This is an open letter to Jason Bulmahn. However it's not a gripe letter, hopefully.
Jason,
I run two face to face Runelord campaigns. One started last night, and we plan on using the new rules.
The other group has been playing for six months and should be starting Chapter Three this Saturday. This group has some sharp experienced players, some of whom have freelanced for Green Ronin, and published under Blackwyrm. This group has some interest in converting to the new rules too, but they also have some concerns.
I'm not the guy who is best able to address those concerns, but I think you, Jason Bulmahn, are that guy. You're the Lead Designer who is responsible for going over the playtest material.
Please bear in this mind, my players don't often come to the Paizo boards themselves. Undertaking playtesting would mean that they would start coming here directly and posting their own opinions and reactions.
To anybody else responding to this post, bear in mind, they don't know the community like I do. If this is responded to really negatively, all that's going to happen is I don't playtest with this particular group, which would be a damn shame because they're good players. Try to cut them some slack as people new to the community.
I was given permission to forward the concern directly from one of them:
My main concern with investing a lot (emotionally) in the playtesting effort is that 'design by committee' usually leads to the loudest designers, rather than the best designers, getting their way. I expect that there will be very heated discussions over rules minutiae and that can get very stressful (especially for someone like me if I actually end up caring and know that I'm right :) ). A game where the rules are decided by whomever is the most persistent and most charismatic online is not one in which I am going to have much influence because as my persistence goes up, my charisma drops dramatically.
I'm willing to try out the rules and provide feedback and all that but if it turns out to be an shouting match in order to contribute meaningfully, then I'd just as soon wait until August 09 to try the Paizo version. It would be too frustrating to think that we could help shape the rules, if only we were big enough jerks on the boards. An while I could try and playtest without ever visiting the boards, that too would frustrating in its own right - letting the kids win and pretending to playtest a game without any real influence.
That, of course, is the worst-case scenario (which seems to be my default assumption with things beyond my control). The best-case is Paizo very actively moderating the official playtest boards to quash disrespectful and unconstructive exchanges while culling the best ideas for consideration (in private) by their in-house design team. I'm all for it if the feedback is taken on it's own merits, rather than based on the sound and fury of the boards, signifying nothing.
I asked if I could forward this concern on... and....
You're welcome to forward my concerns, and I'm fine with you using my 'name'. If I'm going to contribute, I may as well start building name recognition (I'm Ki_Ryn on the Paizo boards too).
Now I'm going to forward a link to this thread to him, so he'll see the response, and maybe post himself.
I'd like to think that some reassurance and 'getting this out in the open on Day One' is that is really required here.
Thanks Jason!
Thanks Watcher. I probably would have been a little more polite if I had written my concerns for the world at large rather than just our table :) - but the gist is the same. I love the idea of fixing 3.5 rather than moving to 4.0 and would really like to see the game become as good as possible. So I feel that it's important that the designers recognize up front that the loudest voice is not always the wisest. As the flood of feedback continues, I fear it may be all too easy to lose sight of that fact.
Thanks Watcher. I probably would have been a little more polite if I had written my concerns for the world at large rather than just our table :) - but the gist is the same. I love the idea of fixing 3.5 rather than moving to 4.0 and would really like to see the game become as good as possible. So I feel that it's important that the designers recognize up front that the loudest voice is not always the wisest. As the flood of feedback continues, I fear it may be all too easy to lose sight of that fact.
Oh crap!
(hits forehead)
I was supposed to convey the concern, not quote it...
Well, I just friggan blew my Diplomacy Roll. :(
Put the blame on me folks!
|
In all honesty my impression is, and my hope is, that we get to give our input into the system, but Jason and others make the final calls. If they give in simply to loud obnoxious people (like me) just to shut them up, then it is the first sign that Paizo has cracked and is not in fact the solid quality company I thought.
Methinks JB ain't gonna cry about it. This is an excellent comment. Personally I think this is us posting some ideas and Paizo deciding whether or not they're useful.
I am VERY skeptical that Jason is gonna be the beotch of some screamy poster in the Alpha threads.
Heh, quoting is fine Watcher :) and I expect Paizo to do what is best for the game. I really respect what they are trying to do and figure that making this explicit might help things get off to a good start.
Hi Watcher and Ki_ryn,
I have the same concerns as you, in any democracy the screaming minority tend to get heard over the less vocal minority.
I was going to suggest that any contentious rule choices get put to a community vote. This way we all get our voice heard, do you think this is something we could ask Paizo to look at? Would that calm down your concerns, as I think it would reduce mine?
That said I like most things I have read so far, so they appear to know what they are doing and what needs changing with out our input.
|
Much like Ki_Ryn above I’d like to know that my time and efforts will not go unrecognized if I choose to simply state them and not overstate them. I have left several boards because of this in the past and if I don’t feel that my time is considered valuable or worth wile to those asking for it then I will stop giving it.
When Egos get involved it is all to easy to resort to a ”I’m right, you’re wrong” kind of shouting match. I know that it will be impossible to get around that kind of thing completely but it would be good to know that someone impartial is weighing both arguments based on their quality rather than their vehemence.
If you couldn't tell I'm Watcher's other player.
|
|
This is an open letter to Jason Bulmahn. However it's not a gripe letter, hopefully.
/Snip Much/
Hopefully, and as the open playtesting gains steam over time, a pseudo-formalized response system will come to bear. Something at the very leat along the lines of "We've decided to use X...and here's why" or "We've decided NOT to use Y...and here's our reasoning" in order to subdue some of the chaos and sniping that we all foresee.
Of course, since I am a lurker of less frequency than most on this thread, and have never actually posted on these boards before, this may be a grossly naive hope on my part. I know other ahem unnamed boards have slapped my desire for civil exchange in the face...but I reserve the right to hope in vain here. :-)
Director of Games
|
Hi there all,
I agree that this is a concern. Trust me on this, I am going to be open to all feedback I receive, regardless of how many times or how loudly you post. On the flip side of that arguement, if a thread degenerates into arguements over small details, I am going to move on. This is too big of a process to get bogged down in very small details right now (that is more Beta type feedback imo).
Your voice will be heard. This is not design by committee.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I have the same concerns as you, in any democracy the screaming minority tend to get heard over the less vocal minority.
Nobody said this was a democracy. It's very democratickesque, but in the end it's Jason's baby, and Jason's final call to make. He seems like a pretty bright guy. I think he can sniff out ranty BS from the real idea gems.
What we have here is what has made Paizo the great company that it is: they communicate freely with their customers. I don't think they want us casting votes so much as they want simple feedback. Our thoughts stimulate theirs.
It's one of those Circle of Life things (snark!).