medtec28's page

* Pathfinder Society GM. 153 posts. 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 24 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
1/5

Based on James’s response, I wouldn’t expect PFS to allow any future playtesting. The goal of any playtest is to push the rules to 11, and if they feel that isn’t right for PFS play(and I can see their perspective), then it seems they will remain incompatible.

1/5

I would expect the answer to come in todays blog.

1/5

I would not expect any clear answers to why right now. Leadership has lost their most community facing voice right after GenCon for the second consecutive year. While other team members have their strengths, Micheal was the one most likely to give us answers.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This has escalated pretty far, something I take responsibility for, but I will say this last thing. I would be fine with the feat never being remotely applicable in the first place. But to have a situation where it seems clear, to me at least, that it should apply and being denied is different, or at least feels different to me.

Relevant text:
have them roll an Athletics check and a Survival check after encounters A, B, and C. The checks are both DC 14 (DC 16 in Subtier 3–4). This represents how well they move through the mountainous terrain and how they are able to provide for themselves.

So, after reading the relevant check I’m more convinced I was in the right. It seems like athletics to travel, survival to provide for the group.

I will point out that I did NOT push the issue at the table. I did NOT argue with the GM in any way. I came here to vent my frustrations, and now realize this was the wrong forum for this.

1/5

HammerJack wrote:
You are obviously free to take something from this that no one is saying, if you insist.

granted I was a bit snarky, but that is what people are saying. I wanted to know why my choice was invalidated for a skill-check minigame, and I was told that I took a less optimal feat. As well as told that a feat that, in my opinion was completely applicable, was not allowed to function because the author did not consider it and expressly include it. I have not argued that subsistence should be the centerpiece of all scenarios, but when it is, the feat should work. As I pointed out, would “Quiet Allies” work if the series of skill checks needed everyone to roll stealth? It seems the overall opinion here would be “no”, so the. why do these feats exist as options? It seems that maybe the best outcome is for y’all to list the “Optimal” skill feat choices for PFS play along with the ones that will never be used because when they come up in their particular niches, they are so powerful as to invalidate the scenario.

1/5

got it, nothing but battle medicine and assurance, that’s what I am gleaning from your analysis. Why not remove the illusion of choice, just assign battle medicine and assurance to all PFS characters.

1/5

more to the latter, I just don’t think pointing out all of the more universally “better” options is very helpful. I know this is kind of a niche feat, all the more frustrating for it to be shot down when I felt it should work. My point is, I could have taken battle medicine like literally every other character I have played with, but I tried to be a bit more thematic and unique and was expressly punished for it. I don’t complain when my feat failed to come up in my first 4 scenarios, didn’t care at all, but when the group was told, by the GM, that our collective lack of success resulted in not finding enough food, and that a feat that should have changed that, was not applicable because the writer did not consider it. That was my point. But hey, I get it, battle medicine and assurance for all characters going forward.

1/5

Tommi Ketonen wrote:

Certainly, some skill feats are far more useful in the PFS setting. Forager is a difficult one because "needing to forage to survive" is simply hard to write into a scenario, unless it is specifically an episode of "Survivors" (like tarnbreaker's trail, or Blazing Dangerous trails (1e)).

Obviously, best kind of skill feats are those that -you- can decide to use at will, because they are used more often than those that -require a specific situation- to be useful.

Arcane sense? Useful, you get a free innate detect magic cantrip.
Armor assist? Useless, how often do you count the amount of time you take to don an armor?

Assurance: Very useful, provided you know the DC (such as treat wounds) or are attempting something relatively easy
Charming Liar: Only triggers on critical success and you needed to be lying on narrow stuff.

Natural Medicine? People always get hurt, you get to heal them with Nature
Express rider: Generally useless, your travel speed doesn't usually matter.

Regarding this specific use: Forager in Tarnbreaker's trail: Yeah, you can keep your group well fed, but that doesn't mean the group is making progress at a good speed. I would have probably given an additional success, or a bonus to the roll, but one can't honestly assume that a single skill feat completely negates the whole skill challenge for the whole group.

If this is the opinion of OrgPlay Leadership, perhaps they should compile a list of feats that will NEVER be permitted to have an effect, to help people who are trying to build to a theme feel slighted. Next time I guess I should just take battle medicine like everyone else, right?

1/5

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Table Variation: I don't think I would award 5 successes (like Fox) but would add a bonus to everyone's roll (like Twilightknight) because the activities rolled into the Survival check are not solely foraging for food.

EDIT: Point in case: Would you award 5 successes if they all brought 6 months worth of rations or had some magical means of feeding themselves? 27 weeks of rations is 2 bulk.

DISCLAIMER: I have not run, nor have I read the scenario.

I think, after being specifically told NOT to take all the food they can carry because the point is to ensure there is enough to forage along the way, any group that chose to bring food or use magic would, in my opinion, be subverting part of the objective. I would tell them they could forgo the rolls, but that it would have an adverse effect on the quality of the reports they will be filing.

Maybe my bigger issue is with secondary success. We have gone from silly random fetch quests to a series of silly skill checks. There must be a more rewarding way...

1/5

Nefreet wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
I don’t know, it is starting to feel like every scenario is based on the innovative mechanic of “succeed at 101 of 200 skill checks to get your secondary success.”
Skill checks and Attack rolls are really no different from each other. Both involve risk, tactics, success, failure and rewards, but more importantly, both can get boring really fast if the GM and players aren't tossing any roleplay into the rollplay.

I much prefer scenarios where secondary success is predicated on “You decided to do X and Y but not Z.” I find the repetitive “skill challenge minigame” overdone, lazy and boring.

1/5

I don’t know, it is starting to feel like every scenario is based on the innovative mechanic of “succeed at 101 of 200 skill checks to get your secondary success.” And, to “avoid table variance” interfering is the math is disallowed. Or at least that is how I felt. Hard to say what he was actually thinking, since my long distance detect thoughts spell is not currently in my repertoire.

1/5

Robert Hetherington wrote:

My experience has been the exact opposite of yours with GMs going out of their way to grant benefits from narrow skill feats even when the exact situation doesn't quite match.

Early scenarios frequently call out specific skill feats as a reminder as well.

Which scenario are you talking about? (May want to put the answer in a spoiler). Without that info we don't know if it was a bad choice of language by the GM setting incorrect expectations, a GM being conservative (perhaps overly so), a misunderstanding on your part, or any one of any of a million situations.

spoilers previously omitted:
2-05 Trailblazer’s bounty

I get that having characters with unexpected abilities breaks the minigame of certain adventures, but it left me with a sour taste.

1/5

I recently played in a wilderness based scenario where we were told that “your ability to hunt and forage for supplies is part of the objective.” We were asked to make daily Survival checks to find supplies. Most of the group failed, but I succeeded, and I had the Forager feat, which should allow my character to supply food for most of the party, but upon pointing it out, I was told it didn’t matter. So glad I made this “meaningful decision” for my character. I’m wondering if any skill feats matter in society play, bonus from Quiet Allies? (nah, module says everyone must make a stealth check) Why have the feats at all if the published materials don’t acknowledge their use at all?

1/5

Mark Stratton wrote:

For my view of this whole topic, one thing that hasn’t been said enough, if at all:

Let’s just trust Paizo. They have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to try to things to make things better for the organized play world, and they listen when things don’t go right.

So, maybe we just trust them to do right by the community.

Actually, lately, they have been very enamored with high tech solutions to problems that do not exist. Data is fleeting, paper is eternal

1/5

Nefreet wrote:

I believe that was the initial idea, but,

*gestures generally towards the everything going on*

One might think that in tines that are uncertain sticking with the proven status quo versus forcing a change we are clearly not ready to implement would be the prudent course of action. and I have felt like the org play team have been making excellent calls recently. Guess they were due for a bad one.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I am not understanding is why not do the phase out and roll out simultaneously? Why do we need a year of naked sheets before they can roll out the online system? I am not excited about the new way of doing things, but resigned to it. But it seems to me like the right course would be to go with paper until it’s time to go with not paper.

1/5

Post-Con-Season recovery period. probably be a few weeks before we get many responses. May-Aug is to Paizo what Feb-April is to CPA’s

1/5

Jesse Lehto wrote:
The way I heard it, new thing is actually gonna be "when scenario is reported, it unlocks 0 acp boon on the website". So boons still exist, they are just gotten through website or something and maybe work differently?

where was this mentioned?

1/5

this year PFS, and SFS, leadership has seen me go from incredibly critical, to content, to optimistic when they rolled out the APG sanctioning early. Now this decision is a head-scratcher. I don’t understand why they fix non-problems and ignore bigger issues. Not that they care about my opinion, but I think this is a dumb move.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am definitely in the camp of people believing starship combat is a blackhole of fun, and should be avoided whenever possible. The whole table takes actions, then the gunner misses and the whole round was a waste. Can’t imagine a more exciting way to play. To my mind, the answer is simple, the line developers can make all starship combat encounters optional encounters. That way groups who enjoy it can have it, and I can continue to avoid it like a rabbit squirrel on amphetamines.

1/5

Blake's Tiger wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
It is my understanding that there is a PtP redemption widget, an AcP redemption widget and a Replay redemption widget. The PtP redemption widget had to be taken offline to work on the AcP and Replay widgets, and once everything is working all three should become available again.

That is the answer to, "Where did the Playtest Boons go?"

I believe the OP needs to click the Refresh button under GM/Sessions.

So it seems you are right, but without the boons, there is nothing to do with them. Was hoping to play something not-level-one at GenCon online. “However into each life a little rain must fall”, and after the past few months I’m happy to be playing at all. Thank you both for the swift responses. Stay safe everyone.

1/5

Did the playtest points expire at some point. I logged on today and it seems I no longer have any, and I never spent any?

1/5

Red Griffyn wrote:

As a vocal dissident against many PFS Leadership decisions in the last 6 months, I'm happy to say this is awesome!

Sanctioning of a ACP free character option BEFORE it even gets published is exactly the kind of stuff that makes me super happy as a paizo customer. Great job guys! This is real good progress and its great to see.

I agree wholeheartedly. I might even have to buy this on day one to support this action!

1/5

Rysky wrote:

Oh oh tests yay, here's another.

Who avoids playing PFS because of the PFS community?

Trying to understand why you are here and commenting if this is truly your opinion?

1/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I’m afraid I don’t follow.

Constantly waiting on the website or tech team to post what has allegedly been done for months. Seems, we should have a work-around by now.

1/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
How about a simple, “This is the roadblock, and we expect it to last until X, if not, this is our next best work-around.”
As mentioned, this is just more ammunition for complaints. “You said it would be done on X, why aren’t you using the promised workaround?”

Seems legit to me, instead of being all in on a technology that seems to be failing them.

1/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
So there is no way to make you happy for now.

Not true, I’d just like them to keep to their timelines, or give a candid explanation as to why th8ngs are delayed. Sanction was “a few weeks away” in September. Then over the past few months it’s been “SOON”, then beginning of the month it was “by the end of the month”, and nothing since then. How about a simple, “This is the roadblock, and we expect it to last until X, if not, this is our next best work-around.”

1/5

TOZ wrote:
Then you understand why he led with humor.

Nope, he nailed it, I found the fact that he was joking about the fact that there has been zero movement on the project was offensive.

1/5

TOZ wrote:
So how did Thursty do? Did your goodwill increase?

I appreciate Thursty’s response, but “They can’t answer because they are working very hard.” Is not what I would call actual information.

1/5

TOZ wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
Thurston Hillman wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:
It’s still ‘SOON’tm
Hey! That's my line ;)
need I point out that responses like this aren’t going to increase the goodwill of the comunity?
And deadfaced seriousness will?

Dead faced serious responses with actual information, absolutely they would.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thurston Hillman wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:
It’s still ‘SOON’tm
Hey! That's my line ;)

need I point out that responses like this aren’t going to increase the goodwill of the comunity?

1/5

Nefreet wrote:

Once a month isn't "radio silence".

Once a week will delay things further, since there's more that goes into planning a blog than just the text on the page.

Agreed, once a month until they can manage to stay caught up, preferably on a fixed schedule, ie the third week of the month will be the “State of the Campaign Address.”

1/5

Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:

Thanks for the update! We continue to see some great scenarios.

I don't mean to reignite disputes about sanctioning, but just curious: Are we still on track to get sanctioning for Lost Omens Guide and Character Manual published this month? I know I'm not the only one who wants to use those books for my second PFS character.

The First rule of sanctioning is you don’t ask any questions about sanctioning.

The second rule of sanctioning is you don’t ask any questions about sanctionsing

The third rule is no lies

The fourth rule is no excuses

The fifth rule is trust in Tonya.

1/5

Thank you, I appreciate this new format.

1/5

Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:
Said stuff

Man we here you, and some of us agree, but railing against this is gonna accomplish nothing, trust me, I was very vocal a few months back. i got shouted down by the “Better PFS Fans” same as you. Getting angry here will accomplish nothing. you have two options

1) Be thankful for the efforts being made and be patient
2) find a different game to play

At my shop, I think we have irreversibly moved on at that point, and I’m saddened by that. It might be time for you to move on too.

Either way, getting this angry here will not gain you any ground. I speak from recent personal experience.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, can’t we give the team a chance to return from their holiday break? Tonya has given us her roadmap for how things will get better, give her a chance, if it fails, or they go silent again, then complain.

1/5

Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:

I've heard that sanctioning of Lost Omen materials was completed a few weeks ago, but for some reason there is a delay in updating the website. A bit understandable given staffing and the holidays, but I'm wondering if there might be a way to make this something community volunteers can easily post.

I wonder if folks in the know could clarify what the process is between sanctioning and getting information out to the community. Is there any way we can collectively make this more efficient?

My sense is that the new website is built on WordPress. It seems to me that you shouldn't need skilled developers to update the material — there are lots of us out here who are familiar with WordPress.

My understanding is that the plan is to migrate most or all of the information to the main Paizo site. The OPF wasn’t ever intended to be the home for it.

1/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
Well Micheal, we are not Facebook friends, and I don’t follow you on Twitter. I read your blogs and forum posts, and those have been very limitted.

The fact that you don't use a communication channel does not mean that staff weren't communicating with their fan-base.

If you choose to limit the methods by which you acquire information, don't blame others because you have limited amounts of information. It's not their duty to copy/paste every bit of information into every channel they use to communicate.

That kind of massive cross-posting would be pretty close to spamming those channels.

Respectfully, I disagree. If I want to disseminate information to my team, I can send e-mail(Twitter posts in this case), post notices in the breakroom(Facebook and dischord), or even on the office bulletin board(forum posts), but unless I discuss it in the pre-shift huddle(I would call this the blog), it hasn’t been officially mentioned.(I don’t check work e-mail, I just go straight to the department, I go out to lunch etc.) Pointing me in the direction of where to go and get it is fine, and no, I don’t expect everything to be crossposted everywhere, but there should be one place to solicit information where it is all available, not just catch as catch can. Getting information from leadership should not be the reward for performing a scavenger hunt.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
I actually said nothing of the sort. We've had numerous blogs and participated in social media, even while we were burned out and recovering from an intense release. I just pointed at the highest profile communications that were primarily about the topic at hand to note that "radio silence" was a gross mischaracterization of fact.

Well Micheal, we are not Facebook friends, and I don’t follow you on Twitter. I read your blogs and forum posts, and those have been very limitted.

1/5

Shisumo wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
You pointed out 3 blog posts over the course of what, 6 months as being what you consider to be transparent? Wow, just wow. This is something I cannot even find the words to respond to. And that came after 3 months of telling us absolutely nothing, there was no communication at all.

Dude. GenCon was in August. It's December. You're inventing multiple months out of whole cloth.

Slow down and take a breath. Impatience can drive anyone a bit nuts.

Once again, my bad, always seem to assume GenCon in July, but 3 posts over 4 1/2 months isn’t a whole lot more though. And, by Micheal’s admission, there was nothing before late October.

But further, I thought no I’m allowed some impatience at this point. PFS hasn’t had an AR update in 8 months, and SFS has’t had one in 53 weeks. How much more patience would you like?

1/5

Laran wrote:

People talk about decreased activity in their area (like I do) and wonder if this is a sign that PF2 is slowly losing traction while others see increased activity and say that PF2 is doing great.

The reality is that we individuals have no real idea about the overall uptake in PFS2e (nor should we). All we can do is provide feedback about we hear and see in our area. I am sure the VOs report the monthly totals so PFS leadership can actually track uptake. I have not counted exactly the number of people who sign up and play but by rough estimate we still have at least 50+ semi and regular PFS1e players in our area and probably 10 players (including 2-3 GMs) for PFS2e. The 10 players are regulars and it is not really growing

We have given feedback about what we hear and the frustration that we feel so that is all we can do. I will continue to ask questions and comment on the forums but I have done all I can to provide feedback to PFS management. Good gaming my friends

Maybe the groups gaining ground can share some notes with those of us who are slowly, or not so slowly, dying out?

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:


I'd like to quickly challenge your characterization of what my team has been doing as "radio silence".

Tonya posted in a blog in late November discussing our issues with the AcP system. As this was a vital component of our total sanctioning strategy this directly impacts our ability to release the sanctioning documents.

In late October, Tonya posted a fairly detailed update of the sanctioning process to date.

A little over a week and a half before that, I released a blog talking about some of the sanctioning work and opening up a conversation with the community on ways we're looking to increase the pace of sanctioning, as well as the first sanctioning documents.

About a month and some change before that, we all crawled back into the office following one of the most grueling and intense GenCon launches any TTRPG has had, ever, where we launched a brand new system with more supporting adventures and material than any other TTRPG I'm aware of has ever had at launch.

We need a window to ensure our GMs can actually run this brand new game before we start giving them more things to keep track of. We have had tech issues that were beyond our control and which have and continue to introduce delays in the process that we're just as (far...

Okay Micheal, maybe “Radio Silence” is too strong a term, but allow me to retort.

You pointed out 3 blog posts over the course of what, 6 months as being what you consider to be transparent? Wow, just wow. This is something I cannot even find the words to respond to. And that came after 3 months of telling us absolutely nothing, there was no communication at all. So you are right, 3 posts in 3 months isnot silent, but not transparent either. And I will point out that that communication started after fans like myself begged for it for months. Maybe it was planned from the beginning, but maybe it wasn’t.

Additionally, let’s agree that your launch was quite ambitious, no doubt, and nobody will begrudge you of the time to get your feet under you, but let’s also look at some other facts if you will. Starfinder Society Additiona resources last updated December 7, 2018, Pathfinder Society “Classic” addition resources last updated April 4, 2019. “New” Pathfinder society additional resources posted at launch and never updated. So I think my frustrations are at least somewhat warranted?

You wanted to make sure your GM’s could run this game? Okay, let us put aside the contention that this is proported to be easier than PF “Classic”, now your GM’s are staring at nearly 6 months of new material. Are you going to drop it all on them at once now, I wouldn’t envy them if you did, but more likely it’ll be released in penny packets over time, preventing anything from ever catching up to the release schedule.

Pathfinder excitement locally has gone from
The playtest is boring and we don’t like this at all
Hmmm, the previews are intriguing
Okay, the CRB seems alright, but we’ve been playing fighters with long swords for years
Alright, now we’re talking, this is some interesting stufff
Oh wait, can’t use it yet....
Okay, should be available in a few weeks according to the blog post...
I dunno, maybe at Paizocon?
Let’s just play something else...

You guys had a gas can in one hand, but decided to use the fire extinguisher instead. The technological issues prevented you from rolling things out the way you wanted, any consideration of the low tech fallback, get up to speed when you can? I get that you are all likely more frustrated than I/we are, after all, this is a game to us and a career to you. I thought New Pathfinder Society had a great opportunity to improve upon the way things were done in “Classic”. Thus far, it’s all the same, just with the number 2.

Even the forums have changed, I used to come on here and see threads about different topics, lately majority are people wondering about sanctioning.

TLDR You have not been silent, and it was unfair for me to say so. But neither have you been transparent, neither in word nor in deed.
I also would like to point out that you engaged me to defend your staff, and thus I responded in kind.

1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think most of us understand all of this, but are just asking for more transparency. unfortunately it seems like PFS leadership has adopted “Radio Silence” as a default communication strategy. At this point, I’ve given up asking anymore, there are no updates forthcoming, and asking draws the ire of the militants on the boards. For what it is worth, PFS is basically now dead at my FLGS, nobody wants to wait a year to play with the new and shiny toys.

1/5

The transparency is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

1/5

Steven Lau wrote:
Wow, ok he is not saying you have less of a voice due to lack of stars, he is saying your account is not memorable because it is mostly blank... You have no avatar to remember you by (which many use to remember posters), you have no subscriptions or stars/novas. Due to that he has no memories of ever responded to you. it is hard to distinguish from others.

With all due respect, that is not at all how this response read to me, however, I will admit it has been colored by our previous interactions. I still definitely feel as though the intention of pointing out my lack of “distinguish” was to belittle me and my opinions. If that is in fact sincerely not the case, then I apologize.

1/5

zeonsghost wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
We were just wondering this past weekend if it was time again for someone to encourage players to ignore the rules and cheat. Seemed like we were overdue for it.
I feel like if there's enough players interested in ignoring the rules in a given PFS group, sounds like its time for a home game. If people NEED it to give society credit, they could always run the AP in campaign mode and hand out chronicles when those drop (presuming those rules will exist when/if APs get sanctioned).

I believe they have made mention of retroactive chronicles in this case, so that would be an option in this case. Someone with more insider knowledge than I should confirm though.

1/5

Nefreet wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
I’m starting to feel there is some personal animosity here.

Wasn't aware I've ever responded to you, before.

You don't have an avatar, any titles, or any Stars or Novas that distinguish yourself (to me).

Nothing about the post you quoted was intended as an attack on you as a person. Just what you typed.

medtec28 wrote:
Every time I post, you seem to look for some opportunity to tell me I’m wrong

I'm a fan of symbolic logic. Try looking at it from this point of view:

Every time
(someone)
Posts something
(I feel needs addressing)
I respond to it

I’m sorry, what is the minimum number of glyphs, novas and stars required to express an opinion again, I can’t find it listed anywhere?

I recognize you, but not because of those credentials, but rather your tactic of shouting down discordant opinions. We have had several interactions, and not once will you discourse, instead you tell me repeatedly that I am wrong, without ever lowering yourself to explain why. So you can shout me down, congrats.

So you have more time in the seat than I do, won’t even argue that. You’re a more loyal fan than I am, won’t even argue that. So ask, why does this insignificant 0 star, 0 nova, 0 glyph person challenge the all knowing better PFS fans?

I have a different opinion, and think things can be better. Maybe you think things are perfect, and that’s fine, but I don’t, and therefore, until someone with real cache tells me to stop, I will keep pushing to make things better.

Respond if you like, or don’t, don’t care.

All I have left to say about this thread is leadership is trying
Transparency is best
Fans should be understanding

1/5

Nefreet wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
we all want the work done, and I’m sure campaign leadership wants it done almost as much as we do

This little dig is absolutely unwarranted.

We're the ones who *want* it done. For us, it's a luxury.

Paizo employees *need* it done. For them, it's a paycheck.

As others have pointed out, they don’t NEED to sanction anything at all. But that wasn’t the point of my post, and I do believe that was understood.

Nefertiti, I’m starting to feel there is some personal animosity here. Every time I post, you seem to look for some opportunity to tell me I’m wrong and my opinion is invalid and unwanted. If this is the case, I will be happy to hash this out somewhere other than these boards. This does not seem to be the proper venue.

My intent was to simply ask for transparency. In losing John, they lost not only their most experienced team member, but their most community facing one as well, neither Tonya nor Linda engage with us as much as he did. That isn’t their style, and that is okay. On her last blog Tonya gave us some transparency, and I think it was hands down her best move since taking over. I am simply asking for more of that. Maybe roll it into one of the weekly blogs.

I think most of us know they are overwhelmed, and want to be understanding, but the radio silence and overprotective fan faction make it hard for us to be as understanding as we want to be.

1/5

Agree to disagree. The last time we heard from Tonya, she did exactly this, and in my opinion it was her best move since taking over the campaign.

1/5

CrystalSeas wrote:
Kromkore wrote:
Are they even trying to find someone else?

How often do you check the job postings* at Paizo?

Do you have any idea at all how long some of those have been open?

I'm not sure why you're assuming ill-intent on the part of Paizo staff.

*Hint:
There's a link at the bottom of every single page on this website

I actually don’t see a posting about that, not that I remotely qualify. I know we all want the work done, and I’m sure campaign leadership wants it done almost as much as we do. What would help, is a little more transparency about the effort. Once a month, just tell us where they are in the backlog. Tonya did this once, but other than that it’s been near-complete radio silence. I’d be happy with a once-a-month “Hey fans, we’re still struggling, but this is where we are, bear with us.” The sound of crickets and “Better” fans calling for us to be patient doesn’t help.

1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>