Director of Game Design
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bit of an unusual situation: My partner and I will be playing Doomsday Dawn as a two-person game, trading off GM duties by the section. We'll each be making and playing two characters for the scenarios.
Should we fill out both the player and the GM surveys for the sections we GM, to give feedback on the classes we try out for those characters? Or would that screw up the data somehow?
Whoever is serving as GM for a Part should fill out the GM survey. The player should only fill out the Player surveys, probably picking one of the characters for the character demographic questions and for questions referring to that characters efficacy. Filling out the survey twice for each character might be useful, but I am not sure the site will let you do it.
Hope that helps.
|
Is there any structured or planned way that Paizo will be addressing things that come up over the course of the play test? At what point will Paizo give people an idea of the kinds of changes that are in the works regarding issues that people bring up.
It would be helpful to have a better idea of what has been "heard" by Paizo and what is just an opinion by members of the community. It would help us move past known issues to things that still need testing. Are things like that going to addressed together (all Alchemist things, all Paladin things, etc.), all at once, or periodically?
Check out the Playtest FAQ.
Looks like the plan is to have regular discussions streamed on the Twitch channel and archived on YouTube.
|
Director of Game Design
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any structured or planned way that Paizo will be addressing things that come up over the course of the play test? At what point will Paizo give people an idea of the kinds of changes that are in the works regarding issues that people bring up.
It would be helpful to have a better idea of what has been "heard" by Paizo and what is just an opinion by members of the community. It would help us move past known issues to things that still need testing. Are things like that going to addressed together (all Alchemist things, all Paladin things, etc.), all at once, or periodically?
There are a number of plans in place to share with all of you the results of the playtest.
Some of that will happen hear on the boards.
More of it will happen on the blogs and through official updates.
Even more will happen through our twitch stream, after each part of the playtest is finished.
I am, in fact, working on the first blog right now.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even more will happen through our twitch stream, after each part of the playtest is finished.
A request: Could we get either
a) closed captioning on the streamor
b) a transcript somewhere of the episode
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These streams will be archived on our YouTube channel, and YouTube should automatically caption them.
That works!
Thanks
Bit of an unusual situation: My partner and I will be playing Doomsday Dawn as a two-person game, trading off GM duties by the section. We'll each be making and playing two characters for the scenarios.
Should we fill out both the player and the GM surveys for the sections we GM, to give feedback on the classes we try out for those characters? Or would that screw up the data somehow?
Whoever is serving as GM for a Part should fill out the GM survey. The player should only fill out the Player surveys, probably picking one of the characters for the character demographic questions and for questions referring to that characters efficacy. Filling out the survey twice for each character might be useful, but I am not sure the site will let you do it.
Hope that helps.
Thanks, Jason! I'll try to fill out the surveys for each character; if it doesn't let me do that, I may make a thread in the forums (as well as those for the characters I play in the parts I also GM).
Will there be updated versions of the playtest documents posted somewhere ? For exemple, if you find out that one particular element of the game needs reworking, will you modify the documents and make them public so we can playtest them ? Or will there be only one version of the playtest documents and we will need to wait the official release of PF2 to have the playtest books updated ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will there be updated versions of the playtest documents posted somewhere ? For exemple, if you find out that one particular element of the game needs reworking, will you modify the documents and make them public so we can playtest them ? Or will there be only one version of the playtest documents and we will need to wait the official release of PF2 to have the playtest books updated ?
According to the recent stream they're going to be releasing update documents. The first is coming on Monday. If you get that, they'll email you when a new version comes out. So they won't be updating the whole playtest book itself, but will be updating the rules in a separate document. GreyWolfLord did a nice recap of the top five changes coming on Monday, there are more, but these were considered the most critical.
there was actually a sixth one after the five official ones on stream--it came up during the QA section, though i forget the topic (sorry!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
there was actually a sixth one after the five official ones on stream--it came up during the QA section, though i forget the topic (sorry!)
That was the one about sorcerer's trained skills. The mention that you are trained in the signature skills from your bloodline is an error and being removed.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
• Discuss individual topics in the right place. When we go to look for feedback on something, we're going to look in the appropriate subforum. If your input is somewhere else, it might as well not be anywhere at all.• Corollary to the above: While it’s tempting to make a big general posting about all your thoughts on the playtest rules as a whole, that ensures that your input regarding, say, armor, isn’t going to be found where we’re looking for feedback on armor. It’s also hard for other posters to discuss many topics in one thread, so some of your feedback will be lost in the noise.
• Look for appropriate threads to add your feedback to. Seeing someone start the fifth thread on the same topic is mentally exhausting, and even the most diligent reader is likely to start skimming.
In regards to the above, for feedback on things like spells, feats, equipment, should those go in a single thread for each item? Like a thread for magic missile, another for magic mouth, etc.? If there's a recurring theme about how all polymorph spells work, I'd assume it's better to make a single thread about that, but for specifics on individual spells (magic items, feats, etc.), would separate threads be best?
Bless this post.
Because of the issues with the site I've had trouble being able to post anything up until last night. My first forum post was a bit lengthy but I did my best to summarize and break it down into digestible parts.
Funny enough that post is primarily about making the rulebook more digestible.
I hope this improves the discourse. Some of the threads I've read have been super over dramatic and lacking in constructive criticism.
Thanks for working on something I truly love.
Regards,
CC
Can someone point me to the updated erratta document?
Here you go!
Can someone point me to the updated erratta document?
Go to redownload the playtest docs and you can select just the errata to download - playtest downloads.
Hi Vic,
I know it's late but we took our time making sure we got the test right (and actually play it) before adding to the forums. Just a food for thoughts:
We have a hard time differentiating in the forums bugs than advices. I mean:
- Remarks on things that are clearly WRONG (e. g. inconsistent, unprecise or missing) in the rules with no debate.
- Remarks on things that someone would like to see changed for whatever (maybe good) reason and that could be debated.
My feeling is WRONG MUST be fixed first and fast, the rest can evolve other time. And we fear that Paizo's staff may be missing some good feedback on WRONG things if lost in the middle of advices for changes. Shouldn't we have a forum restricted to feedbacks on Erratas/FAQ needed to understand?
E. g.: on page 182, under the "deadly" trait, the rapier example should be "2d8" rather than "2d6". It's a no-brainer typo. I should be able to point that out in a specific errata thread.
Whether if someone would rather see the whole rapier item go to 1d12 damage for whatever reason, that's an advice that can be debated and should not pollute the errata thread.
IMH frenchy Opinion.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I might offer some feedback on the language used here, this reads an awful lot like, "If you say anything negative about the rules we worked so hard on, we aren't going to listen to you." I hope this is not what you are trying to say, but that is how it reads to me and it does not much encourage me to leave any feedback.
Speaking as someone who's made a number of critical comments about stuff in the PF2 playtest and still received good responses from folks at Paizo, it's more of a matter of tone.
'I don't like this' or 'This seems to have these unfortunate effects' or even 'This seems like a mistake' are all a lot more likely to get positive responses than more emotionally charged language like 'horrific' or accusations that the people at Paizo don't know what they're doing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
• Watch your language. I’m not talking just about foul language, but about language that will turn your readers off. If you tell us that something we did is “a horrific mistake,” we are less likely to listen to anything you have to say.If I might offer some feedback on the language used here, this reads an awful lot like, "If you say anything negative about the rules we worked so hard on, we aren't going to listen to you." I hope this is not what you are trying to say, but that is how it reads to me and it does not much encourage me to leave any feedback.
How I read it was more about comments being more emotional than logical critical.
Even when discussing the emotional feel of a mechanic you want to be emotionlessly critical of your own emotional responses.
The reason is because when you can't seperate yourself like that, your emotions skew your analysis such that aspects, traits, or effects that you might normally be fine with you can come to dislike or even hate simply because of them being associated with something else that is actually problematic.
Additionally, some people fail to truly understand the reasons why they don't like something or are unable to express such things very well. An example of this is when people complain about "unrealistic" things even though they're fine with wizards throwing fireballs because they know they don't like them but the best explaination even to themselves is "realism" even though they know literal realism is not the actual problem.
All of these issues are more likely to result in comments like "This mechanic sucks because it is horribly restrictive!" while more reasonable comments like "This mechanic makes me feel like I have to do things like a fighter instead of a classic wizard." This latter comment is more detailed, but more importantly, it implies a higher reliability as it wasn't a simple expression of feelings but a reasoned analysis, and even a stupidly reasoned analysis by an idiot is more reliable and useful than a genius getting emotional and insulting.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this is a matter of suppressing one's emotions, but in channeling one's emotions in a constructive way. If you were frustrated or disappointed by some specific bit of something, that is reasonable feedback which is based wholly on emotions and trying to pretend it isn't won't help anything.
So be disappointed when you post "I was disappointed with how [foo]" and be frustrated when explaining "I was frustrated by [bar]" but that does not give you license to wield negative emotions as weapons in order to try to make someone else feel something negative. Hyperbole reads badly here but honesty does not.
But fundamentally this is a game and we judge games in large part by "I had a good time playing it" so trying to be coldly logical doesn't help anything- just try to express your emotions in a constructive manner.
That is very close to what I said, though you can talk about your emotions without being emotional.
I most certainly did not suggest you ignore your emotions. I simply said you have to step back from yourself and logically examine how you were affected emotionally. You don't speak from your emotions, you speak about your emotions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to add my voice in thanking the Paizo staff for all their work in creating Pathfinder 2, and for their diligence in analyzing all the playtest data and personal opinions of the people playtesting it.
I do not agree with every aspect of the game in its current incarnation (Thieeeeeevery). But I still believe it was important to publish the playtest in this original form, no matter how liable to spark controversy some of the new rules/content might have been.
We, the player base, cannot really know if we will like or dislike something without first having the opportunity to see it – to try it out – and then offer feedback on it. You can't give an opinion on an idea that has not been voiced :) A Pathfinder 2 that changed very little might have been generally accepted, but why publish a new edition if it doesn't truly offer something new? By offering such a broad array of differences from Pathfinder 1, we get to consider and offer suggestions about ideas that might never have come up otherwise.
So for all the rules we like, and all the rules we don't, I want to thank Paizo for having created a system that engages all of us in a collaborative creative process, giving us the chance to shape the future of the game we love.
|
I have some feedback on something that likely wouldn't get a survey and isn't something appropriate/helpful/can'tthinkoftherightwordthatillustratestheissue to create a forum thread over. Is there a "send feedback message to devs" option/method?
Nope. Creating a thread is your best chance. Or answering one of the general questions on the survey.