ball of bi-polarity. Too many people want one thing. I think its best if the product is simmply based on the image of what the devs think it should be, and that the community hopefully agrees enough to keep the company afloat.
How can that not be true??
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can that not be true??There is absolutely no one better to judge the acceptable level of quality than the consumer.
I dont know if that's true.
The consumer as a whole is a broad term. The bigger the consumer base, the more base the product must be to appeal to the broadest group of people. Appealing to consumers on a broad level tends to make things dumbed down and uninteresting.
The Consumer is ultimately a big o' ball of bi-polarity. Too many people want one thing. I think its best if the product is simmply based on the image of what the devs think it should be, and that the community hopefully agrees enough to keep the company afloat.
Because the Customer is NOT Always Right.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the biggest problem with Mythic Adventures was that Paizo listened too closely to their fans. Most of the big issues with the system can be traced to changes that players wanted during the playtest, including the comparative value of mythic tiers, the strength and implementation of some of the more troublesome abilities, etc.
I think that if you think Paizo isn't listening to its players, you aren't paying attention.
Yeah, sorry, but I have to call BS on that one, and while adding tiers to an existing character is one issue, eg. adding a single tier to a level 17 character, caster or otherwise, can be a massive boost in power, a fighter getting mythic power attack, fleet charge and mythic vital strike (exchanging a path abilitiy for an extra feat) is a massive boost. Adding a tier to a level 1 character has a far weaker effect.
But when it comes to the playtest, one of the things that wasn't properly tested was adventure design, and the effects mythic abilities have on certain assumptions.
And plenty of people have spoken out against abilities like mythic power attack, channel power and mythic spellcasting. The number of things a mythic channel power meteor swarm can't kill is rather low.
This feedback was pretty much ignored.
It does not help that the AP has plenty of encounters that would be trivial for players (APL-2 or just APL) even without mythic abilities.
No, too much listening really wasn't the problem, you can blame the assumption that APs are intended for non- optimized players, but a fighter taking power attack and mythic power attack is pretty much a baseline assumption.
Those abilities should not all have been in the same pool of choices.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Although the fact that they are a online store as well adds quite a few more staff.)
Not as much as you might think.
|
|
Sure. But that didn't happen.I said that they are not testing their new systems properly. Which includes feedback from fans, yes, but in the end they have to test out their math by themselves. Which obviously did not get done with MA.Actually, the biggest problem with Mythic Adventures was that Paizo listened too closely to their fans. Most of the big issues with the system can be traced to changes that players wanted during the playtest, including the comparative value of mythic tiers, the strength and implementation of some of the more troublesome abilities, etc.
I think that if you think Paizo isn't listening to its players, you aren't paying attention.
The biggest problem I see with Mythic/WotR was that the rules and the AP were developed concurrently. If they had put out a Mythic Module at launch and waited a year on the AP, I think the AP would have worked out better (from a rules standpoint; story-wise it's awesome like it is).
-Skeld
Lesson learned.
-Skeld
Lesson learned.
-Skeld
Did they? We'll see.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did they? We'll see.Lesson learned.
-Skeld
Iron Gods's new rules were written by the same guy who's developing Iron Gods.
Hell's Rebels and Giantslayer aren't linked to ANY new rules in any significant way.
Make of that what you will.
Great change, I haven't sunk my teeth into the the technology guide yet, but the AP looks promising (since there is no way in hell, that I can ever GM this for my "traditional" players, the fact that I am still subscribed should be a good sign).
Is there any chance of paizo taking a good look at MA and finding a way to make it more compatible with the Adventure Path? Not asking for anything extensive, just something reasonably short for us to point out to GMs asking if the AP is playable. Call it a mod if you will.
I know that Paizo is incredibly busy, but this could seriously reduce the level of complaints.
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
I work a job where I have to keep a lot of people happy too. I'll tell you a secret - if there's one task I can do that will make people happy and make me feel better about my day, and another that will inevitably lead to someone "screaming" at me and making me hate the human race, I will choose the first one as often as humanly possible.
Everything else in the quoted post was also good, but I wanted to pull this out in particular. Ssalarn is right that pretty much any FAQ that clarifies an ambiguity is going to make the side who doesn't have the clarification go their way upset. And there is always that side, so it will always make someone upset. So to continue to help me get you more FAQs, faster FAQs, and more consistently timed FAQs, if that is your #1 priority, I entreat you all—if you want to see more FAQs, then one day, when a FAQ doesn't turn out the way you wished it would, please take a moment to remember this post and then don't post about it angrily. I understand that you will still be angry, you have every right to be angry, and I'm in no way telling you that you don't have that right. In fact, go rant to a friend about it.
The reason to not post about it here is purely a psychological one based on conditioning (yes, I am teaching you how to condition us for your advantage, so read on!). Basically, if you give negative feedback when there are no FAQs and then negative feedback when there are FAQs too, since your discontented posts are your psychological ammunition, you're diluting your message in both instances. In essence, pick your top priority and choose that one to give negative feedback. If your top priority is preventing FAQs because they might turn out the other way and you prefer the ambiguity, then complain about the FAQs when they come out and don't complain about the lack of FAQs. If your top priority is to get more FAQs and clear up grey areas, as I hope it is, like mine, then post negatively only when we don't give you FAQs and you feel we should, and bite your tongue in general for ones you don't like, remembering to praise the ones you do like. This maximizes your results and avoids diluting the power of your posts.
To share a story a professor of mine at MIT used to tell (it may be an urban legend, but he told it with names such that it seemed to be a report from his memories, and in either case it's still funny), supposedly, some Harvard students had learned about conditioning from their professor and wanted to test it out. So they picked another professor and began to smile, nod, and really pay attention whenever the professor was moving toward the right end of the chalkboard in a large lecture hall with a particularly long chalkboard, yawning, frowning, and generally looking confused or disinterested whenever he moved toward the left end. By the end of the hour, the professor was essentially erasing over himself and writing every example on the far right of the chalkboard without budging from the spot.
Vive les FAQs!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, if you give negative feedback when there are no FAQs and then negative feedback when there are FAQs too, since your discontented posts are your psychological ammunition, you're diluting your message in both instances. In essence, pick your top priority and choose that one to give negative feedback.
I want more FAQ! Please? Pretty please?
And, I think I have been as positive as possible about this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Although the fact that they are a online store as well adds quite a few more staff.)Not as much as you might think.
Many, not much! </grammar rant>
;-)
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any chance of paizo taking a good look at MA and finding a way to make it more compatible with the Adventure Path? Not asking for anything extensive, just something reasonably short for us to point out to GMs asking if the AP is playable. Call it a mod if you will.
I know that Paizo is incredibly busy, but this could seriously reduce the level of complaints.
Not without sacrificing the quality we're hoping to give for our current projects. Which would be self-defeating and cause more problems than it would (in theory) solve.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, if you give negative feedback when there are no FAQs and then negative feedback when there are FAQs too, since your discontented posts are your psychological ammunition, you're diluting your message in both instances. In essence, pick your top priority and choose that one to give negative feedback.I want more FAQ! Please? Pretty please?
And, I think I have been as positive as possible about this.
I agree. At the risk of potentially repeating something folks here have already read in my AMA thread, I'll copy my response from there, since it's relevant:
I have a plan or two up my sleeve, but as always, this requires additional resources that are more valuable and in demand right now than I am. There is no amount of trade of my time that can replace those resources, even at a reduced rate, so it's out of my hands. I will have to ask you to trust that I am continually trying to get FAQs, and that I have not given up on them or wavered on the stance I professed upon being hired. As a former engineer and scientist, I know sometimes it is hard to trust without verifiable evidence, but I'll have to ask that of you for now.
I love Paizo, but have to admit I am frustrated with spending $150+ on MA and WotR and then hearing about all of the problems and issues on the forums here. I am a somewhat new PF DM and the thought of trying to "fix" things on my own is daunting. Most companies that put out a "flawed" (I know some would argue this is an overstatement) product usually try to "make things right." It sounds like Paizo does have enough "irons in the fire" to prevent that from happening in this particular case...which is too bad. Seeing the lower quality of the ACG was also a disappointment. I believe in Paizo and am rooting for them, but I do have to agree with the OP that they seem to have too much on their plate and not enough staff.
|
|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark's post on negative conditioning has implications well beyond the FAQ.
For example, when I see a particular community member who posts negative comments on every single AP, it is much harder to recognize any valid criticsms they may have. So my eyes tend to slide past their posts.
And that is for me as a casual observer - imagine what it must be like for somebody who is directly involved in the creation of the product.
Valid criticism is important, and the folks at Paizo are very good at taking it and responding when appropriate. However, when it becomes apparent that a poster will never be pleased, there's not much point in changing things to please them.
they seem to have <snip> not enough staff.
Well, we should help out with this by giving them more money! :D
(Caveat: when it is reasonable and financially responsible of us to do so; purchasing our way into debt for them will not only hurt us, but them in the long run as it will cause us to crash and withdraw our financial support, and negatively their ability to accurately predict and budget their financial resources in the future. Please spend your money responsibly.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please spend your money responsibly.
Nonsense! That's downright Un-American!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the Customer is NOT Always Right.How can that not be true??There is absolutely no one better to judge the acceptable level of quality than the consumer.
I dont know if that's true.
The consumer as a whole is a broad term. The bigger the consumer base, the more base the product must be to appeal to the broadest group of people. Appealing to consumers on a broad level tends to make things dumbed down and uninteresting.
The Consumer is ultimately a big o' ball of bi-polarity. Too many people want one thing. I think its best if the product is simmply based on the image of what the devs think it should be, and that the community hopefully agrees enough to keep the company afloat.
Not saying it's the case in this particular instance, but: because what vocal posters say they want/say they're buying/say about how they're playing and what data shows the majority of customers actually do/what they buy/how they play are often radically different.
|
Creative Director
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark's post on negative conditioning has implications well beyond the FAQ.
For example, when I see a particular community member who posts negative comments on every single AP, it is much harder to recognize any valid criticsms they may have. So my eyes tend to slide past their posts.
Quoted for truth... for better or worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quoted for truth... for better or worse.Mark's post on negative conditioning has implications well beyond the FAQ.
For example, when I see a particular community member who posts negative comments on every single AP, it is much harder to recognize any valid criticsms they may have. So my eyes tend to slide past their posts.
So THAT explains why you never read my posts. ;-)
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So THAT explains why you never read my posts. ;-)Quoted for truth... for better or worse.Mark's post on negative conditioning has implications well beyond the FAQ.
For example, when I see a particular community member who posts negative comments on every single AP, it is much harder to recognize any valid criticsms they may have. So my eyes tend to slide past their posts.
Did someone say something?
Weird. My computer indicated someone made a post to this thread... but I'm not seeing anything.
Hmm. Must have been the wind!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i suspect they are going thru my trash... or it could be the raccoons....
but seriously, they are a Book Publisher, the last thing they need is a big fire with a bunch of Irons in it:)
unless......
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark's post on negative conditioning has implications well beyond the FAQ.
For example, when I see a particular community member who posts negative comments on every single AP, it is much harder to recognize any valid criticsms they may have. So my eyes tend to slide past their posts.
And that is for me as a casual observer - imagine what it must be like for somebody who is directly involved in the creation of the product.
Valid criticism is important, and the folks at Paizo are very good at taking it and responding when appropriate. However, when it becomes apparent that a poster will never be pleased, there's not much point in changing things to please them.
Not only that, but to those who may be new to these boards and aren't used to the certain level of charm that some may employ the raging fits thrown can make this seem like an unhappy or hostile place. There are places on the Internet that I just don't go because I don't want to be bogged down with what is essentially screaming and yelling. I doubt I am the only one.
Constructive criticism is good and helpful. Unrelenting negativity doesn't do much for the people that work at Paizo, fellow gamers, or to fix the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(skipping other product line mentions such as the adventure's armory that got stats for a buttery knife in two separate printings)Please do not propagate false information, especially if it's easily refuted.
(Despite your assertion, the book did not "include stats for a 'buttery knife.'" There was a minor PDF error where in one paragraph of chapter introductory text, the weapon called "butterfly knife" had a font ligature issue and showed up as "buttery knife," but the actual listing of the weapon in the table and weapon description correctly showed up as "butterfly knife." I can post photos or video of the actual 1st printing of the book to prove it.)
(Relevant link to why this problem happens.)
Edit: My kinfe/knife typo fixed. :)
The real question is ...
Has anyone created stats for the Buttery Knife yet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did someone say something?
Weird. My computer indicated someone made a post to this thread... but I'm not seeing anything.
Hmm. Must have been the wind!
** spoiler omitted **
*shakes fist in impotent rage*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its a dagger with the slippery condition, or maybe grease?
:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone created stats for the Buttery Knife yet?
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone created stats for the Buttery Knife yet?Yes.
Have those stats been posted yet?
Yes. In my kitchen. With waffles.