Cthulhu Dreams's page

Damn it!

** spoiler omitted **

I lolled.

Using 3.5 as a baseline is almost unavoidable, given the design goal of backwards compatibility with existing 3.5 products.

Oh yeah, sorry for my crap explanation of that point. I agree, just that it makes the vision of what you want 3.P to look like more important, 'cause otherwise people will project their baggage from 3.5 onto the closely related product.

Hello Frank.

If you're particularly astute you could find the posts in the shackled city archive complaining about me, and then determine that as those events happened in Australia, I'm probably not Frank Trollman, though I am still (apparently) worthy of badmouthing and random accusations of circumventing the forum rules. Does this forum support PMs? In which case please direct personal attacks to me via PM, and I'll get right on ignoring them.

Personally (and this is only a personal opinion – it should not be construed as a challenge or an insult to anyone) I don’t see the need for the sort of rigorous testing process you suggest. Firstly, I don’t think that the 3.5 rules are so broken that their modification requires this sort of testing. Secondly, I trust the Paizo designers to do a pretty good job of things, in conjunction with the (useful bits of) the feedback they get from the community through various people’s opinions, experience and playtesting.

Quote:

Yeah, 3.5 isn't horrible and if they want to do that, they totally can. It's just a shame that a chance to do a truely community drive and rigorously tested version of D&D with excellent class balance and well defined frameworks for things like spells (which has never existed) would be completely missed.

I've always thought an ignore function was the best idea on message boards ever, and allows people to moderate what people they are exposed to - reducing contention, unless they are unable to resist the urge to click 'You are ignoring that guy you hate. Click here to view the post'

It seems they have assumed that we all understand the flavor they want.

I suppose this is understandable to a certain extent, with all the grognards here. But a clear articulation would be really useful and might narrow the kind of feedback given in the forums and also limit the time people spend making comments that fall outside the vision.

I'd certainly agree with that.

Part of the problem I think might be the use of 3.5 as a baseline, because that game has baggage which people (myself included) are likely to carry forward into any analysis of a 'related' system.

It would be nice if that was all centrally bundled up. You've made a pretty useful resource by cut pasting which is kinda funny

So anyway, this gets to the nub of the issue - there's no real 'process' for the community to actually generate rules content, or even structured feedback and test results.

Instead Piazo is developing all the logic in house, and are just using the community as a seething mass of noise out of which they have to sift the dross from the gems.

Which unfortunately smashes most of my ideas without a change to Piazo's approach.

It also doesn;t address the 'what should people be able to do' question. A game in which everyone can fly and shoot super eyelasers is a different game from something noir and gritty, and needs different rules.

Things that would obviously be nice to see

- A process for doing structured testing below the campaign level to meet Paizo's needs. I'm sure we'd all be happy to provide input in a structured format, and it would allow Paizo to do SERIOUS testing on every aspect of the system.

- for that we'd need some paizo provided tests or atleast frameworks that we can develop tests against so we can provide that input.

- A process for enabling direct rules changes to be fed back into the document without forking the project. Such as changes to fabricate or whatever.

Yeah, I was busily replying to the first bullet points while you had moved on to community involvement and design cohesion. No worries.

Yeah, I tend to gab off a bit. My apologies!

"Cthulhu Dreams wrote:

Please note, I never said anything you said was a logical fallacy. Please do not accuse me of making attacks when I said no such thing!

Actually, you did. You specifically used the phrase “Non sequitur,” though you have since edited it out (and it was spelled with an “e’ instead of a “u” at the time).

Well, I did edit it out, but I was using the other definition of non sequitur, which I thought may have been communited by the context.

A non sequitur (pronounced [ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtɚ]) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). It is a comment which, due to its lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing. Its use can be deliberate or unintentional. Literally, it is Latin for "it does not follow". In other literature, a non sequitur can denote an abrupt, illogical, unexpected or absurd turn of plot or dialogue not normally associated with or appropriate to that preceding it.

It was addressed at you quoting by bit about 'community' and then tossing the DM fiat stuff in which was definitely a non sequitur and I stand by that remark.

I see a *What's the Vision for Pathfinder?* thread.

Edit: Yay, it works now for no obvious reason.

See that link just takes me to the forum index, which was causing me some puzzlement.

To whit

[code]

Poll: What part of Pathfinder do you want to know more about? (Sticky)
Fri, Apr 20, 2007, 09:40 PM by Gary Teter 300 posts Last post: 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
by Trey
Ever created an NPC solely to use a bit of dialogue heard elsewhere?
Mon, Apr 28, 2008, 10:05 PM by Mikaze 7 posts Last post: 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
by Timespike
Roleplaying questions about Erastil
3 hours, 49 minutes ago by Timespike 7 posts Last post: 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
by Timespike
Pathfinder glossary.
Thu, May 1, 2008, 05:35 PM by Callous Jack 8 posts Last post: 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
by Cpt_kirstov
[/code]

Radavel wrote:

Mr. Cthulu Dreams, perhaps, you would care to start a separate thread from this one. I see you have some points you wanna get across to the designers and the community. This thread is clearly not the proper venue for that. The title I says it all, yes.

He did start a seperate thread actually, but the boards are being wonky and it's not always showing up.

Yeah I think it deleted my post? Not sure.

Kruelaid wrote:

Mothman wrote:

Read the “History and Design Goals” section under “From the Lead Designer” bit on the PathfinderRPG main page. That sets the goals of the project. I suppose it is similar to a vision document.

I never read that. Heck, I didn't even print it.

What? After Jason spent all that time on it? ;-)

Yes, but I think a lot of (most?) people here have intuitively understood what PFRPG is supposed to be and how we can participate, without referring to any sort of vision document (I don't think the discussions, theories and arguements in various threads come from a lack of understanding of the goals, for the most part. In part they may come from a lack of understanding of the process).

For those who would prefer a vision document, that introduction probably serves as a good one (unless I am completely mistaken about what a vision document is).

It mentions community once.

Once.

In respect that the community will generate conversion notes from 3.P edition TO 4th edition.

That communicates nothing to me about how the community engagement process is going to work for production of 3.P. Or am I gabbing off about 'community' for no reason whatsoever.
So it has some flaws ;)

Also, it doesn't address key points like the role of a DM that I have found argued repeatedly in many threads in my short time here. I'm already arguing about it.

That sort of question probably needs answering too :)

Cthulhu Dreams wrote:

It's completely b%*#&*#s to expect people to play test the rules by playing through some games. Thats about as 'effective' as testing a software application by giving my mum some copies and saying 'try this'

Kruelaid wrote:

If you are looking for bugs and there are a considerable number of people playing it, that's actually not b~&@~@@% at all.

Mathematical rigor cannot account for the unpredictable behavior that will test the flexibility of a system. I was a Counter Strike player from beta 1.2 through beta 7 and playtesting was exactly that, playing through some games. You went to the forums and reported bugs and exploits and the designers worked them out.

I'm not saying that mathematical rigor is not useful, I'm just saying that "playing through some games" has its place.

Cthulhu Dreams wrote:

Oh sure!

But user acceptance testing is the last phase in the test process...

I see. So it's not "completely b!~~~*#~" as you so eloquently put it.

You know, there was a guy in here, I can't remember his name, and he was trying to address problems with mathematical rigor but he was so foul-mouthed and nasty that he got banned. It's too bad he couldn't be bothered to act civil and that he didn't stick around, he had a brilliant mind for details.

It is b!&+@+!s.

User acceptance testing today is the users make a spec, programmers implement against it, users test it and then accept as the culmination of a structured, incremental test process.

This sort of structured layered test process is a million miles more advanced than 'lets get some interns and bash away at it' which is my first point. Getting some interns/your mum and bashing away at it isn't really a solution.

I guess I'm trying to say is that the last step is only valid or worthwhile when all previous steps are taken. I am aware that the last step of the race is an integral part of the race, but without the previous 99 meters worth of steps that last step has no value.

I fail to see how my opinion is any more of a logical fallacy than yours, but I’m willing to placate you regardless

Please note, I never said anything you said was a logical fallacy. Please do not accuse me of making attacks when I said no such thing!

While I can see that the issues have work arounds as you demonstrate, isn't one of the stated design goals

Improve the Game: The 3.5 rules set is excellent, but it has its flaws. Over the past few years, a number of common problems have seemed to crop up again and again, problems that delay the game or cause no end of arguments (grapple and polymorph, for example).

Fabricate is one of those issues, thus it is clearly on the agenda to be fixed.

Why not fix these issues now? Of course you can work around them by refusing to engage with these known issues, but if you're making a rules set, isn't that the right time to strike and fix the bugs once and for all?

I guess we have a different approach to quality management and continual improvement. I'll accept a work around, but I'll try and fix the bug. You are obviously content to let the bug remain if a work around is in place. I am not sure we can agree between us on a resolution for those disparate perspectives which is why the vision needs to have a clear statement about what the resolution should be, by addressing the place of DM fiat in the system.

So I jumped into a thread about this because I find some of the comments remarkable given the parallels of this effort to other community driven efforts, so I was tossing out some ideas and suggestions.

Then I figured out that I might have the wrong end of the stick here completely about what the game was supposed to be, so I started looking for a 'Vision Document' or something similar so I could inform myself as too

A) What pathfinder the RPG is supposed to be?

Are we (as I shall make clear in point B, I am growing progressively less sure we are 'we' but I'll ask nicely.) making something for conan to run around in, or this a more 'high fantasy' concept. Or is it supposed to be extensible and accommodate modern gaming and stuff?

Is DM fiat the final court of arbitration or something to be regularly used?

What should a party member be able to do?

B) What is the model for community participation in the development of the game. Are we just playtesting for Paizo? Can we participate in development, or do we just spam the forum?

And I cannot find anything than answers any of these questions.

Is there something?

Minor clarification, though. I don't mean "railroading," per se.

sorry, I'm still not clear on what this has to do with community collobration?

Cthulhu Dreams:

I am not sure that there is a complete 'vision' document in one place anywhere that I have seen thus far, although I have not checked the Pathfinder Chat logs, so there may be something which resembles it in there. It is possible that there is one somewhere, which they could have stickied, but have not done so. (Human beings- especially stressed out game designers- occasionally make errors of omission.)

This would seem to be a major oversight, as a clear statement of the goal and what it might look like, in terms of 'things you can do' 'what you can expect' and core assumptions for 'how this would work' would help put the community on the same track.

Some basic stuff about how an adventure might go (some sort of conceptual model, so people can see what classes should be able to achieve for example), how the 'game party' dynamic is supposed to do, etc.

Clearly people are on different pages about core fundamentals to the nature of an 'RPG' - like the role of a DM in the party - and it is a bit of an issue.

Cthulhu Dreams wrote:

I think I've got the wrong end of the stick here

I agree. The rules exist to support DM fiat, and any good game system takes that into account, not the other way around.

My points in that post you are quoting are about the difficulties of collobrating without a common objective. I'm not sure what that statement as to do with that issue?

In any case, taking that statement in isolation, mind expounding on why you think that? I'm not particularly sure I agree. I tend to think about the game as a collective experience (the game), built on a common framework (the game rules), with DM fiat being the final court of arbitration in dispute resolution - but just like real life I'd prefer that the common framework managed my particular issue with 'going to court'

If nothing else, just because it bogs down the game as rulebooks are consulted and advocacy is conducted. What am I missing?

Cthulhu Dreams wrote:

... but then I'm back to the vision docuement thing. Where is it?!

It’s hiding, thank all that is sacrosanct, because it knows if it rears its ugly, process driven, creativity murdering, acne riddled, pus-filled boil of a head around here, I’m going to beat it to death with a shovel and pour betadine on anything it might have touched.

I do think you have some interesting ideas, mind you.

I think I've got the wrong end of the stick here

So you are saying there is no indication of, for example, if pathfinder is supposed to be a system to support a high fantasy game a la forgotten realms, or its shooting to support a 'low' fantasy game a la lord of the rings, or conan?

Or how community involvement is supposed to work?

Isn't that only going to work if we are doing a 'chase the taillights type project' where I can say, 'do it like <<Thing>>, and if there is any questions the answer is 'do it like <<thing>> does it' rather than us innovating to do something better? In which case, we need to know what <<something>> should be? I notice that people are talking about 'pathfinder modern' which shows that there are wildly divergent ideas about what the objective is atleast.

Cthulhu Dreams wrote:

It's completely b%*#&*#s to expect people to play test the rules by playing through some games. Thats about as 'effective' as testing a software application by giving my mum some copies and saying 'try this'

If you are looking for bugs and there are a considerable number of people playing it, that's actually not b~&@~@@% at all.

Mathematical rigor cannot account for the unpredictable behavior that will test the flexibility of a system. I was a Counter Strike player from beta 1.2 through beta 7 and playtesting was exactly that, playing through some games. You went to the forums and reported bugs and exploits and the designers worked them out.

I'm not saying that mathematical rigor is not useful, I'm just saying that "playing through some games" has its place.

Oh sure!

But user acceptance testing is the last phase in the test process. If we are supposed to be contributing to the code base as it where, we need to know about the unit test process, the module test process, the usability test process to draw a programming analogy.

Incidently, the 'try it and see' method has many, many flaws, which is why most fields have pushed towards structured testing methadologies over time, and are now able to apply rigour to everything. Halo 3 and TF2 wasn;t tested with 'play and see' but was tested with rigorous analysis of player experience and enjoyment.

But either way, the vast body of test hours should be pre user acceptance testing, but if I look over at the discussion forum, all the threads with 'playtest; in the title on page one are about that sort of campaign play through test.

They obviously do some testing on a spell before they throw it out there, what it is it?

It sounds like a good idea, but this would conceivable consume more management time than they possibly have. I guess it is possible to farm this out to the community at large, but tricky to ensure a consistent level of quality. Maybe...

Quality management is a bloody pain in the arse as you rightfully point out. But a few basic steps can be taken to help

A) Where the @#%@#$@%@$#$ hell is the vision document? I've been looking and I haven't found it. It should be sticked at the top of every section as the vision should be the touch point for every single post, play test, idea, concept or whatever. I'm speaking out of my arse about community involvement... when I'm not even sure if they want that?

B) Some sort of architecture is another vital touchstone. Its much easier to assure quality of ideas when you can do a basic sanity check against some sort of framework for what a weapon or a 3rd level spell should be, rather than eyeballing it and saying 'I think so'

I guess it depends if this is actually about involving the community or what... but then I'm back to the vision docuement thing.

Where is it?!

This sort of bug testing is only possible in an environment with

A) Clear objectives

B) Measurable test standards.

We are discussion a simulation that uses mathematical formula to take inputs and transform them into (flavorful) outputs.

Thus we can use maths and analysis, and that allows you to categories bugs by what they break in the test suites.

Say for example we have a 'unit test' for the 'Six Sigma Expert' class

That test should be defined, say as a series of encounters with proscribed tactics that he should win half of (or something else. I don't care, just as long as it is repeatable), and then various test results cause a certain level of bug reports.

For example, if the six sigma expert wins 100% of all encounters at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 then we probably have a class A bug that needs to be identified.

If the six sigma expert just bugs down combat hugely and it takes 25 minutes on average to resolve each encounter instead of the 5 we've specified, then thats a probably class B

But if he wins 45% of encounters in 6 minutes on average then thats a class C or D

It shouldn't be a matter of debate, it should either be true and reproduceable, or not true and not reproduceable.

Actually I was just being a bit of a tool noting that mockery is a personal attack, and saying 'lol' isn't really constructive.

But seriously, the community here isn't going to run with anything involving the categorization of bugs without top down enforcement, or a process or whatever, specifically as the only person who can drive change is paizo, who are not seemingly particularly interested in high rigor analysis. Nor are most people judging by the diatribes about rigorous technical analysis being applied to the game.

The problems are multifaceted however

Key issues peventing the application of 'high rigour' approaches include

- Assuming that DM fiat is a substitute for fixing the rules, when it should merely be a backstop in case you fail to fix the rules. Relying on the backstop is not a plan.

- Making any value judgment about any play style is not going to be successful. A cornerstone of any usability study is expecting the users to do something you don't expect.

- Assessing the severity of a bug on the frequency of a issue on playstyles, rather than its location in the rules is quite frustrating for the same reasons. fabricate has the power to break the game by making infinite wealth. this needs to be addressed with a change to fabricate.

- Lack of rigor in approach to all questions, and indeed questioning that a mathematical analysis is not the best approach for analysis of a mathematical model (Which the game is!).

There needs to be a clear understanding that flavor is over laid on top of a core functional system too. The system of course has to deliver in simulations of the things you want to do, but

The other problems to a community approach:

Is there a clear architecture and vision statement anywhere? This appears to be in release 2, and I can see no list clearly identifying the target capabilities of spells of each level in the 'combat and magic' section.

When I talk about a bug process, it's impossible to say fabricate is balanced or not without that sort of architecture guiding you. Maybe 9th level spells can cause loops that are executed an arbitrary number of times MTG style.

there is no defined 'test suite'

It's completely b@$*#@+s to expect people to play test the rules by playing through some games. Thats about as 'effective' as testing a software application by giving my mum some copies and saying 'try this'

There needs to be a repeatable test suite that can be attempted in whole or part by arbitrary community members that drills right down to the encounter level, and has clear measurable outcomes like, say, for a the 'fighter class unit test'

"Fighter beats 50% of a identified suite of equivalent CR enemies at level 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18." - Tactics for monsters should be identified so players can implement them.

"No combat in the test series takes longer than 5 minutes to resolve, including looking up monster abilities"

Tough beat. I'm not here to institute cultural change or anything - that has to be driven top down.

I think they usually just whack at the bugs in the game with a sword or hit them with a fireball or something.

I apologise that a discussion of open source governance and continual improvement in a forum running a community driven product was so valueless that my commentary (which I thought was valuable and insightful!) that it was only met with flippancy.

Cthulhu Dreams wrote:

...

It seems very logical to me. Not sure why it isn't happening yet really.

You bring up a great point and a great idea. Why don't you set it up and get the ball rolling?

Here is your chance.

Don't have web hosting space and I'm too time poor to assume operational reasonsibility for something that should be a intergral part of the process.

Additionally, as a point of governance, I don't have any sponsorship from the pathfinder project board and leads. It would be insane of me, a junior member of the community, to start that initiative. It needs buy in at the paizo level.

This should be immediately apparent, and is, incidentally, why the mozilla foundation runs the bug tracker for firefox, which is the model that needs to be replicated here.

Happy to contribute if you want governance ideas or something similar though, but I'm assuming that jason is currently no considering applying open source product engineering methadologies to the ruleset.

I think to do that, you'd need to appoint 'component managers' over all sections of the rulest with jason as a lead architect. This would give us a 'class' manager, a spell manager, a combat rules manager, etc. Then community members can contribute diff patches against the master ruleset to fix specific bugs which package managers accept or reject and then integrate, while large changes are made by the core team.

So I could write a fix to fabricate that made it less insane (say preventing it from generating material from nothing and requiring suitable materials in the area to 'distill' or giving it a very modest duration), then I say the bugs this fixes (number 1232A, 122C, and 34321C), and contribute that to the 'spell manager.' He reviews it, and checks that it does fix the bugs, conforms to the guidelines for a spell of that level, then adds it to the next version, before marking the bugs as 'fixed'

Jason would need to appoint and empower the component managers and assign them areas of responsibility, as well as allow them to make ruleset changes for the next release. I'm not sure if he has done that yet.

<<double post>>

Isn't a really simple ability that would make a fighter a real contenter something like

"I'm the juggernaut, b@!*&!"

No matter what the hell happens, if a fighter encounters a spell, he can get a save to ignore/bypass it.

If he runs into a wall of iron, he gets a save ignore it

If he jumps through a wall of fire, he gets a save to completely ignore it

If he's attacked by magic missle he can ignore it

Force cage? Save and ignore it

Works offensively too. If the BBEG evil guy is protected by stoneskin or a phrismatic sphere, the warrior can avoid that by dint of his hardcoreness

The thematic effect of any particular 'save' depends on the warrior concept.

The Juggernaut just breaks the wall of iron or forcecage, is unaffected by finger of death or magic missles because of his magical helmet, and the fire just washes over him.

King Arthur uses Excalibur to cut through the walls, dives through the wall of fire and only gets lightly singed, uses excalibur to parry the magic missles, and excalibur obviously cuts through whatever the BBEG's evil guys protection is.

Indiana jones (a fighter/rogue) uses his whip and acrobatics to flip over the wall, dives past the wall of fire just as it springs into life, disrupts the casters concentration by kicking sand into his eyes a millisecond before he casts the finger of death and dives behind a bar to avoid the magic missles.

Then give him good saves across the board and thats pretty sweet.

I'm positively stunned that some people couldn't see the value in a suggestion to add proven product engineering methadologies in a collaborative environment to this product engineering task in a collaborative environment.

Setting up bugzilla and putting some people in charge of it, and then having play testers who break the system and report bugs via bugzilla will help ensure end to end rules integrity, offer clear issues tracking and make it very easy for contributors to link proposed rule changes to bugs to demonstrate the value of that particular change.

You could even then develop a test of test cases as time goes buy to ensure that bugs don't re-occur, and validating the integrity of the ruleset.

It seems very logical to me. Not sure why it isn't happening yet really.

DMing campagins in general (not this one in particular) I'd say some stuff would be easily available (Cheap items) but most powerful wizards (Level 10+ people who can craft top end gear) are not going to be intrested in making stuff to commission - ask your wizard if HE'S making stuff to comission. Of course he's not because he's off adventuring. Likely most powerful wizards are going to have some scheme on the boiler.

So shopping around for a +1 longsword or a potion of cure medium wounds should be easy enough, but shopping around for, say, a staff of power is not going to generate any results.

My personala rule of thumb, anything thats on the "minor" tables will be easily avaible on commission (So, +2 armour/weapons, Second level wands, etc), Medium items (Up to +4) might be obtained, but service is unlikely to be paid in just hard currency (Ie the crafter will want you to pay him, and do him a favour or three), and will take a long time, while major items are just unobtainable, unless you make it yourself (or find it!).

Hah! Don't worry about bogarting ;P Activity is good eh ;)

Anyway, good point with getting the Rogue to use UMD, 'cause I think he's a new player as well (I am yet to meet him). It is a powerful skill, and he will be collecting alot of "wizard" loot then, which is a plus for him I do imagine.

I looked at multiclassing, but because of druid's wildshape progression, and the way spell casting progression works, a multiclass Sorc/druid isn't very great. Sorc spellcasting progression is already 1 level behind, and multiclassing would make it worse. And you lose the features that intrest me in druids (Wildshape and druidic casting). Intresting concept, but I think it would come out woefully unpowered in practise. Going to arcane heriophant might help, but I still lose on wildshape there, which is a "cool" feature in druids for me.

Thus, I reckon if I want to get the arcane bang, I think I would have to be devoted to it, unless I did one of the fighter/mage builds with multiple PrC's to keep the Arcane Caster Level up, but that would fly like a lead ballon with my DM.

So I'm stuck with 20 levels of arcane caster if an arcane caster is required, thus the inquiry! Is teleport and other such arcane gems essential to the adventure?

First up, going to be playing in the game, so avoiding specific spoilers would rock!

Anyway, party lineup is (aside from me) a rogue (Possibly), cleric and barbarian. I was itching to play a druid because it's the only class I haven't played in my entire D&D career, and I hate playing low level wizards. (lots!)

But I will take one for the team if a primary arcane caster is required. Is one nessercary to complete the adventure? I've tried using the search but their are to many spoilers I have to close my eyes to!

Thanks in advance.