|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even some of the most staunch Paizo fanboys (excluding the PDF) have to admit that it seems that their quality is slipping, and some will even realize it's been this way for some time. The receptions of Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Mythic Adventures, and the Advanced Class Guide have been, at best, uneven. Less than a month old, the ACG already has a sizable list of errata. Hell, they didn't even manage to get the cover right (class bloat is gonna be a major problem in six months when they finish out the sixth volume of the Advanced Class Guide AP).
Could this decline in quality have something to do with the fact that, in addition to the RPG and related product lines, they're also trying to keep all of the following plates spinning:
Pathfinder Tales
Adventure Card Game
Pathfinder Comics
Pathfinder Online MMORPG
Pathfinder Legends
Paizo Game Space
Pathfinder (Obsidian) Video Games
[probably more stuff that's slipped my mind]
Not to mention the fact that the increased the page count for the Module line and upped the frequency of the Player's Companion line to monthly.
Is Paizo trying to juggle too many balls at once?
[Yeah, I know I mixed up three different metaphors that are all essentially the same. Deal with it.]
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
"OHMYGAWD THEY'RE DOIN' TOO MUCH! IT'S THE END OF DAYS! MABEL, GET THE FRESH WATER AND THE CANNED GOODS!"
Um, let's play a game. Instead of saying things like 'Even some of the most staunch Paizo fanboys', let's say "I think that it seems..." You are entitled to your opinion, but I hardly think the fact that a company has a lot of successful product lines means that their quality is slipping. Especially since each line has dedicated staff available to it and said staff is not being forced to work on several lines at once.
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. You can have a perfect product or you can have a finished product; the two are VERY hard to get simultaneously, especially in a mature ruleset like Paizo's. It's simply a function of there being a lot of options and it being very difficult to accurately account for every variation of said options. If you're dissatisfied with the quality of a specific product, let's discuss that instead of throwing out wide generalities.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only three of the items you list are handled in-house, Kthulhu (Tales, Card Game, and Game Space). Everything else is licensed to other companies and doesn't have as big an impact on the editorial and art department.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quality isn't slipping (from what I have actually played with), but the response time on the FAQ and other errata is getting unacceptable.
And that's from *ME*, who is usually called one of those "most staunch Paizo fanboys".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's relevant that the rule books are the ones which have the largest number of complaints. I think if your theory were right there'd be much wider perceived problems (far from a decline in quality, I think they're getting better at making APs, campaign setting books, flip mats, novels, cards, modules, minis, card games...).
Personally, I prefer the theory that as a ruleset grows in complexity there are necessarily increased errors and fans get grumpier about those errors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am assuming, however, that Paizo maintains some sort of oversight. If Dynamite turns out a six issue Kyra/aboleth hentai, would Paizo find out as they were published, or would they veto it beforehand?
Yes, there's oversight, but those are handled by people not wholly involved in the day-to-day operations of writing, editing, developing, assembling, or shipping product.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mythic Adventures was "uneven" because it's treading into territory that the entire game, as far back as OD&D, has had issues with - characters going beyond the normal 20 levels of progression.
Frankly, I think Mythic Adventures did a fantastic job at bypassing the really gnarly mess that the Epic Level Handbook presented. It also lets characters be super-powerful at levels lower than 21. I don't think anyone assumed, in the least, that Mythic Adventures was going to be as universally "OMG - MUST HAVE/USE!" as the Advanced Player's Guide; Paizo new what they were making, everyone else knew what they were making, people who wanted it seemed incredibly pleased, and those who didn't want it knew they wouldn't want it from the get-go, and aren't complaining about it.
As for the Ultimate Combat and Magic - really? I know UM had editting issues that needed to be addressed in the second printing, but I've never heard anything but praise from people for either book (except when people thought the Gunslinger was bus-ted! when it first came out, and then over time realized that it was actually surprisingly balanced or even a little tame).
Advanced Character Guide seems like the only disappointing book, really.
That was rushed out for GenCon; that much is known. I think Paizo was concerned that Wizards premiering their shiny new "3.5 Lite" system that is 5th Edition, while they themselves didn't have anything new and groundbreaking, would have led to a player exodus from PF and back to D&D.
That, really, was an unfounded concern, I feel. It was already evident that very few people were going to go from Pathfinder to 5th Edition. Paizo wasn't in danger of losing playerbase just because Wizards rolled out an edition.
Still, I don't think the book, at least what it tried to do, is "bad" per-say.
I'd've preferred a point-buy system for designing classes, rather than just several pages of philosophy, and a few other gnarly parts were there, but as a whole I don't hate the book.
I'll let Paizo call "mulligan" on the ACG, considering their track record for their "core" books has been far-and-away better than Wizards' was for D&D 3.5 (which included SCORES of utterly broken/useless junk over and over again, spread over an unnecessarily large number of books, at that), and let's not even get into the utter mess that was 4E.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am assuming, however, that Paizo maintains some sort of oversight. If Dynamite turns out a six issue Kyra/aboleth hentai, would Paizo find out as they were published, or would they veto it beforehand?
Veto? That?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am assuming, however, that Paizo maintains some sort of oversight. If Dynamite turns out a six issue Kyra/aboleth hentai, would Paizo find out as they were published, or would they veto it beforehand?
Considering things like CROSSED exist? That would be TAME, my friend.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet Paizo IS prudish enough that Frog God Games had to edit the art in one of their books.
Frog God Games included nudity in their books, which violated the terms of the Pathfinder Compatibility License (specifically the adult content clause). That's why they were asked to remove it. (And yes, nudity would probably be considered "adult" in the US, which is where we are based. It has nothing to do with how "prudish" Paizo is.)
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.
Ok. I see your point.
Still, if the reason for the issues witht he ACG was that they rushed so the book was finished for Gencon. Then people would have valid reasons to have doubts about the next Gencon hardcover. Dubts that paizo would be wise to quickly disipate.
Or they might be wise to not address it at all, as them responding may legitimize the complaints. They may be wise to not address it at all to minimize the dialogue about the mistakes, and let them simply be corrected at a later time. It might be wise to make corrections quietly as to not provide fuel to 'haters'. Sure there are fanboys, but you know there are haters too.
Edit: There is wisdom in either choice. Your way may be better. I don't know, and I think it would be impossible to know for sure. Only time will tell, and even then time will only tell one story. As bad as one side goes, the other may yet be worse.
|
Even if we grant that all four of those books were poor, I don't see how you're getting to your conclusion.
The first of them was released over three years ago, before most of those irons were added to the fire. By your list, 2011 was actually a worse year for hardcovers than 2013 or 2014, despite all those irons.
Meanwhile, all four books are in one product line and three were released at GenCon. But neither of those is the connection you're drawing.
I'm curious why you believe it's the "irons" rather than, say, because releasing player-facing hardcovers is hard or there's a problem with GenCon releases.
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first printing of ACG does read like a rush job, more than say, the first printing of Bestiary 3, or Ultimate Campaign. The ACG has noticeably more awkward grammar, pretty much no spell-related picture being on the same page as that spell, and some mistakes in powers that will lead to tiresome discussions on RAW v. RAI.
It's not something I've been seeing as a whole. It's pretty much this book; the others have errors too, but the ones in the ACG are more obvious and jarring.
I'm hoping the many threads criticizing it will serve as a wakeup call to Paizo; giving the Next Big Book a bit more time for final editing and rule-language-polishing. The ACG still has a lot of cool stuff in it, but the slipping quality is not something that should be allowed to continue.
I haven't even mentioned the publication that, about a year ago, ratcheted both my faith in and my respect for Paizo down quite substantially. Mostly because it had very little to do with the RPG.
Well, you have now, albeit obliquely. Was it Mythic Adventures? Or Ultimate Campaign?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the Wayne Reynolds art book? That had mixed reviews.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't even mentioned the publication that, about a year ago, ratcheted both my faith in and my respect for Paizo down quite substantially. Mostly because it had very little to do with the RPG.
Actually, you just did.
In any case, no, they don't have too many irons in the fire, balls in the air, plates spinning, clowns in the car or whatever other term we'd care to use.
More of what we're seeing, I think, is the more pronounced use of the message boards to talk, good or bad, about the books. Paizo seems to have a handle on what they are doing and planning to do; some items aren't as polished as we, or they, would like.
Problem is you seldom hear "Hey, good job on this book" or "I really liked X". Instead, it's thread after thread of "OMG the end is nigh!" or "X is broken and here's why the devs should be beaten with a wet noodle."
It's easy to backseat drive, harder to create. This, as an aside, isn't just a problem for Paizo but for pretty much every company that has an internet presence (Facebook, Twitter, message board, etc.) It's a litany of complaints and dire predictions of why the company is going bankrupt, not as good as before, or how the user will never, EVER darken their door again.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 an accountability hot button at Paizo, and it shows. The extra work flow doesn't seem to be helping matters because the problem is getting worse. There have been quite a few threads recently about the editing issues in PFS scenarios (including a swim check to open a door?)
This is not in our imaginations, we are not being overly critical. The problem is real. If you are able to look last these issues and love the product and give Paizo your money then more power to you. Many of us are not willing to continue to hand cash over for substandard product that won't receive the attention it deserves for years until they convince enough poor sobs to buy their error riddled first print.
We are saying to Paizo, "figure out a way to make this right." I don't care about their deadlines, or internal organization. I am saying to Paizo at large, do better, because I know you can. Don't let this be your legacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't even mentioned the publication that, about a year ago, ratcheted both my faith in and my respect for Paizo down quite substantially. Mostly because it had very little to do with the RPG.Actually, you just did.
In any case, no, they don't have too many irons in the fire, balls in the air, plates spinning, clowns in the car or whatever other term we'd care to use.
More of what we're seeing, I think, is the more pronounced use of the message boards to talk, good or bad, about the books. Paizo seems to have a handle on what they are doing and planning to do; some items aren't as polished as we, or they, would like.
Problem is you seldom hear "Hey, good job on this book" or "I really liked X". Instead, it's thread after thread of "OMG the end is nigh!" or "X is broken and here's why the devs should be beaten with a wet noodle."
It's easy to backseat drive, harder to create. This, as an aside, isn't just a problem for Paizo but for pretty much every company that has an internet presence (Facebook, Twitter, message board, etc.) It's a litany of complaints and dire predictions of why the company is going bankrupt, not as good as before, or how the user will never, EVER darken their door again.
Whether it is easy or not isn't the issue. Whether someone who is critical of the book could do a better job or not isn't the issue. The fine folks at Paizo have made a profession out of what they do. As professionals they should have a higher expectation of themselves. As someone who is giving a team of professionals money in exchange for a product, sight un-seen, I expect them to have higher standards for themselves.
Whether it is easy or not isn't the issue. Whether someone who is critical of the book could do a better job or not isn't the issue. The fine folks at Paizo have made a profession out of what they do. As professionals they should have a higher expectation of themselves. As someone who is giving a team of professionals money in exchange for a product, sight un-seen, I expect them to have higher standards for themselves.
Actually, it is somewhat of an issue. They are professionals, as you've just said. So I'd expect they'd have a better idea of whether or not they are overtaxed than the people on the message boards.
Second, I see a lot of criticism and a lot of "I could do it better" and threads on how dumb/untalented/etc that the devs must be if they made a mistake in the book. That makes me wonder why, if we have dozens if not hundreds of such talented people that have the spare time and energy to tear the books apart to tell Paizo what they've done wrong, why they aren't using some of that energy to put out quality products with no mistakes on time, for a certain budget. To show Paizo how it is done, you know?
Last of all -- you aren't required (as far as a I know, there could be a court case or assassin involved) to buy anything sight unseen. Wait for it come out. Wait till you can pick it up and flip through it. While the editing issues and perceived lack of quality can be laid at Paizo's feet, the last issue is not their fault.
Whether it is easy or not isn't the issue. Whether someone who is critical of the book could do a better job or not isn't the issue. The fine folks at Paizo have made a profession out of what they do. As professionals they should have a higher expectation of themselves. As someone who is giving a team of professionals money in exchange for a product, sight un-seen, I expect them to have higher standards for themselves.Actually, it is somewhat of an issue. They are professionals, as you've just said. So I'd expect they'd have a better idea of whether or not they are overtaxed than the people on the message boards.
Second, I see a lot of criticism and a lot of "I could do it better" and threads on how dumb/untalented/etc that the devs must be if they made a mistake in the book. That makes me wonder why, if we have dozens if not hundreds of such talented people that have the spare time and energy to tear the books apart to tell Paizo what they've done wrong, why they aren't using some of that energy to put out quality products with no mistakes on time, for a certain budget. To show Paizo how it is done, you know?
Last of all -- you aren't required (as far as a I know, there could be a court case or assassin involved) to buy anything sight unseen. Wait for it come out. Wait till you can pick it up and flip through it. While the editing issues and perceived lack of quality can be laid at Paizo's feet, the last issue is not their fault.
There is absolutely no one better to judge the acceptable level of quality than the consumer.
I see a lot of criticism as well, but I don't see much "I could do it better." The little of that sentiment I do see is always including "given ample time" as an understood. Ie, no one is claiming they are better than Paizo, but many suggest that even they see the problems after a few days to digest the product so perhaps Paizo should take those few days to digest before shipping.
If you want the PDF and don't have a FLGS within 100 miles then you get to buy sight unseen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether it is easy or not isn't the issue. Whether someone who is critical of the book could do a better job or not isn't the issue. The fine folks at Paizo have made a profession out of what they do. As professionals they should have a higher expectation of themselves. As someone who is giving a team of professionals money in exchange for a product, sight un-seen, I expect them to have higher standards for themselves.Actually, it is somewhat of an issue. They are professionals, as you've just said. So I'd expect they'd have a better idea of whether or not they are overtaxed than the people on the message boards.
Second, I see a lot of criticism and a lot of "I could do it better" and threads on how dumb/untalented/etc that the devs must be if they made a mistake in the book. That makes me wonder why, if we have dozens if not hundreds of such talented people that have the spare time and energy to tear the books apart to tell Paizo what they've done wrong, why they aren't using some of that energy to put out quality products with no mistakes on time, for a certain budget. To show Paizo how it is done, you know?
Last of all -- you aren't required (as far as a I know, there could be a court case or assassin involved) to buy anything sight unseen. Wait for it come out. Wait till you can pick it up and flip through it. While the editing issues and perceived lack of quality can be laid at Paizo's feet, the last issue is not their fault.
There is absolutely no one better to judge the acceptable level of quality than the consumer.
I see a lot of criticism as well, but I don't see much "I could do it better." The little of that sentiment I do see is always including "given ample time" as an understood. Ie, no one is claiming they are better than Paizo, but many suggest that even they see the problems after a few days to digest the product so perhaps Paizo should take those few days to digest before shipping.
If you want the PDF and don't have a FLGS within 100 miles then you get to buy sight unseen.
Heh. Customers tend to believe that, and producers believe otherwise. It is hard for both sides to see it from the same direction.
I'll agree to disagree with you regarding the criticism. We could dig up threads and quotes that will likely come down to how an individual reads it. I'll concede to say that there is not enough constructive criticism.
And yes, more time on the schedule would be great for the editors I'm sure, but that brings up another issue: if they cut a book, two, or more from the schedule -- just talking about the game now, and not the other stuff as they say that there are other people dealing primarily with that -- is it something that is going to upset people or make them happy. Less mistakes, but less product. That book you were looking forward to in December is now slated for next October.
It's a fine line and something they have to balance against paying people I imagine. Do too much and the error rate gets atrocious. Do too little and you run the risk of losing fans or the very people creating for you as they cannot pay bills on X books instead of Y.
Finally, as far as sight unseen goes, yes that can be an issue. But, the upside is that you don't buy something that you are unhappy with and are "stuck" with it. And you give other people time to tear into it and review it, assuming you put weight on the reviews or particular reviewers.
To wrap this up -- I am sure that the staff here is not happy with the error rate in the new book. Heck, the cover alone is embarrassing. But the number of threads that cropped up that were primarily negative don't really do more than pile on. Do we think that shaming them will somehow make them do better? Do we think that the comments are going to shame them or upset them more than they are already upset? Message boards/the net tends towards beating dead horses until they are beyond ghosts, so I know this tends to fall on deaf ears, but I suggest giving it a rest. No one is saying anything new or different. There are unhappy people. They get it. People that live under a rock get it. From what I can see they are getting their act together after the big conventions and likely having meetings on what to do. Let them do that for a week or two before we continue in the inevitable tide of criticism.
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.
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.
More specifically then, no one is better qualified than the consumer to determine if the product quality was acceptable in exchange for their money.
@Kinghtaday on shaming-
I don't think harsh or even unfair criticism is shaming. And I don't think shaming or criticism will have any effect on their editing process because it has come up after most RPG line products release for the last 4 years and hasn't done any good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are free.
More specifically then, no one is better qualified the the consumer to determine if the product quality was acceptable in exchange for their money.
I don't particularly care about what I can get for free. I wanted a book in all of its glory, with beautiful artwork, and great layout, exciting new ideas, but I also wanted that book to be well edited, and maintain internal consistency, and not have half a dozen other fiddlely errors on every page.
I didn't buy the rules, I bought a book. The fact that the junk part of it can be had for free doesn't make any difference, there is still junk in my book.
What errata for the ACG are we talking about? I don't see an ACG section on the Errata page...
It's still in the process of being requested/pointed out/compiled. It hasn't been released yet.
| 9 people 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. :)
"buttery knife," but the actual listing <snip> correctly showed up as "butterfly kinfe."
I have to say, your post is excellent, and the point is well-made, but that's a pretty spectacularly-timed error, sir. Totally one I'd make, but still: funny (just like if it were me). :D
But thanks for the links, and info, Sean, it's good stuff! :D
EDIT: once for clarity
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I appreciate the comedy of it. :)
(Guilty of a last-minute revision to my post, adding "knife" for clarity... and bungling it as "kinfe." :p)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even some of the most staunch Paizo fanboys (excluding the PDF) have to admit that it seems that their quality is slipping,
I don't know about fanboys, but us fan-adults need admit no such thing. I don't agree with your starting point at all and I'm very glad that Paizo is trying all those things.
No other company has so engaged my love of gaming, not even TSR in the old days or WotC in the Great Revival. I think Paizo's doing a pretty damn good job.
| 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 forest is right over there, by the trees.
|
|
Maybe the Wayne Reynolds art book? That had mixed reviews.
This. Specifically the fact that they knew that a good percentage of the art had issues going in, but they still put out the cash-grab limited edition. But also the overuse of white space, and the fact that one of the pieces of art that had a problem was the Core Rulebook cover. Somehow Paizo is trying to tell me that they only have an inferior copy of THAT particular piece of art???
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The forest is right over there, by the trees.
My point still stands: you shouldn't propagate false information when you know it is untrue, as this conversation between Vic and *you* in 2011 shows that you know it is untrue.
Prove me wrong. Post a photo of your copy of Adventurer's Armory that "has stats for a buttery knife." As you say in the above linked post, "I own the second print and have stats for a buttery knife." Are you speaking the truth?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The forest is right over there, by the trees.My point still stands: you shouldn't propagate false information when you know it is untrue, as this conversation between Vic and *you* in 2011 shows that you know it is untrue.
Actually, it doesn't. It shows Vic responding to his post, but not further response from him -- meaning there's no way to know if he ever saw Vic's reply.
Personally, I think I'd have more evidence than that before I essentially called someone a liar. But hey, don't let that stop you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The forest is right over there, by the trees.My point still stands: you shouldn't propagate false information when you know it is untrue, as this conversation between Vic and *you* in 2011 shows that you know it is untrue.
Prove me wrong. Post a photo of your copy of Adventurer's Armory that "has stats for a buttery knife." As you say in the above linked post, "I own the second print and have stats for a buttery knife." Are you speaking the truth?
Sean, I don't have any desire to get into pissing match with you on this topic. My overall point is valid, hyperbole on my part not-withstanding. The fact of the matter is that one major issue or another seems to pop up in a significant majority of Paizo **(edit *RPG line) products. I find this to be disappointing, and I suspect you do too. I believe Paizo can do better, and if an unfair comment about where the ligand drop occurred in a book that had the same error in the reprint gets some blood pumping then so much the better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am assuming, however, that Paizo maintains some sort of oversight. If Dynamite turns out a six issue Kyra/aboleth hentai, would Paizo find out as they were published, or would they veto it beforehand?
I am Shocked that Merisiel has not posted yet!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it doesn't. It shows Vic responding to his post, but not further response from him -- meaning there's no way to know if he ever saw Vic's reply.
You're right. That was an assumption on my part.
Personally, I think I'd have more evidence than that before I essentially called someone a liar. But hey, don't let that stop you.
I've seen the 1st and 2nd printing AA, and I know they don't have "stats for a buttery knife." So unless he has a unique printing that does, he is [EDIT]mistaken, or correct on a technicality [END EDIT].
Sean, I don't have any desire to get into pissing match with you on this topic. My overall point is valid, hyperbole on my part not-withstanding.
"The adventurer's armory has stats for a buttery knife" is not hyperbole. There's nothing in your original statement to suggest or imply that you were exaggerating; your statement is written as if you believe it is a fact.
Am I saying Paizo never makes errors? No.
Am I saying errors didn't happen on my watch. No.
Am I saying that errors didn't happen in Adventurer's Armory? No.
But I am saying there is no such "stats for a buttery knife" error in AA, and you should not be allowed to make such a false statement as if it were true.
It's one thing to say, "Many posters noticed the drastic drop in editing quality between the CRB and APG" (which is an opinion), and in the same sentence say "the adventure's armory that got stats for a buttery knife in two separate printings" (which is stated as if it were a fact, but it is not a fact, which you well know).
So... you're now saying you made an "unfair comment." Is that an admission that the book does not, as you insisted earlier, have "stats for a buttery knife"? That your earlier statement was false?
Edit: Self-censoring. Play nice, Sean.
I will openly admit that my parenthetical aside was not properly vetted. I will openly admit that I should have chosen those words more carefully. But lets be perfectly honest here, the exact line in question saysActually, it doesn't. It shows Vic responding to his post, but not further response from him -- meaning there's no way to know if he ever saw Vic's reply.You're right. That was an assumption on my part.
Personally, I think I'd have more evidence than that before I essentially called someone a liar. But hey, don't let that stop you.I've seen the 1st and 2nd printing AA, and I know they don't have "stats for a buttery knife." So unless he has a unique printing that does, he is lying.
Sean, I don't have any desire to get into pissing match with you on this topic. My overall point is valid, hyperbole on my part not-withstanding."The adventurer's armory has stats for a buttery knife" is not hyperbole. There's nothing in your original statement to suggest or imply that you were exaggerating; your statement is written as if you believe it is a fact.
Am I saying Paizo never makes errors? No.
Am I saying errors didn't happen on my watch. No.
Am I saying that errors didn't happen in Adventurer's Armory? No.
But I am saying there is no such "stats for a buttery knife" error in AA, and you should not be allowed to make such a false statement as if it were true.It's one thing to say, "Many posters noticed the drastic drop in editing quality between the CRB and APG" (which is an opinion), and in the same sentence say "the adventure's armory that got stats for a buttery knife in two separate printings" (which is stated as if it were a fact, but it is not a fact, which you well know).
So... you're now saying you made an "unfair comment." Is that an admission that the book does not, as you insisted earlier, have "stats for a buttery knife"? That your earlier statement was false?
The buttery knife allows a procient user to open or close it as a free action and is otherwise treated as a dagger
which is a completely separate piece of text from the the butterfly knife,
A butterfly knife has a blade concealed between two halves of the handle that can be brought to bear quickly. If you are proficient with the butterfly knife(or have the Quick Draw feat) and are holding it in your hand, you may open it as a free action; a nonproficient user must spend a move action to open it. Otherwise, treat this weapon as a dagger.
So we could piss back and forth about whether or not that counts as stats or not but it isn't like I was just making s%#@ up off the top of my head.
edit: edited my quote of Sean to reflect his edit, no hard feelings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen the 1st and 2nd printing AA, and I know they don't have "stats for a buttery knife." So unless he has a unique printing that does, he is lying.
Or he was incorrectly remembering what he saw from the ToC as having been in the text. People do that sometimes. Generally, we call it a mistake, rather than a lie.
And really, there's still an error in the book, so irrespective of its particular nature, his point stands.
I will openly admit that my parenthetical aside was not properly vetted. I will openly admit that I should have chosen those words more carefully. But lets be perfectly honest here, the exact line in question says
Adventurer's Armory wrote:
The buttery knife allows a procient user to open or close it as a free action and is otherwise treated as a dagger
which is a completely separate piece of text from the the butterfly knife,
Adventurer's Armory wrote:
A butterfly knife has a blade concealed between two halves of the handle that can be brought to bear quickly. If you are proficient with the butterfly knife(or have the Quick Draw feat) and are holding it in your hand, you may open it as a free action; a nonproficient user must spend a move action to open it. Otherwise, treat this weapon as a dagger.
So we could piss back and forth about whether or not that counts as stats or not but it isn't like I was just making s&*% up off the top of my head.
Well, here is a composite image of three screenshots I took of Adventurer's Armory, 1st printing.
The top third of the image is the weapon table from the inside back cover (and it says "butterfly knife").
The middle third is the actual weapon's description from page 3 (and it says "butterfly knife").
The bottom third is the introduction to Chapter 1: Weapons, Armor, and Adventuring gear (and it says "buttery knife") on page 2, and it summarizes a bit of info included in the item's actual description.
So you're saying: there is a section of text that includes game stats for the knife, and in that section it says "buttery" instead of "butterfly", so even though that's part of the introduction for that chapter, it counts as "stats for a buttery knife." Which is splitting hairs, but technically is true.
(Although if you ask 100 players to show you where the "game stats for a butterfly knife" are in the book, 99 of them would point at the item's actual description on page 3 or its listing in the table on the inside back cover, not at the intro text to Chapter 1.)
(All of which ignores that this problem happened on the printer's end, not Paizo's end: the file Paizo sent out didn't have the "buttery" error in it, it was a ligature font issue with the printer's software. The file that went out to the printer looked correct.)
(Also, I love rehashing old issues that were answered and explained 4 years ago. Did you know that TSR tried to trademark "Nazi"? And that they were sued over the Elric and Lovecraft material in the 1st edition Deities & Demigods?)
I've also edited my previous post (I can't go farther back than that because of the 1-hour editing window) to give BigDTbone the benefit of the doubt about his recollection of this error and where it occurred in the book.