Better Editing

Blazej wrote:

In the optimal world I would suggest that the answer for this should be yes, but given the size of a book like Ultimate Magic, I would say that the amount of additional time required would end up being incredible to meet that goal. I suspect it would lead to the product having a much larger price point that the books have currently. If they could be doing something more efficiently at a similar cost, I would expect them to be doing that way.

I would not say it would affect the price, but it would affect the production time if they had to have a group meeting for every singlr thing that went into the book.

I disagree. While it doesn't have an immediate cost increase like requiring more money for a larger book and it wouldn't mean that they would need to pay their employee's more per year, I believe that it would mean that in order to pay for the employee they will have to charge more for the book based upon the additional time and effort required for it. That people buying the book would need to pay for the 400 hours of Paizo work rather than just 200 hours of work (numbers are made up and have no basis in reality).

I'm not sure how they would manage to do additional work to produce the book without requiring them to increase the cost of the books.

Shouldn't everyone working on the books understand the rules and be able to properly explain any new rules they are adding to the system?

And they Do.

You going off here, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the rules by the Paizo RPG designers or Contributors, it is the unclear writing they sometimes use with there additions to the books.

Edit: Let me add...Most of the time..

DGRM44 wrote:

Shouldn't everyone working on the books understand the rules and be able to properly explain any new rules they are adding to the system?

And they Do.

You going off here, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the rules by the Paizo RPG designers or Contributors, it is the unclear writing they sometimes use with there additions to the books.

Edit: Let me add...Most of the time..

That's not a very good thing to say, if I'm perfectly honest. It comes off sounding like this.

It's not Paizo's fault that <mechanic> was poorly written, they didn't have a lot to work with from the contributor, and didn't have time to really understand it and rewrite it. And they didn't have time to do a good job editing it.

Note that I'm not saying that is what happened, I am saying that is what your post sounds like, which is actually quite a bit more insulting in a backhanded way than most of the things I've seen posted on this and other threads where someone was upset about something in UM, APG, CRB, etc. If that were the case, what you've posted, I would really be ticked off at the devs and cancel my subscription, because it would mean they were putting anything they could get their hands on in the book to get it filled and published to get my money, and doing the minimum amount of editing required to get it out the door.

That's not a very good thing to say, if I'm perfectly honest. It comes off sounding like this.

It's not Paizo's fault that <mechanic> was poorly written, they didn't have a lot to work with from the contributor, and didn't have time to really understand it and rewrite it. And they didn't have time to do a good job editing it.

Note that I'm not saying that is what happened, I am saying that is what your post sounds like, which is actually quite a bit more insulting in a backhanded way than most of the things I've seen posted on this and other threads where someone was upset about something in UM, APG, CRB, etc. If that were the case, what you've posted, I would really be ticked off at the devs and cancel my subscription, because it would mean they were putting anything they could get their hands on in the book to get it filled and published to get my money, and doing the minimum amount of editing required to get it out the door.

Almost Every FAQ issue is due to Unclear writing, so I am sticking to what I am saying.

Um...Shouldn't the designers and developers agree upon how a rule should work before publishing the rule?

I can read a rule and understand how it works. Jason or Stephen can do the same. We talk to each other after our readthroughs to clear up any questions we have. But that still means it's possible for me to read the rule and interpret the answer as "π," and for Jason and Stephen to read the rule and interpret the answer as "22/7." All three of us are right, it's just in some corner cases where the slight differences in our rightness is an issue. Or, to look at it differently, it's possible for all three of us to agree that it's "22/7," and when the book is published have a player point out that using π instead of 22/7 affects things elsewhere in the game.

More importantly, sometimes we disagree on whether or not a rule is "clear enough." In most cases, it's impossible to make a rule clear enough that EVERYONE who reads it is going to exactly understand all permutations of how it works... and trying to get close to that 100% comprehension would mean many feats and spells would be a page long. So sometimes we discuss something, agree that it's not clear enough as written, and add a sentence or two to clarify it... which may put us at 99.9% clarity, but there's still that .1% of the readers that aren't going to get exactly what we mean, or are going to think of some weird combo we never thought to address (like a four-armed magus using spell combat, a 2H weapon, and a buckler). Just remember that for every rule that you think is perfectly clear, there's a Sage Advice question from a player to Dragon Magazine about that rule (for example, one person actually asked "Do I have to take Power Attack before I can take Cleave?").

Do I think that most of the rules are clear enough for a typical player? Yes. Do I think that many of them are too wordy and could be written in a more clear and concise manner? Yes. Do I think that confusion about an unclear rule means you're stupid? No. There are unclear rules in the books. High up on the list are the Spellcraft/crafting issue, the animal companion Intelligence issue, and the HIPS/Stealth issue. The reason why those issues were/are part of the design blog was so we could work out a ruling and get the Core Rulebook changed to include that ruling in a clear way. And for those things, Jason, Stephen, and I want to sit down for an hour to discuss each of them so we work it all out. Jason could have just posted a two-sentence response to each of those topics just to be done with it, but it deserves more thought than that and he knows it, so we're going to give it the time it deserves--and now that the Beginner Box is just about out the door, we can take that hour-per-topic to deal with this important issue. Yes, it sucks that these issues haven't yet been answered... but I'd rather they be reasoned out and answered in a correct and fair way, than giving a half-assed answer that may later have significant conflicts with other rules.

I'm trying very hard not to read the above as "For a $40 book, you shouldn't expect good quality control."

I bought a $40 hard drive from Newegg a couple of months ago. It has a 3 year warranty, and I can reasonably expect it to work for three times that long, given my past experience with products from this company. It's got uncountable man-hours of design/development/engineering time invested in it, and has to meet manufacturing specifications and tolerances that were only available to NASA twenty years ago. Yet, if I applied the above standard (if you want quality, you'd have to have a much larger price point) to my expectations, it would probably have started a fire inside my PC and burned my house to the ground.

As a customer, you and I have the right to expect and demand a quality product for the money we spend. It is only because we allow companies to sell inferior product to us and we keep coming back for more that the company feels they are meeting an acceptable standard.

[sitting at my desk looking suspiciously at my copy of Ultimate Magic, hoping that it...

I'm not saying, "For a $40 book, you shouldn't expect good quality control." any more than you are saying that "Ultimate Magic is a pile of crap."

I'm was saying that you can't just double the amount of work you do on a project and expect the costs to be the same.

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

I'm trying very hard not to read the above as "For a $40 book, you shouldn't expect good quality control."

I bought a $40 hard drive from Newegg a couple of months ago. It has a 3 year warranty, and I can reasonably expect it to work for three times that long, given my past experience with products from this company. It's got uncountable man-hours of design/development/engineering time invested in it, and has to meet manufacturing specifications and tolerances that were only available to NASA twenty years ago. Yet, if I applied the above standard (if you want quality, you'd have to have a much larger price point) to my expectations, it would probably have started a fire inside my PC and burned my house to the ground.

As a customer, you and I have the right to expect and demand a quality product for the money we spend. It is only because we allow companies to sell inferior product to us and we keep coming back for more that the company feels they are meeting an acceptable standard.

[sitting at my desk looking suspiciously at my copy of Ultimate Magic, hoping that it...

I'm not saying, "For a $40 book, you shouldn't expect good quality control." any more than you are saying that "Ultimate Magic is a pile of crap."

I'm was saying that you can't just double the amount of work you do on a project and expect the costs to be the same.

Hmm. My logic center just went kerblooie. Because I am indeed saying that "Ultimate Magic is a pile of crap." From my perspective, given the total un-usability of the "Wordcasting", the brokenness that is Antagonize feat, the fecalness of Vow of Poverty, the lack of basic editing to ensure that spells in the spell section actually include Component lines, the game-breaking badness of "Terrible Remorse", (hey, both Antagonize and Terrible Remorse are 100% Pathfinder Society legal. There are already reports of players using them and how it ruins combat.) yes, the book practically steams on my bookshelf. If I had bought it anywhere other than my FLGS, I'd have returned it for a refund. Since most LGS do not have any way to recoup losses from returns (other than to put the book on the used shelf and sell it for half-price), I elected to eat the cost rather than hurt my favorite retailer. I and other patrons have discussed our issues with the book with him, and I'm pretty certain it will affect his future orders of Paizo material. So possibly the karma will sort itself out.

So does this mean that you are indeed saying "For a $40 book, you shouldn't expect good quality control"?

Yes, it sucks that these issues haven't yet been answered... but I'd rather they be reasoned out and answered in a correct and fair way, than giving a half-assed answer that may later have significant conflicts with other rules.

This is an excellent point, and I'm very happy that is Paizo's position on this matter :)

I know of a rules developer for another game (a TCG, but not WotC) who frequently made decisions on the fly, and quite a lot of the time those decisions backfired horribly once the consequences of the change became clear. Taking the proper time to avoid that sort of thing is a very good thing in my book.

Sean, The good news is that we love the game system and we care about it being right just like you. But lets not delay important fixes/rulings for too long....fair enough?

Hmm. My logic center just went kerblooie. Because I am indeed saying that "Ultimate Magic is a pile of crap." From my perspective, given the total un-usability of the "Wordcasting", the brokenness that is Antagonize feat, the fecalness of Vow of Poverty, the lack of basic editing to ensure that spells in the spell section actually include Component lines, the game-breaking badness of "Terrible Remorse", (hey, both Antagonize and Terrible Remorse are 100% Pathfinder Society legal.

Actually, it would seem you and I have different opinions on the quality of Ultimate Magic. I believe that calling it a "pile of crap" is a ridiculous overstatement. One that doesn't fit with my experience and reading of the book. Given that disparity in our opinions, it seems that all I can really say to you now is I'm sorry you don't like the book.

Actually, it would seem you and I have different opinions on the quality of Ultimate Magic. I believe that calling it a "pile of crap" is a ridiculous overstatement. One that doesn't fit with my experience and reading of the book. Given that disparity in our opinions, it seems that all I can really say to you now is I'm sorry you don't like the book.

In this we are in agreement. Though I might phrase it slightly differently - I am sorry that the book is so unlikeable.

Edit: For the record (not that it matters), the term "crap" was your term, which I simply decided to go with, rather than any number of synonyms. I might have gone for something with a kinder tone, but speaking plainly should be a good thing rather than a bad thing. All too often we wrap pretty or kind words around our thoughts when we all know we are talking about something entirely different.

Just want to hop in to say I think, given how busy the employees of Paizo have been with other projects, that they do a wonderful job with the resources they have. I really like the Ultimate Magic so far, and Words of Power is a very intriguing concept, one that I have to read more. My only real complaint is visibility of FAQ. It'd be nice if I could just click on the Pathfinder RPG logo on the main page, and on the PRPG page, have a link to a FAQ page, that lists FAQ by product.

Keep up the good job, Paizo! Oh, and before I go to bed.. *hugs SKR*.

Thanks Sean for posting on a Sunday night of a holiday weekend that we all seem to have off and you are still doing what your job description entails.

Some folks could learn from that.

This thread has taught me that it is ridiculously easy to be an armchair game designer and publisher.

You know what I think the Internet needs? More unfounded opinions.

This thread has taught me that it is ridiculously easy to be an armchair game designer and publisher.

You know what I think the Internet needs? More unfounded opinions.

/laughs.

i'll agree with ya here.

This thread has taught me that it is ridiculously easy to be an armchair game designer and publisher.

You know what I think the Internet needs? More unfounded opinions.

+1 bazillion

You said what I was thinking but couldn't figure out how to say.

Blood stained Sunday's best wrote:

This thread has taught me that it is ridiculously easy to be an armchair game designer and publisher.

You know what I think the Internet needs? More unfounded opinions.

/laughs.

i'll agree with ya here.

I'm going to counterpoint that.

And this is really a praise of Paizo's Customer Service System. (Pure genius, by the way).

Threads like these should be worth their... threadcount? in gold to Paizo. This is basically free-form market analysis for free, and unsolicited. Paizo's customer base is informing Paizo what does and does not please them, usually in no uncertain terms.

Sometimes their customers are more antagonistic, or let their emotions run rampant when they're offering up these little tidbits. But the trained reader should be able to take it all in context, filter for the cognitive biases, and obtain some sort of useful knowledge.

I could only hope that someone is running around collecting statistical data on the customer moods, so they can further measure their satisfaction.

Threads like these should be worth their... threadcount? in gold to Paizo. This is basically free-form market analysis for free, and unsolicited. Paizo's customer base is informing Paizo what does and does not please them, usually in no uncertain terms.

Spot on there. I'm a member of several groups that do marketing research (Neilsen, etc). I get, in an average year, close to a thousand dollars in cash, prizes, gift cards, and other compensation from various companies to do product reviews, customer feedback surveys, and other responses to tell people what I think of their products.

Think about that, if I'm one person getting that, and I don't qualify for more than 20% of the things I'm contacted about for review, then how much are companies paying for marketing feedback? Those who like to get on and flame people for responding and belittle them are actually hurting Paizo in their zeal to 'protect' their favorite company. Without that feedback, which is not costing them anything by the way other than the power to run the server it's being inputted on, they'd have to pay a marketing company to solicit feedback, or ask FLGS's to give them survey information back.

[snip] Without that feedback, which is not costing them anything by the way other than the power to run the server it's being inputted on, [/snip]

There are probably other costs, such as the development cost of getting the board running in the first place, installation and maintenance, new feature development, wages of staff who peruse the boards (they get paid whether they do this or not, true, but if they're doing this, they aren't doing something else.)

Really not important. BUT, other companies interested in marketing research pay all those costs PLUS the incentives for research participants.

I'm just going to assume that Paizo has people combing the boards and reporting on findings, or making decisions based on findings (aside from the FAQ button and customer service questions).

Actually, we KNOW they do this with the Playtest forums, so I'll assume it goes on elsewhere as well.

Good job fellas and femmes!

Threads like these should be worth their... threadcount? in gold to Paizo.

Ultimately, I agree with you. Where I get frustrated is the tone that some people take when making their points. There is way too much antagonism and entitlement. Not just on this thread but on many others. And yea I get the irony.... I'm being antagonist in my response as well. I was never the better man with the turned cheek and all!

A company needs to know where it is erring, but I think there is a respectful way to express concerns. I dunno if it is gamers in general or a simple function of the Internet that many people are so inflammatory. I think this dilutes the position of the person raising the concern.

Plus, sometimes I really wonder if the Paizo staff members would find their time better served if they didn't have to react to random messageboard brush fires. Might give more time for that much vaunted editing.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

mdt wrote:

Unfortunately, it seems that the powers that be consider it to be of no priority at all.

Comments like this mischaracterize what I do at work every damn day. Thanks.

Ok, maybe I am reading this wrong? but really? We have a functional FAQ/Errata (Yes I am putting Errata in there) that gets Updated by you everyday?

Answering questions in Threads is not a FAQ it is a Mess that is hard to wade through.

Complaining to Paizo about Bad editing is one thing that does not fit, Mistakes happen things get through.

But accusing Paizo of Not giving us a Functional FAQ or Living Errata is a Valid excuse and a reasonable reason for someone to say they will wait for the next Print.

Don't tell me we have that because we Don't.

I have been hearing Excuses for 4 years now why we still don't have them, and I am tired of them.

Unrelated to your specific comment, but stop telling us why it is not getting Done and Just do it.

Get Rid of your Policy of Only Erratas with Reprints, give us a Living Errata Page/Document and a Functional FAQ and people will stop complaining about Editing and Stop waiting for the next prints.

This goes for the Non Pathfinder RPG books to.

4 years? The final book was not even released in 2007. I was still running 3.5, and we switched over when the final book came out. It will be the 2 year anniversary in August of this year. The APG was released the following August which was last year.

Gruuuu wrote:

Threads like these should be worth their... threadcount? in gold to Paizo.

Ultimately, I agree with you. Where I get frustrated is the tone that some people take when making their points. There is way too much antagonism and entitlement. Not just on this thread but on many others. And yea I get the irony.... I'm being antagonist in my response as well. I was never the better man with the turned cheek and all!

A company needs to know where it is erring, but I think there is a respectful way to express concerns. I dunno if it is gamers in general or a simple function of the Internet that many people are so inflammatory. I think this dilutes the position of the person raising the concern.

Plus, sometimes I really wonder if the Paizo staff members would find their time better served if they didn't have to react to random messageboard brush fires. Might give more time for that much vaunted editing.

I work in a retail business. I used to be in a customer facing position. I accepted the fact that I would occasionally get a customer who was irrational, antagonistic, deceitful, disrespectful, ignorant, and/or just an a$$~~!@. I was unusually good with these people, because I tried to look past the behavior to find out what was bothering them (unless they just wanted to pressure me to bend a policy that I had no business bending). It's the nature of business. Actually it's probably the nature of relationships. Some people are jerks, and don't worry, you'll have to deal with them eventually.

I will agree with you, though, on your last point, to a degree. I don't doubt that any of the many Paizo employees that post on the board would be quite a bit more productive if they didn't take the time to post on the boards, but the very act of doing so is (hopefully) providing the benefit of customer relevance. Additionally, customers that complain a lot are still customers. If you could take the time to address some of their concerns, they will (hopefully) remain a customer.

I think the biggest beef that people have is that the FAQ/Errata are seen as a significant part of the customer relevance. Sean, Jason, and Stephen are accordingly making steps in the right direction. Just keep it coming guys! We'll eat it up!

Sean, The good news is that we love the game system and we care about it being right just like you. But lets not delay important fixes/rulings for too long....fair enough?

Yes. :)

4 years? The final book was not even released in 2007. I was still running 3.5, and we switched over when the final book came out. It will be the 2 year anniversary in August of this year. The APG was released the following August which was last year.

I was not just Talking The Pathfinder RPG, I was talking about everything, They started the AP in 07.

That said, I was off on my math because I counted 08 twice and that was when I made my first complaint about the Policy for Erratas.

Gorbacz wrote:

Pathfinder RPG is around since 2007?

They been Making Stuff since 2008, And I have been requesting an FAQ or Errata since then. 2008 - 2011 = 4 years give or take a few months.

Edit: My first post requesting an Errata

And it has been my Only beef against them since.

They were using 3.5's rules until recently. When they officially have their own game they are responsible for an FAQ. Until then they are not. The stuff they made was adventures, not a game system.

Asking for them to clear up adventures and system rules are two different things. They also never promised errata for adventures in that thread so you even if you want to use that date you can't since you can't hold someone to a promise until they make the promise.

And it has been my Only beef against them since.
They were using 3.5's rules until recently. When they officially have their own game they are responsible for an FAQ. Until then they are not. The stuff they made was adventures, not a game system.

Asking for them to clear up adventures and system rules are two different things. They also never promised errata for adventures in that thread so you even if you want to use that date you can't since you can't hold someone to a promise until they make the promise.

Wraith, look what I am talking about..

I never said anything about a Promise.. What I am complaining about is their Policy for Erratas, and to extend that FAQs. I have been complaining about it for years, and they have been telling me the same thing for years, after awhile hearing the same reason gets frustrating because there is no end to that reason.

- I do not like their Policy of Erratas only with Re-Prints, Less people would wait for the second Printing if they made a living Errata and updated as they found the errors, instead of just releasing them when the reprint the book.

- I do not like their Policy of just Erratas for the RPG line, I think all their lines deserve erratas if there are errors.

- I do not like their Policy of not putting the FAQ as a Priority, I think it is a Major Priority and more resources should be put into it now, not later on. What ever they need to do to get this done I think they should do.

They always put both off for the next project, and there will always be a next project and that is what I have been hearing since I first complained about it, after 2 years 8 months 11 days, I just am tired of hearing that excuse.

James Jacobs wrote:

DGRM44 wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

our in-house editors, more or less... who do a fantastic job, by the way.

I disagree, I would say they do an adequate job...but not a 'fantastic' job.

Until you get a chance to see some of the raw turnovers they get to sift through and turn into actual language that can be read, or actually understand what it is they do as opposed to what we expect designers and developers do, you're not really in a position to judge them accurately.

I've got to call BS on this. One judges work by the final product, not the starting product.

I've worked as a software developer that used third party programmers, and I've seed output that would make you vomit. But when it comes to putting my name, or my company's name on the final product, there is no passing the buck and saying "look what we started with". Either the product is worthy or release, or it's not. For me, this has in the past resulted in 80-100 hour weeks, and delayed product rather than release something that would hurt our reputation for quality.

If the third party designers/developers are handing you bags of rotten fruit, then you need to stop going to them for more. Your customer (me, at least) does not care who you bought the seeds from, they care that the fruit isn't rotten.

I learned a long time ago to not tell someone how to do their job, at least until I had to do it. I have eaten crow enough times to keep my mouth shut, and I have fed crow to others also.

So now I ask how does a one publish a book without errors with a very limited staff? We are already at 99%.

There can be no new hires because that would translate to increased product cost, probably to the point where nobody buys any books. The book also can not be written in legalese. I am sure you have seen enough rules twisting or people who read the rules the way they want to no matter how well it is written. If you haven't read any rules twisting then you need to check out the rules section.
There can also be no delay since that means money is lost.

Why am I stating the criteria? I guess you already know these things.

You going off here, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the rules by the Paizo RPG designers or Contributors, it is the unclear writing they sometimes use with there additions to the books.

Edit: Let me add..Most of the time..

So you are saying that more than 50% of the book is not clear to 50% of us players? I beg to differ.

Before the goal post are moved I will add to unclear writing can only lead to unclear understanding unless you care to explain how it can not.

edit: I was upset when I wrote this, but the question stands. I apologize for the goal post remark.

I am so glad to see this is happening.

That may sound crazy, but there is a method to my madness.

Threads like this only happen to the big boys. Paizo, officially, has arrived.

When a company is smaller and has a rabid fanbase, you dont get these threads. Once a company is established, and gets new customers, threads like this happen.

Let's take a look back.

Paizo and Pathfinder really didnt start for beginners. It was essentially AD&D for 3.5. It presumed you played 3.5 and knew it pretty well, in my view. So here we have a poster who starts this thread with a complaint that the initiative rule is not well explained. That is, at first blush, crazy. Who would play Pathfinder that didnt come to the game knowing the answer to that? Answer: NEW PLAYERS who are coming to Pathinder brand new. And that is a valid gripe for those players. Pathfinder builds off of 3.5 and presume a high level of familiarity with the prior system. The poster is right, the rules do need a rewrite for clarity. What stemmed was an "economics of editing in the game industry" discussion that actually is a bit of a side trek from the original post.

So everyone step back, take a deep breath and realize this is a great event. There are new gamers coming to this game and Paizo needs to (and I think does) understand this and address their needs. They can't just presume all Paizonians are expert 3.5ers, which was a pretty fair presumption when Pathfinder started.

Paizo was always the Apple to WotC's Microsoft. That cute company with smaller marketshare that makes pretty stuff but isnt the "industry leader." Well, now Paizo is becoming an industry leader and with that you dont just get slobbering fan bois anymore, you get critics. Time to learn to deal with that. And I am confident they will.

Clark

Dragnmoon wrote:

You going off here, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the rules by the Paizo RPG designers or Contributors, it is the unclear writing they sometimes use with there additions to the books.

Edit: Let me add..Most of the time..

So you are saying that more than 50% of the book is not clear to 50% of us players? I beg to differ.

Before the goal post are moved I will add to unclear writing can only lead to unclear understanding unless you care to explain how it can not.

What the?... Wraith where are you getting this Stuff? That is not what I am saying...

I am Saying that Most problems with the Rules is due to unclear wording by the designers, not because of lack of knowledge by the designers. Where the hell did you get this I am saying the 50% of the book is unclear? I am saying the problem that are there are mostly because of unclear writing.

wraithstrike wrote:

And it has been my Only beef against them since.
They were using 3.5's rules until recently. When they officially have their own game they are responsible for an FAQ. Until then they are not. The stuff they made was adventures, not a game system.

Asking for them to clear up adventures and system rules are two different things. They also never promised errata for adventures in that thread so you even if you want to use that date you can't since you can't hold someone to a promise until they make the promise.

Wraith, look what I am talking about..

I never said anything about a Promise.. What I am complaining about is their Policy for Erratas, and to extend that FAQs. I have been complaining about it for years, and they have been telling me the same thing for years, after awhile hearing the same reason gets frustrating because there is no end to that reason.

- I do not like their Policy of Erratas only with Re-Prints, Less people would wait for the second Printing if they made a living Errata and updated as they found the errors, instead of just releasing them when the reprint the book.

- I do not like their Policy of just Erratas for the RPG line, I think all their lines deserve erratas if there are errors.

- I do not like their Policy of not putting the FAQ as a Priority, I think it is a Major Priority and more resources should be put into it now, not later on. What ever they need to do to get this done I think they should do.

They always put both off for the next project, and there will always be a next project and that is what I have been hearing since I first complained about it, after 2 years 8 months 11 days, I just am tired of hearing that excuse.

I do agree that the "we will get to it" is frustrating. I just did not like the 4 year comment. Since no rule books are planned, that I know of, after August I promised to stay off them until October. I know, and I am sure they know that the longer they wait the deeper the hole gets. It has to be done.

PS:I have not purchased a physical core book yet due to certain rules I am waiting on.

I do agree that the "we will get to it" is frustrating.

I corrected myself latter, but I swear I made a Post earlier then that, but I can't find it so I guess I am wrong, and that is the first time I asked about it.

I found a post back in 07 loosely related to it, but I could not find the original post that kicked off that post that I was talking about. Oh well.

I work in a retail business. I used to be in a customer facing position. I accepted the fact that I would occasionally get a customer who was irrational, antagonistic, deceitful, disrespectful, ignorant, and/or just an a@%$@%+. Some people are jerks, and don't worry, you'll have to deal with them eventually.

Ha! You're a better person than I. I too work in retail (managed an auto repair shop for the last eleven years) and I have no patience left. Years of abuse and trying to exceed expectations have left me shell shocked and ready to crack the "customer is always right" axiom with my hammer of jaded angst.

I tend toward squelching erratic customers wherever I encounter them as some form of occupational therapy.

When a company is smaller and has a rabid fanbase, you dont get these threads. Once a company is established, and gets new customers, threads like this happen.

LOL, judging by how many times you get told to sit down and shut up if you post a reasonable complaint, there's quite a few extremely rabid fanbois on here.

However, I agree with the sentiment. I'm relatively new to Paizo (brought in by Pathfinder RPG), so been here since 2009 (about exactly 2 years, so half the time, if they started APs in 2007). I've seen the board base grow a LOT since I joined, and they exploded before I joined in 2009.

I would have to say that in my perception, Paizo has taken off like the perverbial rocket. Every game store owner I talk to (in multiple states) says they are selling PF faster than they can keep it on the shelf. I really like that, as they have done a wonderful job of picking up the OGL and running with it. And despite my complaints about the editing in UM, it's the first big gaffe I've seen from them (and yes, I say it's a big gaffe because up till now it was a single oversight, or just getting things out of order in stat blocks or misspellings, not forgetting to put in stat block entries or leaving in spells that had been deleted, which are major issues in a rules book). I'd rather be very vocal in complaints right now, on their first (in my opinion) big gaffe than wait until it's happened 2-3 times and then just stop buying their products, leaving them scratching their heads saying 'WTF?'.

I

They can't just presume all Paizonians are expert 3.5ers, which was a pretty fair presumption when Pathfinder started.

Clark

I noticed that a while back when comparing some of the rules to the 3.5 rules which were more clear. It is annoying, and it needs to be handled in some shape or form.

I am Saying that Most problems with the Rules is due to unclear wording by the designers, not because of lack of knowledge by the designers. Where the hell did you get this I am saying the 50% of the book is unclear? I am saying the problem that are there are mostly because of unclear writing.

I don't agree. I have answered many questions when they come up in the rules section. I sometimes have to cross reference to get my point across though. I know where to cross reference due to my playing time. The game is complex, and so many rules interact that you have to learn where to look for things if you want to interpret the rules correctly. It takes time(experience to do this). I will say that better worded rules would help at times, but I would not say that is the main(most of the time) cause.

I would say.
1.lack of experience
2.wording(lack of wording, badly spelled out rules, etc)
3.corner cases or combinations that were not thought of.
4.other.

Fozzy Hammer wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

DGRM44 wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

our in-house editors, more or less... who do a fantastic job, by the way.

I disagree, I would say they do an adequate job...but not a 'fantastic' job.

Until you get a chance to see some of the raw turnovers they get to sift through and turn into actual language that can be read, or actually understand what it is they do as opposed to what we expect designers and developers do, you're not really in a position to judge them accurately.

I've got to call BS on this. One judges work by the final product, not the starting product.

I've worked as a software developer that used third party programmers, and I've seed output that would make you vomit. But when it comes to putting my name, or my company's name on the final product, there is no passing the buck and saying "look what we started with". Either the product is worthy or release, or it's not. For me, this has in the past resulted in 80-100 hour weeks, and delayed product rather than release something that would hurt our reputation for quality.

If the third party designers/developers are handing you bags of rotten fruit, then you need to stop going to them for more. Your customer (me, at least) does not care who you bought the seeds from, they care that the fruit isn't rotten.

I learned a long time ago to not tell someone how to do their job, at least until I had to do it. I have eaten crow enough times to keep my mouth shut, and I have fed crow to others also.

There is nothing worse than an uninformed/ill informed person telling you how to do your job.
It would be like me telling you that a program can be written in basic while you are arguing to be it is better using perl. I am sure you have had some non-technical genius*(and I use this term lightly) tell you how to do your job.
The last time a genius* called me out on something I told them to give me a detailed answer on how to to the job better or go away. After...

Really? That's the argument? (paraphrasing) "Unless you actually do a job, you shouldn't judge someone else's work?)

Every job I have ever had has been judged by someone who could not personally do that job. Either by my boss, or his boss, or by the customers who bought my products or by project managers both internal and external. Every last one of then could, should, would, and did judge how well I performed my job. I don't give a fig what process anyone at Paizo uses before they publish a product. But that product, once I have paid good money to purchase - that I am more than entitled to judge.

It's like saying Gene Siskel wasn't qualified to review movies, because he was neither a director, producer nor actor. Just because you are not the professional paid to produce a work does not negate your opinion about that work.

Just about every sports writer and commentator would be out of a job tomorrow if the criteria was that they had to be able to do the job themselves before they could judge the quality of the work.

I don't have to be able to design and build an automobile from scratch before I can state that my car buns oil and the brakes squeal. Likewise, I don't have to be able to install tar paper and shingles before I'm allowed to tell you whether or not the roof leaks.

Don't ask me how to do Sean or James job better. I don't care how they do their job. I really don't care if they keep Sean chained to his desk with a bucket to relieve himself in, or if he works from home in bed with three comely wenches. None of that matters. What matters is the end-result of that work. And I've given my opinion of recent Paizo work.

And that, I am entitled to judge and render an opinion on. You may have a different opinion as to the quality of that product. As the late great Patrick Swayze said in Road House, "Opinions vary." I've said before on other threads, that rendering glowing reviews of a bad product because you want to support Paizo does them no service. Rendering an honest opinion will (even if it hurts their feelings) at least give them the view of a customer that may or may not be echoed by other customers.(For the record, Pathfinder Core Rules and APG are two of the better gaming books that I've ever purchased, and I'm glad that I bought those. I've praised one particular AP to just about every person who's ever looked at it on the FLGS shelf, and I gave one potential customer my copy of the first volume just to get him started on the adventure.)

wraithstrike wrote:

I do agree that the "we will get to it" is frustrating.

I corrected myself latter, but I swear I made a Post earlier then that, but I can't find it so I guess I am wrong, and that is the first time I asked about it.

I found a post back in 07 loosely related to it, but I could not find the original post that kicked off that post that I was talking about. Oh well.

I think the issue was that you were holding them accountable for when you first asked, and I was only holding them accountable for the rules which is what the OP brought up, and I though you were talking about the rules also. I did not even come onboard until they were in the beta phase. I would not have come over then, but I found out they used to do the magazines, and I always like those.

At first it was Paizo=some 3.5 3rd party. Then it was Paizo=the company that made the magazines. I will check them out.

I think the issue was that you were holding them accountable for when you first asked, and I was only holding them accountable for the rules which is what the OP brought up, and I though you were talking about the rules also. I did not even come onboard until they were in the beta phase. I would not have come over then, but I found out they used to do the magazines, and I always like those.

At first it was Paizo=some 3.5 3rd party. Then it was Paizo=the company that made the magazines. I will check them out.

Yeah, I have been here since 04 when I started my first Dragon & Dungeon Subscription, made my first post on the boards in July 05

Edit: What is funny, is that you have made twice as many post as me. ;)

I am so glad to see this is happening.

That may sound crazy, but there is a method to my madness.

Threads like this only happen to the big boys. Paizo, officially, has arrived.

When a company is smaller and has a rabid fanbase, you dont get these threads. Once a company is established, and gets new customers, threads like this happen.

Let's take a look back.

...

Ah. Looking back the just a few years ago there were just threads that argued over the usage of the word penultimate and art on the magazine covers. Time has just flown by it seems.

I noticed that a while back when comparing some of the rules to the 3.5 rules which were more clear. It is annoying, and it needs to be handled in some shape or form.

Oh come on, stop it! :) Now you are just goofing.

Ah. Looking back the just a few years ago there were just threads that argued over the usage of the word penultimate and art on the magazine covers. Time has just flown by it seems.

Bowls and Balls, man. Bowls and Balls.

wraithstrike wrote:

I noticed that a while back when comparing some of the rules to the 3.5 rules which were more clear. It is annoying, and it needs to be handled in some shape or form.

Oh come on, stop it! :) Now you are just goofing.

Actually, I rather agree with that assessment. I've noticed that Jason prefers less precisely worded text, to allow DMs to decide on their own instead of being hammered by rules lawyers into only one interpretation. It does, however, leave the designers intent clouded as well.

wraithstrike wrote:

I noticed that a while back when comparing some of the rules to the 3.5 rules which were more clear. It is annoying, and it needs to be handled in some shape or form.

Oh come on, stop it! :) Now you are just goofing.

LOL. To make sure nobody misunderstands me I am only talking about the rules that got snipped combined with the fact that the 3.5 rules defined(glossary) everything*. I wish the 3.5 glossary would have been brought over. I do consider the PF ruleset to be better once you get familiar with it.

*except precision damage. :)

Clark Peterson wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I noticed that a while back when comparing some of the rules to the 3.5 rules which were more clear. It is annoying, and it needs to be handled in some shape or form.

Oh come on, stop it! :) Now you are just goofing.

Actually, I rather agree with that assessment. I've noticed that Jason prefers less precisely worded text, to allow DMs to decide on their own instead of being hammered by rules lawyers into only one interpretation. It does, however, leave the designers intent clouded as well.

I would like for designers intent to be known. I might houserule it anyway, but I should still know the intent. I prefer precise rules to avoid players arguing over rules. I have sat in with groups and ever games with them again. This might occur if I am at an FLGS, and a player does a no call no show. I am asked to quickly make a character.

My belief is this. If you are going to write the rule then define(explain it clearly) the rule. If you don't want to make it clear then label it as as a suggestion.

I thought the intent of the less wordy approach was space, but in any event I think it is clear people want rulings, not suggestions.

So, will the Beginner Box include a definition of "dice"?

So, will the Beginner Box include a definition of "dice"?

LoL. If things are that codified the book may end up being bigger than the actual core book. :)

Well said Fozzy Hammer. I stopped buying as much Palladium books stuff because that was the exact type of argument the Devs over there threw in my face. Im a customer first, fan second. No one I think is asking for perfection. Yet telling me that I cannot criticize your product because I do not do your job is a copout. One can assume that with time mistakes will become less and less. If not fans start referring more to your errors than your products. just look at Mongoose.

Paizo and Pathfinder really didnt start for beginners. It was essentially AD&D for 3.5. It presumed you played 3.5 and knew it pretty well, in my view. So here we have a poster who starts this thread with a complaint that the initiative rule is not well explained. That is, at first blush, crazy. Who would play Pathfinder that didnt come to the game knowing the answer to that? Answer: NEW PLAYERS who are coming to Pathinder brand new. And that is a valid gripe for those players. Pathfinder builds off of 3.5 and presume a high level of familiarity with the prior system. The poster is right, the rules do need a rewrite for clarity. What stemmed was an "economics of editing in the game industry" discussion that actually is a bit of a side trek from the original post.

So everyone step back, take a deep breath and realize this is a great event. There are new gamers coming to this game and Paizo needs to (and I think does) understand this and address their needs. They can't just presume all Paizonians are expert 3.5ers, which was a pretty fair presumption when Pathfinder started.

Paizo was always the Apple to WotC's Microsoft. That cute company with smaller marketshare that makes pretty stuff but isnt the "industry leader." Well, now Paizo is becoming an industry leader and with that you dont just get slobbering fan bois anymore, you get critics. Time to learn to deal with that. And I am confident they will.

Clark

Thank you Clark, it is refreshing to have another person 'Get It'.

I would like for designers intent to be known. I might houserule it anyway, but I should still know the intent. I prefer precise rules to avoid players arguing over rules. I have sat in with groups and ever games with them again. This might occur if I am at an FLGS, and a player does a no call no show. I am asked to quickly make a character.

My belief is this. If you are going to write the rule then define(explain it clearly) the rule. If you don't want to make it clear then label it as as a suggestion.

I thought the intent of the less wordy approach was space, but in any event I think it is clear people want rulings, not suggestions.

YES! I agree with you 100 percent!