Why all the nerfs Paizo?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 923 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chris Lambertz wrote:


- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

It's always nice to see the faces and people behind games and rules. I would like to think it would dissuade people from being so toxic and aggressive towards, but history alone says that isn't necessarily the case.

The one thing I would be worried about is forcing employees to have a forum presence, but only empowering them if they wanted to. Working in games (digital), I know some of my co-workers hate reading reception to our games because of how depressing it can be.

Not only this, but I don't think that being a good internet communicator is required to be a great designer. If an employee wants to post on the forums and be a regular, awesome! But I don't think it should be forced.

I think having some sort of 'Paizo Post tracker' could be nice for the forums. Something to be able to see any Paizo staff posting in a particular subforum. It's popular with games like League of Legends and World of Warcraft, so I don't see why it wouldn't be nice for a tabletop game.


(Think you meant *envision a few times, but I'm gonna try anyway)

1. Yes, actually. I'd definitely love to be able to meet the new staff, along with what they're working on. Not sure about the second question, beyond having them just post more often.

2. Well, I have to go up on the boards to find out that there even was a FAQ. So, saving up the FAQ's to do a few in a blog post, perhaps even up on the home page.

3. Well, our awareness of the proposed errata would be appreciated. Obviously, the small things like changing misspelled words or misplaced words isn't that big of a deal. For example, however, the changes that were being made to Slashing Grace would have been wonderful to know ahead of time, and discussed.

4. Ideally, the PRD would just have an addition to the page, noting when the change happened, what book it was in, and the original text, in case there are those who wish to use the previous rules.

5. I, personally wouldn't buy or use the versioned PDFs, but I can clearly see the need for others to want and/or have them. So, ultimately, I'd vote on this.

6. This is the most important question to me, as I do believe that the polls are a fantastic idea, or at least something similar. I envision them being used for the most controversial topics, those that are still being discussed now. Slashing Grace, Scarred Witch Doctor, Divine Protection, etc. Anything that will completely alter the way something works, I would love to have input on, even if it is clicking one "vote" button on the option I believe would work best.

Hopefully, this helped out, and provides some insight into the community's attitude.


HWalsh wrote:

There is no "if" in this case. Even the organized play ends normally at level 12. There are a handful of special modules past that point.

...

Sorry, I should have been more clear. My point wasn't to dispute that the game only works properly at levels 5-15, my point was that if that's intentional the other levels shouldn't be included in the core book. They should at least be marked as "optional levels" or something.

For what it's worth, I agree that Pathfinder has a set of levels that is the sweet spot (5-15 seems pretty good), I just don't think it's MEANT to. I think it's a flaw in the system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also it seems that a lot of what the devs can do in terms of community awareness is bottlenecked by Jason's limited free time. I wish we could see the FAQ process a bit more unchained. A lot of the FAQs could be handled very quickly if someone like Mark was given more power to implement FAQs.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Is that a good thing? No. But, at this point it's to be expected

I disagree on a fundamental level. ;)

Samy summed it up for me, though (sans victim blaming, which seems mostly out-of-place here).

Agree to disagree I suppose. From my point of view and past experiences the internet and the gamer community in particular have a tendency to be lacking in delicacy and tact. Expecting otherwise seems idealistic, and I've never been inclined in that regards. Enforcing otherwise is of course a different question and something to be dealt with by the mods and not us forum goers in some giant shaming circle for those who act in such a manner.

Anyways back on topic and for Mr. Lambertz

Polls are a great tool I think that they can be used well and do require the base three options, of Fixed, Bad fix but needed, and No fix required. I think it would also help to have a variety of other choices like whether or not a change is thematic or in line with the original intent and if the fix is still too powerful or not powerful enough kept separate from the original three questions.

I think it's also important that these questions be asked before the errata "goes live" as it were. Because once you push the idea out the door pulling it back and then refixing it just gets more and more confusing for the average player. So having a tentative errata section or errata playtest is very important in my opinion.

In addition I also agree with another poster that rewrites are not something I am a big fan of. I feel like to an extent if something doesn't break the game then you shouldn't full up change it if you can tweak it back in line. Now obviously there's things which step over this line (Divine Protection being one of them) which may need to be rebalanced and I think that's fine but those are the ideas which most need the polls. Whereas things which just need clarification because of writing errors and things where you somehow ended up with an ability that does nothing like prone shooter and totem barbarian can usually be dealt with by just playing with an idea maybe a quick playtest or just an opinion thread on if it seems cool and toss it out the door.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?)

Definitely. Not saying there needs to be a fanfare, but an easily visible introduction to new employees would be great.

I should not be staring blankly at a random post in the Campaign Settng forum or something and being like "Who even is this" at a new designer chiming in.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

Is there any way you can make blog posts more visible? Like a little sidebar specifically for blog posts or something just above the "Messageboards" sidebar that shows just blog posts. Since a lot of them are hard to find.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

Depends on what you mean by FAQs.

FAQs in the general "here's stuff we've clarified" sense? I think the way it works now is fine, the PDT alias posts it in the relevant thread, and Mark indicates it in his thread.

Though something like a newsletter you can sign up for that automatically sends out an e-mail when the FAQ page gets updated would be nice.

For "FAQrata"? Definitely a Blog post instead of an addition to the FAQ page. Something like Crane Wing's nerf shouldn't be presented as a clarification, which is what FAQs should be.

If we can see the reasoning for a change it makes it more understandable, even if we don't agree.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

I don't think Errata should be dumped wholesale like this, just out of the blue, here it is, it's done and you can't change it style. Likewise I don't think Errata should be limited to new print runs.

The way the ARG is handled is a good example. What was it, three years since release? With no indicator of errata on the horizon (and only a small number of FAQs, all of which from like 3-4 years ago), and suddenly there it is, with a bunch of weird nerfs and changes that were never before mentioned to be in the queue.

In a blog post you could post the original text, then explain why it needs to be changed. Put out some potential options, let them be hashed out (with dev input) and try to come to some sort of consensus. This would, hopefully, cut down on the issue where if something is nerfed, it's REALLY nerfed. Like almost everything that is ever nerfed becomes just another option nobody would ever take.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you envision errata being notated here?

Two options I can think of:

1.) Make little sidebars beside changed content, and put the new text there.

2.) Keep the "main" PRD up to date, and institute an "archived" PRD with all the old versions. Add something like "Note: this content has been errataed. See <Link>here</link> for the original text" underneath all errataed content that isn't jut fixing typos (ACTUAL typos, as in misspelled words and such, not unclear phrasing, which belongs in a FAQ anyway probably).

I prefer the latter.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Yes.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you envision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

Large, sweeping changes to how something works is a good example.

Divine Protection, the Scarred Witch Doctor, Crane Wing, etc. are unrecognizable from what they used to be. Some input on what, essentially, will be a brand new Feat or option with the same name would be welcome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To take these in order...

Chris Lambertz wrote:


- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

The first idea sounds all right, but it's not really what we're going for here. The key problem is that the rules team already has the tools they need, but are choosing, for whatever reason, not to use them. I'm not trying to pass judgement on their reasons for not doing so, but it's leading to the problem whereby there's a disconnect. This can't be solved by giving them more tools, but by them using the tools they have.

Quote:
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

I think it needs both, if not more, personally. Right now FAQs are extremely difficult to find if you don't know where to look. Stickied posts at the top of the Rules forum, individual Product Forums, and the General forum (could concievably be cross-linked somehow so they only need to be posted to once) plus a BIG link on the actual product pages might work.

Quote:
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

The first thing I'd do is stop calling a great deal of stuff like this "errata." Instead, reserve the word "errata" purely for editing issues. A +20 where a +2 was obviously intended, pure typos, that kind of thing. This would bring you in line with the English language. Errata might change rules-as-published, but would not consist of any changes of rules-as-intended. Errata, ideally, would happen very rarely as this kind of thing should be fairly easy to catch.

Now, how to handle the rest of these kinds of changes? First, let's instead call them (for want of a better term) "Updates." Updates reflect new ideas on how a particular rule should work from the rules team. They can be folded into the FAQ system (and announced in the same manner as above - an Update doesn't require a specific forum post to ask a question) but should be subjected to pretty restricted internal review. That would, hopefully, expedite serious changes like this to avoid problems like the massive retraining crisis PFS is undergoing.

Lastly, and I think this is important - there needs to be a moratorum on Updates between the end of Paizocon and the start of GenCon. If that means they don't make the new printing, they don't make the new printing.

Quote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

Display the updated rule as colored text (I'll suggest red, but I'm no web designer). When moused over, red text in rules shows a pop-up of the original text and a link to the Update post or relevant Errata document.

Quote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Probably.

Quote:
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

Updates on product over a certain age should probably require a poll. Obviously, a strong 'no' vote shouldn't be an automatic veto but it should give the rules team pause, which would hopefully make the point more clearly that the community finds certain types of updates . . .less than acceptable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:

I love it. Nerf everything. I love the whining and hate the powergamers. The onslaught of complaints shows that too many powergamers have no concept of actual roleplay.

I also find it interesting that a glance through the forum archives reveals the endless complaints that Paizo doesn't care about game balance.

Now low and behold - they care "too much" about balance.

What a world. What a world. Goldilocks can't find a bed to sleep in.

I couldn't agree more Brother Fen! Nerf-away! The main reason I like Pathfinder is because they work to maintain game balance. I reward players who don't power-game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
2. I want more Jason. This man is the lead designer and the arbiter for every scrap of content we see in the books. The fact that he interacts so little with the community is really saddening.

Have to agree, to an extent. Going over a lot of SKR and Mark's statements on the matter, it seems like Jason has the last word on rules, FAQ, and Errata. I kind of get the sense that it doesn't really matter what we say to Mark or whoever is interacting with the community, because Jason's the one who actually makes the final decisions. Some of SKR's comments after leaving Paizo really make it seem like he often agreed with the community's concerns, but was vetoed by Jason and then had the unenviable task of selling Jason's position to the playerbase.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
2. I want more Jason. This man is the lead designer and the arbiter for every scrap of content we see in the books. The fact that he interacts so little with the community is really saddening.
Have to agree, to an extent. Going over a lot of SKR and Mark's statements on the matter, it seems like Jason has the last word on rules, FAQ, and Errata. I kind of get the sense that it doesn't really matter what we say to Mark or whoever is interacting with the community, because Jason's the one who actually makes the final decisions. Some of SKR's comments after leaving Paizo really make it seem like he often agreed with the community's concerns, but was vetoed by Jason and then had the unenviable task of selling Jason's position to the playerbase.

Up until the ACG release Jason posted more frequently on the forums, but following its release we only see him during playtests.

Also I'm just a tad bit sore that he never had the conversation about the ACG errors that he promised to have after he got back from Gencon 2014.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
GameMaster Since 1st Ed wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:

I love it. Nerf everything. I love the whining and hate the powergamers. The onslaught of complaints shows that too many powergamers have no concept of actual roleplay.

I also find it interesting that a glance through the forum archives reveals the endless complaints that Paizo doesn't care about game balance.

Now low and behold - they care "too much" about balance.

What a world. What a world. Goldilocks can't find a bed to sleep in.

I couldn't agree more Brother Fen! Nerf-away! The main reason I like Pathfinder is because they work to maintain game balance. I reward players who don't power-game.

Oh there is that hostility people keep talking about!

If you don't like new Divine protection you're just bad at roleplaying! No way anyone could see that as hostile! It's so simple. Instead of being angry about trash feats and material. Just take them anyways and hope the GM rewards you for good behavior.

Well gee, maybe I should look at all the trash unfun options as a chance not to power game. It's so simple!


Malwing wrote:

I've been contemplating making a thread titled, "Do you like this game?", mostly because of the threads, starting from 3.0 days apparently, about the same problems. All this doomsaying is happening while the system as a whole has been thriving for over a decade rocked the entire RPG market twice and spawning so many clones, all while similar games that supposedly don't have these problems exist in a huge number. It makes it hard to know how to feel when the fans of the game say that the developers don't know what they're doing. Especially when I'm over here happily playing my games without the system self destructing every FAQ update. In the meantime the people that refuse to play Pathfinder have 'hostile online community' as their #2 reason to stay away from the game.

I'm not saying that I'm thrilled with the ACG situation, and I'll say that caster/martial disparity exists (although stopped existing in my games a while ago) but I have no where near the anger and disappointment I see on these boards or reason to start accusing the developers of having some sort of agenda against us. Yeah the ACG is a mess and now post-eratta my book is pretty useless but I do think they're trying the best they can but made a lot of mistakes in that book. I'd like to turn in my book for a discount on the second printing but its not a jump ship situation for me. I haven't noticed any real glitches in Occult Adventures so far so I feel like the ACG is a bad blip on the track record and nothing more.

And its not like I don't have the tools to jump ship if I wanted to. On my shelf is 5th edition, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Fate, Fudge, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th age and True 20. In the case of 5th edition I know for a fact that its fairly easy to play adventure paths using 5th ed. I'm playing a game where that is happening right now. But I've been preferring Pathfinder and playing Pathfinder and liking Pathfinder, and buying Pathfinder.

We also have a very vocal developer base that communicate with us on a daily...

Thread created HERE.

Hope you don't mind, Malwing, but I'd like to hear a bit on the topic.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

I don't think Paizo employees fail to make themselves visible at all, they fail to see everyone else. It often feels like Paizo staff don't listen when there are frequent threads on rules questions that go unanswered for years or when classes and abilities are pointed out as too weak then recieve errata that makes them even worse. The Occult Adventures book feels like a great example of playtesters being ignored with the Kineticist still falling behind the infamous expert with a bow.

Paizo staff obviously shouldn't ruin their creative visions and just bow to everyone on these forums but it feels like they don't listen or maybe actively spite people who point out major design flaws in certain aspects of pathfinder material. If you want to make yourselves look better you should address this kind of thing and focus on listening, not talking.


Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

That's honestly something that doesn't move the needle for me, but I know I'm the minority in that regard.

Quote:
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

I think a good way to do them might be to do a monthly/bi-monthy series of blog posts where you guys release and discuss the FAQs that were handled during that period. As it stands right now, we kind of learn about them whenever someone notices them.

Quote:
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

I think a blog post would be nice. I would want an explanation for any changes that aren't related to formatting or printing errors to be explained in a blog post. Basically just the changes for the sake of gameplay.

Quote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

I think red or bolded text might be a good way to do it. That or some kind of boxed text next to the rule. Noting the date that a rule was changed and showing the original text would probably also be good.

Also, FAQs should really be noted in the PRD, especially when the FAQs are being used to change a rule, as they were with Paragon Surge.

Quote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

That would be nice.

Quote:
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

I think a poll is good for yes or no answers on specific items or for specific feature of a class, but not for general class discussion. Something like "Does the kineticist do enough damage," or "Is the Warpriest sacred weapon class feature too restricting" would make a good poll. Something like "Talk about the Warpriest" would not be.


I think the more succinct the posts here are, the higher the likelihood of getting quality explanations from developers.

I could easily see the sheer wordage of this thread being too overwhelming for anyone to even know where to begin a dialogue.


Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

I'd Like to see an into blog post to know who's who. As far as making employees more visible, that really comes from their end. It'd be cool to have a 'talk to X' thread/blog that some of the less vocal people advertise a day that they are on and replying to posts. Even if it's only once every few months, it'd get their 'faces' out there.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

Doesn't really matter if it's a blog or thread, I'd be thrilled to see proposed FAQ's and errata talked about before it'd official. Even a week to give feedback would be good. That way, even if I don't like the outcome, I at least feel involved.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

Much like the FAQ part, I'd like a preview first. As to what to include. What's changing and why it's changing.

On a different note, waiting for new print runs to fix issues is an issue. Some things that are is desperate need of fixing languish. Same with setting books that require different people getting together. Maybe make a point of periodically picking one of these ignored books and looking over it for fixes.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

It'd be great to have a link to errata. Click on it and it takes to a page with all the revisions by date.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

I hadn't given this a thought before but yes I would. That would be great.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

I like to see them for thing that are known to be controversial. Is this change good? bad? Good but not enough. Good but too much. Something like that.


Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

* It would be nice, yes, to know who people are and hear a bit about them. I remember the old pages in the Dragon where we got to meet the people behind the scenes, was always interesting. Add in ways to bribe them as well. ;)

*Blog, stickied thread, giant bolded letters. Any way to let people know it exists.

*A blog post explaining why it was changed or altered would go a long way towards a look behind the scenes and what measure of balance, gameplay, or whatever are being taken into account.

*Bolded or another color, even a link to a secondary document.

*Yes

*I'm less interested in polls; it might give an idea of what some of the more active members of the community think, but that doesn't reflect some who are less frequent or reluctant to put themselves forth. Maybe if you made it anonymous that might make people a little more willing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Oh there is that hostility people keep talking about!

It would be great if people on both people on both sides were more pleasant. Not just one or the other.


I'd kinda like a thread like Ask James Jacobs, except instead of James, it's a Paizo rules developer. The James Jacobs thread is quite amazing. It explains not only Golarion setting, but also sometimes details on how things came to be, just like how Chris provided some insight on Paizo's internal process as an explanation of how the errata came to be.

But I don't recall such a thread existing, so I assume that such a thread is not possible, for whatever reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

I've said earlier on this thread and elsewhere that pre-errata PDFs would help immensely. A de-errata'd PRD would also be nice, but I understand that you might have less incentive to do it (since it would add server cost without directly bringing money in to Paizo, whereas PDFs that customers pay for is a more direct benefit to Paizo).

As it is, I can't "ignore errata I don't like". The errata document isn't sufficient to 'reverse engineer'. I can't just tell players to use the un-errata'd rules unless everyone in the group has access to them.

If you let me buy an un-errata'd PDF, I could share it with all my players. (An errata-free PRD would be even better, but, again, I don't know if that is in Paizo's best interest. I obviously don't have access to your internal data, though).


Man this is nothing if you want dishonest try the baby's ice cream commercial. I tried it and I was unable to eat my own head and that's really all I wanted :(

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Chris Lambertz wrote:
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

Yes, it does. I think it fosters a sense of community; the more distant the development staff seem in particular, the easier it is for frustrated people to lash out in a very negative way. I know not everyone in Paizo wants to engage, but in my experience it's an enormously positive experience when they do. For everyone not in Paizo, certainly, and hopefully also for them.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

I prefer the blog series, but what I'd prefer more is more FAQs that require less time from the Paizo staff to coordinate and post. So whatever you can do to increase the rate of FAQs going out and reduce red tape would be fantastic.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

The scheduling is the first thing I'd change. I understand that it makes the most sense in terms of Paizo's procedures for the erratas to be released as a giant blob of changes when the new printing of the book is completed, but I believe that serves the community very poorly and can significantly damage Paizo's relationship with its customers. I understand the rationale, but for those of us who aren't subject to the Official Paizo Policies and Procedures it is incredibly arbitrary and not helpful.

At this point, you have done a very good job of making the content the product, not the physical manifestation thereof. The requirements Paizo itself has set for its errata process continue to treat the physical thing as the product its players care most about and after the initial release, I don't think that's really true.

I say, post a thread and as the developers consider errata, post what they're looking at on the thread and see what the response is. Don't need to make it a formal playtest, but it would prevent changes from coming as a big shock all at once two or three years after release.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

Old text removed with strikethrough (for example, using the del element) and new text inserted with some other formatting, perhaps underline (standard formatting for ins element).

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Yes!

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

I personally don't think a poll would be useful. Well, maybe the first couple, but probably not after that. What I would really like to see is a single thread for each product where periodically, someone on the development team posts updates on whatever errata they're considering for the product, and listens to feedback on those changes.

By the by, thank you very much for soliciting this kind of feedback. And hopefully for reading and considering it!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
voideternal wrote:

I'd kinda like a thread like Ask James Jacobs, except instead of James, it's a Paizo rules developer. The James Jacobs thread is quite amazing. It explains not only Golarion setting, but also sometimes details on how things came to be, just like how Chris provided some insight on Paizo's internal process as an explanation of how the errata came to be.

But I don't recall such a thread existing, so I assume that such a thread is not possible, for whatever reason.

There's one for Jason Buhlman (the lead designer) but it's quite tellingly entitled "Ask Jason Buhlman all your non-Rules Questions here!".

Mark Seifter has an ask thread, and gives his opinions on the rules how he'd run them, but he can't give a concrete answer without Buhlman's say so.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

You obviously haven't paid attention to the 3PP offerings and support. Paizo doesn't make high-level stuff specifically because it doesn't sell as well as low-level stuff. Not because high-level is not meant to be played.

3PP isn't Paizo. What they did/do doesn't matter.

Nobody said its not meant to be played but it isn't supported. Not supported means not intended. A GM can run it, certainly, but its not ideal.

You notice Paizo's not done an AP for level 20-30 yet.

Thus is hilarious since you were the one talking about how "Paizo is great and no one else is as super as them"

And when people decide to mention other companies who do a better job of interacting and listening to the community, such as Dreamscarred Press, you start going "Nuh-uh, those don't count"

Sorry to tell you this, but Dreamscarred is the better company, whose devs have actively engaged the playerbase, always run discussions with the community, and have actually shown to listen to them and test/change things. Plus even when they mess up, they will change it after getting enough feedback, and continuously seek to improve their products.

Plus, they actually understand the bloody system their working with and try to ensure decent class balance, and try to ensure that each character concept is viable without overshadowing other classes too horribly.

Meanwhile Paizo just ignores feedback, like all the feedback from the ACG and OA playtests, and instead publish subpar products then release erratas that usually make things worse


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
graystone wrote:
And as others have said, I'd love to see some kind of poll put out for some of the more controversial changes. It would give a tangible view of how many people are for/against it before something radical gets done.
Given that the forum goers are a tiny, and hardly representative, fraction of the playerbase, that wouldn't be in the slightest indicative of anything.

Yeah - I'm very grateful for those who like analysing systems doing their bit to help make the game better. I really hope Paizo find a way to incorporate some of that feedback and a way to communicate why they've gone a different direction.

However, polling such a tightly focussed, self-selecting group is not something I could see as being useful.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here are my thoughts on changes and considerations that could be done.

Paizo needs to decide how open and transparent to the players they want to be and then put in place practices and work habits to make that possible. If they don't want to be transparent at all, then they need to make that clear so we (the players and audience) know what to expect. If they want to be very transparent then there needs to be more done to let us know what is happening with the content announced and released.

When I was first introduced to Paizo the blog was a completely different beast and I loved checking it every day to see what was there. There were discussions on how the rules worked, insights into game design, photos of random office stuff, and work blogs from the staff. It was fun, and I loved how it gave me an insight into what it was like to work on Pathfinder. Now, we have PFS blogs that are helpful but pretty narrow and sneak peak blogs at what is coming up but not much else. It isn't as fun and frankly I only mine the blogs for art these days. Now that we have lose the short stories I am not sure I have much of a reason to read anything there.

Looking long and hard at the blogs and figuring out a schedule, and then sticking to that schedule, would go a long way to becoming more transparent. Have everyone at Paizo do an introduction blog, new or old employees alike. Have a weekly development blog and a weekly design blog. I would love to know what is going on with both sides. I would love to know if the team is looking at something like the scarred witch doctor for future errata (especially because stuff that I wrote for 3PP has been invalidated by the errata and now I'm at odds with how to fix these things.) I also would love to see behind the scenes of creating adventures and further developing the world. I certainly wouldn't mind more stories from the cubicles like the ones we got years ago about office pets tormenting the staff.

I really appreciate that there have been changes and efforts made to clear up the rules, tackle the FAQ topics that have been in need of attention, and be more involved in with the community. Clearly that hasn't been enough. If there is going to be large sweeping errata like we just got it would be better to let people down easy. Talk about it in the blog, be open to discuss it in the forums, and be ready to justify any changes that are going to be made.

Because we just got big changes to things that people were using, or stuff that has an effect on 3PP material, having different versions of the PDFs would be pretty helpful. Being able to say, "This thing uses the rules found in the first printing of book X," would really help avoid invalidating stuff. Also, having a notation in the PRD that something had errata would be good. I don't know how that would be done, but being able to see what the rule was before could help. I know that d20PFSRD does something related to errata, but I don' want to rely on that site.

It should also be decided and declared just how much Paizo is going to listen to players and what will be done with feedback. If you are going to do a playtest, it should be clear that people are being listened to. If you are going to make a change and don't care what the audience thinks about it, at least let us know. I am not suggesting that Paizo doesn't care about the audience of their products, just that they need to let us know that they do.

I have more but I am out of time. Maybe I can come back and post it later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voideternal wrote:

I'd kinda like a thread like Ask James Jacobs, except instead of James, it's a Paizo rules developer. The James Jacobs thread is quite amazing. It explains not only Golarion setting, but also sometimes details on how things came to be, just like how Chris provided some insight on Paizo's internal process as an explanation of how the errata came to be.

But I don't recall such a thread existing, so I assume that such a thread is not possible, for whatever reason.

An "Ask the PDT all your questions here" thread would be great but probably unworkable. I suspect it would just get swamped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I think spoilers, or "collapsable" text, would be great for including the old versions on the PRD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Polling the boards could be very useful, but only if Paizo uses the polls as guidelines, not concrete word-for-word changes.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would have jumped at the chance to give quite a bit of feedback on the most recent errata document, myself included.

Having a poll about whatever they're planning to change could give them a reason to explain themselves.
If 99% of the poll here, even considering the types of players that would vote, aren't on board with a proposed change, then Paizo kinda has to explain themselves.
Gives them a little bit of public focus, so that they can't just spring these drastic changes on us suddenly.

They don't even have to listen to us every time, but if they did start doing polls on this kind of thing, at least we can say we feel like we made a difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

Wait wait wait! Did you just say I could have ANY kind of unicorn I wanted? Like any kind at all...?

More seriously, it would be cool to have a list of paizo staff who are on the messageboards, and there bios. Nothing fancy, but just a little info about who they are and what they do. It might also be a good idea for staff to use "official" and "unofficial" aliases so we could tell when they are representing Paizo, or just hanging out. Any time I can find out about their gaming philosophy, their own games, and any kind of professional insight, I LOVE THAT! Note that some of the most interesting insights are when developers talk about mistakes or rules they have issues with, and that kind of thing.

Perhaps it is time to have a specific "Rules Blog" where FAQs, Errata, clarifications, etc. can be hashed out in a contained space. This might also be good for playtesting, and polls as well. Most of this stuff is really only of vital interest to a fraction of the community, so lets not clutter up the whole place with threads about this stuff. I think it is also important to be aware of what is correcting a misprint, what is a clarification, and what is a true rule change.

Once a rule has been changed, updated or whatever, I feel like that needs to be the end of it. All this stuff is confusing enough without everything needed a version number. I want to play Pathfinder, not Version 3.65.4785blah.blah.blah.

Polls are good, especially if they ask general questions, rather then specific rule changes. However, spending Paizo company time herding the messageboard cats has serious diminishing returns. I don't really want the rules to be decided by committee, and I don't think pleasing the loudest members of the messageboards is going to result in a better game overall. I think it is great for everyone to have their say, but when it comes to printing the book, I'm happy to let the professionals make the final call. With that said, the designers need the time and resources to make the right call. The financial guys might not agree, but quality MUST come before meeting a deadline, and if a developer or designer has too many balls in the air, something is going to get dropped.

Anyway, thanks for making the best out of this Chris, and please prepare my unicorn medium rare, with a honey glaze and a side of apple jelly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, first and foremost, thank you for being open to the feedback and trying to address it constructively. Truly appreciated, Chris.

Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

So, I'm not sure if all of the development/design staff does this, but I know that at least one or two (that sneaky Mark comes to mind!) post with both their official employee identity and their unofficial and/or pre-Paizo employment forum names. I even get why they'd do it if they're posting opinions on rules that aren't official rulings, etc. That said, I'd like to see more visibility from these teams in places other than the playtest and off-topic forums.

Quote:

- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

Blog post previews of FAQ/errata content would be greatly appreciated. Let the community give some input before these things are finalized. I'm in the software industry and appreciate the importance of thought leadership and prioritization of changes, but it seems like there's a significant disjunct between the dev/design intent and the community desires that could be addressed before release.

Quote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

Just tacking on a note of "Revised in second printing" or similar, but utilizing the most up-to-date version for the PRD seems reasonable.

Quote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Personally, no. I can see the appeal for others, though. If these were added, I would like to see them in a separate section of the assets page.

Quote:
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

Polls are tricky. The way they're built into most forums is inadequate for the information you're attempting to gather. If you are considering polls, ensure the prompts and answer options are clear and meaningful. Example, using one of the current issues from the ACG errata that particularly rubbed me the wrong way:

Poll Format Suggestion:
Battle Cry has been identified by the PDT as out of line with our expectations of a feat that can be taken at 5th level. Below is the proposed erratum to the feat, noted in bold:

Quote:

Battle Cry (Combat)

Your shout heartens your allies and encourages them in the fight.

Prerequisites: Cha 13; base attack bonus +5 or Perform (act, oratory, or sing) 5 ranks.
Benefit: A number of times per day equal to your Charisma bonus, you can let out a battle cry as a swift action. When you do, allies within 30 feet who can hear you gain a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear. This effect lasts for 1 minute.
If an ally is under the effect of this feat and fails a saving throw against a fear effect, she can choose to end the battle cry's effect on her to reroll the failed save. The ally must take the result of the reroll, even if it's lower. Each ally can use this effect only once per use of this feat.

Please indicate your reaction to this proposed erratum.

  • The erratum is reasonable and balanaced.
  • The erratum will cause players to avoid this feat due to its situational nature, but is otherwise reasonable for a 5th level feat.
  • The original feat benefit is reasonable with more stringent prerequisites.
  • The original feat is reasonable and balanced without modification.

What you gain from this is much more insightful than the riotous arglebargle that's been coming out since the errata document was silently published. Yes, it will slow the process down. After the length of this thread and the others like it, I'm sure you'll appreciate the notion that getting it right is better than getting it fast, particularly when you generate community buy-in with the process. While some of the changes may have been teased or discussed in the ACG errors thread, that lacked the visibility of its own dedicated thread. Additionally, not every erratum requires a poll (Ecclesitheurge, for instance) and most of these polls probably don't require discussion.

Again, thank you for inviting dialogue, Chris.


Oh, yeah. I remember hearing that the ACG was rushed, so as to meet the GenCon deadline.

If that's true (not really sure), then that's a problem.
I personally believe that quality should beat out the deadlines, and if we don't have a new book at GenCon in favor of a quality work later on in the year, I'd be fine with that.

Now, I must admit, I don't go to GenCon, so that's my view.
Perhaps those who do go feel differently.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

I like the blog introductions we've seen before. I'd like them to be part of the induction process, rather than ad-hoc.

Chris Lambertz wrote:

- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

In my case, none of it counts until the book is reprinted - so the big lump of errata all-at-once when a book sells out is no problem to me. However, it also wouldnt bother me if they were trickled out prior to the book's reprinting - I just wouldnt notice until the new printing was released.

I think that up until now the approach has suited people like me (who use the book and never use any electronic resources). However, I don't think it would matter to us if it were changed - hence it'd be worth directing it to those players who heavily use the PRD and PDFs.

Chris Lambertz wrote:

- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

As per the above - I don't really care (although I'm a traditionalist, so I prefer white unicorns).

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

I'm definitely against the use of polls. I don't think it will help improve quality and whenever the decision goes against the "winner" it will just be cited as further evidence that "Paizo never listens".

It's kind of a quibble, but I'd be a bigger fan of surveys - like a banner across the top of the site and an email to customers with appropriate settings: "For the next month, log on and answer ten questions". It might be useful to get a community feel for "What are current rules which have problems", "What are current situations which have no rules" and so forth.


bigrig107 wrote:
They don't even have to listen to us every time, but if they did start doing polls on this kind of thing, at least we can say we feel like we made a difference.

That would be a good outcome. However, do you think that's likely to happen? If they poll you and then act with the minority will you feel like you've made a difference?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, at least I made my voice heard, instead of being blind-sighted with this 9-page document fixing a rushed book.

Maybe a discussion of the poll, much like what we have for the product pages? Allows a vote, and getting actual words out.

It's not a perfect solution, not sure what is, but it's a step in the right direction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a regular "What the PDT did this week/fortnight/month" blog might be useful - and could be a convenient, structured but informal place to ask what the community thinks about mooted changes.


bigrig107 wrote:

Well, at least I made my voice heard, instead of being blind-sighted with this 9-page document fixing a rushed book.

Maybe a discussion of the poll, much like what we have for the product pages? Allows a vote, and getting actual words out.

It's not a perfect solution, not sure what is, but it's a step in the right direction.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be proven incorrect.

If it were possible to run a poll and for the Design Team to use that in making their decisions it could only help in broadening their perspective and providing useful data. My impression though is that it would do as much harm as good (people being asked and feeling they've been ignored seems more likely to upset people than not being asked at all).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A blog that explains why major errata changes were done would be nice.

I think that's the only thing I'd really want. More communications and justification.

Because there are a lot of weird changes in both of these erratas.

Outright weird stuff like "Who ever complained about Vanara climb speed?"

To stuff that's maybe more sensible, but still raises questions. Like Scarred Witch Doctor. The archetype had issues, but the change A) strips away unique playstyle paradigms with the archetype and B) makes the archetype really questionably useful for the race it's supposedly an archetype for... while making it potentially even better for a second race who just so happens to be able to snag the archetype too.

Both of those seem fundamentally bad to me, so a why would be really helpful.

AMAs are cool, "Meet the Team" could be nice... but what I really want are nuts and bolts of what's changed and why and what the vision for the future is.


Squiggit wrote:
AMAs are cool, "Meet the Team" could be nice...
Jason BuhlmannCo wrote:

Some players think they can out-theorycraft me. Maybe.

*Sniff*

Maybe.

I have yet to meet player who can out-theorycraft d20.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
AMAs are cool, "Meet the Team" could be nice...
Jason BuhlmannCo wrote:

Some players think they can out-theorycraft me. Maybe.

*Sniff*

Maybe.

I have yet to meet player who can out-theorycraft d20.

Too rude to instead imply that recent decisions make him look more like the Soldier's MtT video?


Steve Geddes wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:

Well, at least I made my voice heard, instead of being blind-sighted with this 9-page document fixing a rushed book.

Maybe a discussion of the poll, much like what we have for the product pages? Allows a vote, and getting actual words out.

It's not a perfect solution, not sure what is, but it's a step in the right direction.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be proven incorrect.

If it were possible to run a poll and for the Design Team to use that in making their decisions it could only help in broadening their perspective and providing useful data. My impression though is that it would do as much harm as good (people being asked and feeling they've been ignored seems more likely to upset people than not being asked at all).

People think they are being ignored NOW. It's hard to imagine polls would make that worse.


No, I'm pretty sure the forum mods are the Soldier.

Chris Mannbertz wrote:

And then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one.

And from that day forward any time a bunch of spammers are together in one place it's called a Monty Python sketch!

...

...

UNLESS IT'S A CANNED MEAT FACTORY.

Spoiler:
Thought I was going somewhere else with that, didn't you? ;P

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also it seems that a lot of what the devs can do in terms of community awareness is bottlenecked by Jason's limited free time. I wish we could see the FAQ process a bit more unchained. A lot of the FAQs could be handled very quickly if someone like Mark was given more power to implement FAQs.

Honestly? They should just hand the entire company to Mark. Can we get a poll for that, see how many people would welcome that never-going-to-happen change? I have my own speculations about the demographics on that.

Pathfinder started out with the noble goal of acting as a "patch" for 3.5, and it did pretty well at that for a while.

Now it's well in its way to trying to be its own thing. It released an unchained Summoner that cut back on casting and the Eidolon, the things that people actively care about, while ignoring the power of its native Summon Monster SLA, the thing that makes it so powerful. They nerfed the stuff that's fun because they felt the class was too strong without actually making the class weaker. They attacked a popular Witch archetype for the sin of using Constitution to cast, because not dying easily was considered too powerful on a class loaded with tools to avoid engaging in melee, and in trade made it a stronger caster than ever before, the real source of power in the game.

A class was just released, centered around blasting and doing damage, that is reliably outdamaged by an Expert with a bow.

In the same book, a better, stronger version of the Wizard was released.

There is a fundamental disconnect here. There's a design philosophy that doesn't go to a good place. Let's be honest here, everyone defending Paizo, defending Jason, arguing that this is about balance:

Which of y'all found, in your home games, that there was a real and present threat to the fun of your experience due to the Vanara climb speed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:

Well, at least I made my voice heard, instead of being blind-sighted with this 9-page document fixing a rushed book.

Maybe a discussion of the poll, much like what we have for the product pages? Allows a vote, and getting actual words out.

It's not a perfect solution, not sure what is, but it's a step in the right direction.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be proven incorrect.

If it were possible to run a poll and for the Design Team to use that in making their decisions it could only help in broadening their perspective and providing useful data. My impression though is that it would do as much harm as good (people being asked and feeling they've been ignored seems more likely to upset people than not being asked at all).

People think they are being ignored NOW. It's hard to imagine polls would make that worse.

I don't find it hard to imagine, personally. Not everyone feels Paizo ignore their fan base. If we were polled and the designers went contrary to the majority vote - wouldn't it bolster the claims of those who feel the community is being ignored?

I think the existence of a poll itself isnt going to help. The only way to fix the perception of those who currently feel ignored is either better communication as to why the PDT went the other way or a shift in design direction. Neither of those things requires a poll, but a poll without either of those things gives the potential for the perception to get worse, in my opinion.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Last thing I want is for the rules to be determined by a vocal minority.


Steve Geddes wrote:


I think the existence of a poll itself isnt going to help. The only way to fix the perception of those who currently feel ignored is either better communication as to why the PDT went the other way or a shift in design direction. Neither of those things requires a poll, but a poll without either of those things gives the potential for the perception to get worse, in my opinion.

Agreed. A poll is best used as a tool for the PDT for finding out where their time spent on communication is best directed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

More visibility of new hires to the design team would be helpful, but what would REALLY be helpful is if the existing design team was more visible as a matter of procedure. Basically introductions are nice, but are a bit like these guys taking requests. It isn't the true pressing issue in the scenario.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

I think the current method of posting in the relevant thread is good. I think adding a sticky thread (perhaps even a LOCKED sticky thread) to the rules forum where new FAQs are posted would be helpful.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

I understand you are working from a community manager standpoint, and that the nuts and bolts of the errata process are outside your purview; however, transparency throughout the process of errata would be incredibly helpful. Particularly allowing for feedback from the community about the nature and scope of the proposed errata.

EDIT: Let PFS guys make their own rules FAQ/Errata that works for the campaign. If they think an option is not worded well, or broken, or whatever give them the option to fix it instead of just ban it. I feel like SO MANY FAQ/errata are based on PFS issues, either have the PFS and design teams merge and design the game together OR awknowldege that they are different and no one is stepping on toes if the PFS team wholesale rewrites an option or issues their own FAQ for something. If something is a problem for PFS and not the community writ large, let PFS handle it on their own; LIKE EVERY OTHER CAMPAIGN DOES.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you envision errata being notated here?

I think both TOZ and Anzyr had good suggestions here so I will simply state that either of their examples would be very useful.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Yes

Chris Lambertz wrote:
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you envision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

I dont know that polls would be particularly useful in any regard. It seems as though polls really only work to reinforce the views and opinions of the poll creator which seems rather unuseful.

Instead I would REALLY like to see ALL FOUR of the design team members actively engaged with the community about what is on their plates, what they are working on at any given time, what do we want to see from a *widget* like that, what FAQs are being discussed, what errata are being discussed, what do we think about the direction they are taking an FAQ/errata.

Essentially, I would like to see a culture of transparency and communication from the design team and NOT just a task in the form of a poll that misses the point and will go ignored/underused just so it can be checked off of a to-do list.

If this isn't possible, it would be great if Jason could let go of some of the "final-say" authority and give the rest of the design team enough breathing room to use their best judgement in making "official" rules decisions without his approval. You have presumably four of the top 20 designers in the world designing the game. Why not trust them to make good decisions, and empower them to solve problems? Why maintain the most extreme version of ivory tower game design possible? One man, one voice, one set of rules. That concept just doesn't work in a 2015 market place. Not with the release schedule you guys are working with. Let other people on staff make official calls, and in particular empower those staffers who would work with the community to fix problems the leeway to do so. Basically, their SHOULD NEVER be any reason for a design team member to say, "well, I had the time and desire to solve a problem today. I talked it over with the community and we made some really great progress and I think I know exactly how to implement a fix that will make everyone happy. Unfortunately, even though I'm a game designer I cant make that call. The only person who can make that call is too busy to sit down and talk to me. And they dont trust me enough to just do it. So, that problem I had the time and desire to fix will remain broken, and I will fall asleep tonight to the sound of my own tears hitting the inside of the plastic bag I try to suffocate myself with." Seriously, let Mark do stuff on his own. That is the major take away.

Also, thank you Chris for opening up this dialog. I am pleased to see Paizo staff taking an active role in engaging the community to solve problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Last thing I want is for the rules to be determined by a vocal minority.

I personally believe the rules of anything should always be determined by a minority that is well versed in them. I'd rather have experts making rules then lay people. Allowing a majority to decide the rules of anything is nothing but mob rule.

351 to 400 of 923 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the nerfs Paizo? All Messageboards