A big trend in these Alpha boards is a surge of armchair designers offering up their own rulesets and tweaks. In their zeal to display their creativity they are missing what Paizo has asked of us.
We are being asked to playtest and comment on the contents of Alpha 1. The fact that we are now asked to reference page numbers from the download is evidence that Paizo is trying to weed through the inundation of "helpful" suggestions to get at the meat of what we've been asked.
Posters to these boards - if they want to actually make a difference - should focus on the task at hand. We weren't asked to rewrite Jason's stuff, we're asked to test it and comment on it.
There is always a learning curve. I am surprised that Paizo has not broken the Alpha Release 1 feedback down by AR1 page number or individual topic threads themselves. Pershaps in the subsequent releases.
|
Don't worry. If Jason finds our comments unhelpful, he will certainly let us know how to be more constructive. Since he has actually said some alternative HAVE been helpful, I think it is best if we continuet o do what we've been doing.
Part of playtesting feedback is to let the designers know if it can't be used at our table because our players balk and won't accept it or can't seem to understand it.
I certainly appreciate your desire to help make Pathfinder awesome. I think everyone else on the boards has the same desire. And there certainly should be concerns about signal to noise, but the simple fact is that the Alpha ruleset is UNACCEPTABLE to a large number of players. Simply telling them that it isn't working isn't nearly as useful as telling them why it isn't working and offering a suggestion that avoids the problem, solves the problem, or achieves the design objective the design change is intended to address.
So, I'm sure we can all give the feedback we want to give, and Paizo will do with it what they think most appropriate (up to, and including ignoring it completley).
Director of Games
|
Although I have appreciated some of the new systems posted here, there was quite a flood of them at the beginning. I have combed through a number of these looking for interesting ideas, but to be honest, I am spending a bit more time reading the feedback forums on material that is part of the Alpha release 1 document.
Such feedback has already begun to affect the process, and you will see changes to both the Combat feats and Skills sections very soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I was so excited by this news and getting the chance to actually make some comments on this that I think I've been probably posting a bit too early and too often. So far my group has only gotten to remake their characters, and I've done some stating up of monsters and NPCs, so there hasn't been much play in my playtest. I'm going to try and scale back a bit on the suggestions until I've got a bit more solid data.
Its just darn hard to do so when there is so much energy swirling around this thing.
Don't get me wrong - I don't want anyone not to post. I'm referring to some posters who completely have ignored Alpha 1 in favor of lobbying for their favorite rules sets like complex skill checks, fractional bonuses, action points, etc.
All great ideas. All already part of the SRD. All having nothing to do with Alpha 1. Many causing Jason not to sleep. He needs his sleep.
I was so excited by this news and getting the chance to actually make some comments on this that I think I've been probably posting a bit too early and too often. So far my group has only gotten to remake their characters, and I've done some stating up of monsters and NPCs, so there hasn't been much play in my playtest. I'm going to try and scale back a bit on the suggestions until I've got a bit more solid data.
Its just darn hard to do so when there is so much energy swirling around this thing.
this is me as well maybe to much so .
Don't get me wrong - I don't want anyone not to post. I'm referring to some posters who completely have ignored Alpha 1 in favor of lobbying for their favorite rules sets like complex skill checks, fractional bonuses, action points, etc.
All great ideas. All already part of the SRD. All having nothing to do with Alpha 1. Many causing Jason not to sleep. He needs his sleep.
Imho there's nothing wrong with pitching own ideas and houserules, but people shouldn't congest the playtest boards. So, if you have no 'specific observations, queries, and concerns about the rules in Pathfinder RPG Alpha release 1', you should post your ideas to the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion forum.
Additionally it would be nice if a poster would check if there is already a tread about his topic before opening a new one.Edit: DOH! What happened to my avatar picture in this reply?! It shows a ... smurf?!
you said that word any time you do and you get polymorphed
So if I say "smurf" here, will my avatar turn smurfy?
-The Gneech
EDIT: Apparently so! Hurrah for Easter Eggs. :)
I can't help it: When I see something I don't like, I just don't want to shout out "it sucks, make it better". That's too negative and rude. Instead, I tell the person what I'd do differently if I have an idea. That way it seems that you care about the whole thing, and aren't just a troll.
polymorphed
You mean polysmurfed.
You mean polysmurfed.
Ah what a wonderful new spell to unleash on my poor players.
As mention elsewhere, I consider these posts as "mental exercise". Not that something good can't come out of them, but if Jason Buhlman is looking through them, I hope to God he is just skimming!
I have no problem with moving them out out the Feedback forums. I would suggest moving them into the Word Games forum. :)
|
If had to make my list of minor complaints:
1. Posters not reading the thread. I have seen people ask a question that been answered earlier in the thread.
2. Posters acting like the alpha release changes are only for the PCs or that they don't effect NPCs or Monsters. All changes to the rules must be taken into consideration of how they will effect NPCs and Monsters as well, not just PCs.
I like how things have been, but the above two are slightly annoying.
Also,
test
Smurf
/test
It...works... *Is speechless.*
That face is priceless give the context of my post.
Sorry for spamming up the boards, but I've got to try this Smurf thing.
sorry. pay no mind. carry on.
And also: wow!
|
|
Sorry to threadjack: Re the sm*rf thing, check out this thread.
I now return you to PFRPG Alpha discussion…
Although I have appreciated some of the new systems posted here, there was quite a flood of them at the beginning. I have combed through a number of these looking for interesting ideas, but to be honest, I am spending a bit more time reading the feedback forums on material that is part of the Alpha release 1 document.
Such feedback has already begun to affect the process, and you will see changes to both the Combat feats and Skills sections very soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I can hardly get through all the stuff everybody wants Paizo to throw into the game. It's getting damned hard to find posts that are on topic, especially since people aren't using page numbers in their titles like we were asked.
You can't contribute to a discussion you can't even find due to board clutter.
Maybe the vast number of threads, posts, and "alternative systems" are a sign that Paizo's fans are excited about the possibilies in Pathfinder? If so, they can only be a good thing. The number of threads will diminish naturally as some topics either (a) get resolved, (b) get all talked out, or (c) get forgotten, so I don't see that this wave of enthusiasm is "ruining" or "blowing" anything.
Rather, it serves as a useful barometer for designers -- if there are 21 million posts about skills before playtesting even starts, and 3 posts about elves getting Greater Spell Penetration as a bonus feat, well, that seems like a pretty good indication of what areas people are most concerned with. And, really, it's the people who are posting who will be playing the new game. Why shouldn't they be allowed to discuss what they'd like to see?
Granted, more people could focus on the whole "backward compatibility" thing -- Pathfinder is not likely to abandon character classes in favor of a GURPS-like system, for example -- even if useful, workable ideas in that direction are discussed.
Mellow out, Magenta Cat. Not many folks are following the page number in post title rule, but that's not that big of a deal. The Alpha document isn't so long that it's hard to find things in anyway.
If I wanted to be snarky, I could point out that there is no page number in your thread title either. ;^)
A lot of posters are going off on "tangent rules" that aren't in the Alpha document. Again, not that big of a deal. Essentially, they can't help commenting on the fact that something is missing from the new rules that they think should be there.
The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind.
If it was a huge problem for the overall process, Paizo could have a Forum Moderator go in and move/kill threads that didn't follow the rules or add page refrences where needed. But that's taking things a bit too seriously. I can't stand forum mods who constantly post sticky threads and whine about stupid housekeeping rules. Rude and disrespectful behaviour is one thing, but double-posting isn't a mortal sin.
So it might be helpful for people to know that if they're spending a lot of time arguing over the finer points of exotic new rules that aren't even in the Alpha release, they're unlikely to have an impact on the rules. But they're still going to want to vent, so we might as well let them continue to smurf around.
|
A big trend in these Alpha boards is a surge of armchair designers offering up their own rulesets and tweaks. In their zeal to display their creativity they are missing what Paizo has asked of us.
We are being asked to playtest and comment on the contents of Alpha 1. The fact that we are now asked to reference page numbers from the download is evidence that Paizo is trying to weed through the inundation of "helpful" suggestions to get at the meat of what we've been asked.
Posters to these boards - if they want to actually make a difference - should focus on the task at hand. We weren't asked to rewrite Jason's stuff, we're asked to test it and comment on it.
I agree, Paizo could make things easier for Jason by giving us a seperate forum for "upcoming suggestions" and/or "new rules ideas", and reserve comments on the Alpha document specifics in here.
An idea could be that Jason makes a forum where only he can create a thread but everyone can post. Then when he starts a particular project like "Base Class Bard" everyone replys with suggestions and ideas to improve and streamline how bards work. After he releases this class then there can be regular posts on how the bard class is working in the field. He doesnt have to read what he isnt working and its all in one place for him.
Just a thought.
An idea could be that Jason makes a forum where only he can create a thread but everyone can post. Then when he starts a particular project like "Base Class Bard" everyone replys with suggestions and ideas to improve and streamline how bards work. After he releases this class then there can be regular posts on how the bard class is working in the field. He doesnt have to read what he isnt working and its all in one place for him.
It's a decent idea. But Paizo has a pretty "hands off" attitude towards the boards, so I doubt they would bother to create something like what you suggest. And Paizo doesn't appear to think they are being negatively impacted by the "problem" observed by the OP.
Besides, you're not going to be able to stop people from venting. If you restrict their ability to start new threads, they will just "threadjack" whatever is available and continue to beat their favorite dead horses.
Your bard thread would turn into to a discussion of Armor as DR or who knows what else.
Even "dumb" ideas deserve to be heard. As long as they aren't repeated 50,000 times, I see no "problem".
After all, one DM's houserule could very well be the future of the entire combat system. Until we have a decent accounting of what actually is working in the trenches, we will end up with more half-a**ed rules needing yet another errata reprint. Nobody wants that.
Besides, the boys and girls at Paizo are big ones (I pretty sure). If they are getting tired of it, THEY will be more than happy to say something.
You'll have to pardon me, as I become rather rude when I'm irritated.
Most of the rules suggested are just down right terrible, and they don't deserve to be polluting my line of sight whilst I'm sitting here trying to comb through threads to find good, honest feedback. Seriously folks, start your own publishing company then produce whatever dung you want.
My group is right in the middle of a really excellent campaign so, unfortunately, we can't playtest the system until we get to a good stopping point. However, I am really interested in what other folks who have had the opportunity to mess around with it have to say.
But finding the right threads is nigh impossible as it is just one idiotic, dung-filled suggestion after another. Should Paizo do something about it? I wish they would. But that would alienate the very people who are going to be buying the product so it would probably be a dumb move. I'm pretty much forced to sit in the dark, waiting for the time to play this myself.
It would sure be awfully nice if folks would just sit back, shut up and let the people who actually know what they are talking about report on their experiences of the new system. I myself will now shut up lest I continue to add to the very problem I am describing. Happy testing!
The issue here is that who has the right to say their idea is dumb? Yes alot of stuff people put out here is scrap, and near useless, but there is always the chance that any of these people could throw you a gem that can make a improved or new system. Example I have been stalking the "thoughts on Paladins" thread and there are some things that have been tossed around that will never make it, and some that are wonderful. The new lay of hands system im rushing into my saturday game so is the Special mount system. Also I found a great way to run leadership, this is just in the last two days. So yes miles of crap but if that is what it take to get us to one great idea then you better be wearing good boots.
|
Although I have appreciated some of the new systems posted here, there was quite a flood of them at the beginning. I have combed through a number of these looking for interesting ideas, but to be honest, I am spending a bit more time reading the feedback forums on material that is part of the Alpha release 1 document.
Such feedback has already begun to affect the process, and you will see changes to both the Combat feats and Skills sections very soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Dear Jason Bulmahn,
Better Economics Rules Please!
Even if it is just this:
Income Estates:
Each consisting of 3-200 Farms (average 20) per fifty six square miles
(six square miles taken up by 3 compulsory woodlots - 100gp-200gp range).
Farm Categories:
PROFESSION(FARMING).....GP VALUE OF ANNUAL PRODUCE
1-8.........100gp-200gp
9-12.......1,000gp-2,000gp
13-15......10,000gp-20,000gp
16-18.......100,000gp-200,000gp
Cash income = KNOWLEDGE(ESTATE MANAGEMENT) as a Percentage of Yield Value.
Oh lord, save me...
Oh lord, save me...
Whatever, dude. You're never going to stop people from posting stuff you're not interested in. Just learn to skim it and move on.
Oh lord, save me...
Rolled a 3- He failed the save. You'll take 3d6 (holy) fire damage at the start of the next round.
|
|
95% of the content in these threads is redundant or criticism of other users or etc.
Just having someone consolidate the material and strip away this sort f content would probably save a great deal of time
I could go with that...
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
ESTATE INCOMES
An Income producing estate consists of 3-200 Farms (Average 20) per 56 square mile (6 square miles of compulsory Woodlots – category 100gp-200gp).
INDIVIDUAL FARMS, PRODUCE VALUE, AND PRODUCE
PROFESSION (FARMING) PRODUCE VALUE
4-8 100gp-200gp
9-12 1,000gp-2,000gp
13-15 10,000gp-20,000gp
16-18 100,000gp-200,000gp
PRODUCE VALUE
216 GALLON TUN OF COMMON WINE 864sp
54 GALLON HOGSHEAD OF ALE 108sp
3 GALLON BOTTLE OF FINE WINE 128GP
50LB WHEEL OF CHEESE 100sp
50LB SACK OF WHEAT 5sp
200LB FIRKIN OF SALT 1000gp
50LB SALAMI 52GP
KNOWLEDGE (ESTATE MANAGEMENT) RANK = %TOTAL PRODUCE VALUE IN COIN.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
My dibs on Estate Income Rules...Everything you will ever need on Estates and incomes.
O_o
Yellowdingo, you made this thread wider, at least on my screen. I don't normally get a horizontal scroll bar when I look at the boards.
Weird.
I agree with the complaints above. While the Pathfinder system really goes beyond what I'd like to see changed, I'm willing to comment on that and offer suggestions.
What I don't have the time to do is wade through thousands of posts where everyone pitches their favorite house rule.
People, if you want a vast change, go to 4E. I've played it. It doesn't suck. But it's not 3.5E.
But - if you want to play 3.5E (and I really do), please don't pitch breaking changes to the rules.
Although I have appreciated some of the new systems posted here, there was quite a flood of them at the beginning. I have combed through a number of these looking for interesting ideas, but to be honest, I am spending a bit more time reading the feedback forums on material that is part of the Alpha release 1 document.
Such feedback has already begun to affect the process, and you will see changes to both the Combat feats and Skills sections very soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
You don't have to keep up with all of them. Once those topics are part of an alpha 1.4 or alpha 2, we will surely remind you about them. ^^
I'm fairly confident the users here will colectively remember everything and tell you at the appropiate time.
Even "dumb" ideas deserve to be heard.
That point of logic was the very reason my mother did not abort me.
You know the problem I have with this thread... is that every time I glance at it in the "new message" sidebar, all stands out to me are the words "Posters are blowing".
And it like shocks me every time. Every single time.
The OP has some viral marketing going on that's for sure.
You are either none other than secret squirrel himself or an SS officer named Quirrel. One way or another, we'll unmask you.
Don't mind me. I'm just trying to get in on the Smurf icons, provided that's still going on..
ANd of course I get Smurfette.. Shoot. Smurf Smurf Smurfysmurf
Actually it's short for Slappy Squirrel. Same name I've used on an old telnet based BBS (ISCABBS for the curious) since 1995. All the other Animaniacs character names I liked had been taken and I figured no guy in his right mind would wanna be Slappy. It wasn't taken and it's stuck ever since ;)
Good ta meetcha, Sllllllllllllllappy! :)
Don't mind me. I'm just trying to get in on the Smurf icons, provided that's still going on..
ANd of course I get Smurfette.. Shoot. Smurf Smurf Smurfysmurf
Back in may 13th, 2007 I typed in Gargamel and Paizo automatically deposited $25 in my Paypal account for being the 25th person to write Gargamel! Rumor has it the first person who can name all the smurfs in a single post will win $100.
|
|
The point the OP is trying to make is that if Paizo would take a few minutes to structure the boards a little differently, trying to focus suggestions/stuff left out of the current alpha to one forum, commentary on things actually in the alpha to another, it could help funnel things more productively. They can't stop people from posting in the wrong forums (altho more active moderation can shuffle things to the proper forum), but if the structure is a bit clearer to everyone maybe things would go a bit more smoothly and lead to less wasted time when trying to look for important bits.
Certainly they could have set up the Alpha Response so you could comment on each page...
But they still need that section on what they need to include that isnt being included. The Rules I suggest for Estates, Estates Incomes, Farms and their produce value are perhaps the best it will get short of the Domesday Book.
Simple and Easy to use - though I probably should have explained that I equated farm income ranges linking a Peasant Farming Skill to the sort of Farm they are likely to be able to Farm.
PRODUCE VALUE.........FARM TYPE
100gp-200gp............1700acre Woodlot, Tennant Farm
1,000gp-2,000gp........Large Dairy Farm, Sheep Farm
10,000gp-20,000gp......Large Cattle Ranch, Vinyard
100,000gp-200,000gp....Premium Vineyard
Then the Estate Management ability of the PC to extract 1-20% of total Produce in coin.
|
|
Yellowdingo, why are you posting your suggestions in this thread? Besides, the economy information is not something I would worry about for alpha material.
I would have said it was contrary...if We are going to comment on what is wrong, then we should feel free to comment on what is missing.
Take the Feats: Cleave is the multiple adjacent target impacts with a single strike...but we leave out Riccochet (a Missile weapon equivelent of Cleave).
|
You know, I Initially thought "Open Playtest - what a good idea!"
Now, I'm not too sure. By the time I got a playtest started and was ready to give some feedback, the boards were clogged with 1005968447 posts by yammering chuckleheads who wanted, not a modification to the existing PF rules, but something completely different. Of course, each of those threads were filled with more yammering chuckleheads discussing the merits of said proposal (and not, of course, the merits or flaws of the PF RAW). I admit that I have been one of them, although mostly as a "GAH! Please god no!" kind of poster (which is, in itself, no more productive than the chuckleheads'). Those threads spawned more threads - spin-offs of topics that have little to do with the PF RPG (becoming more and more just discussions of some aspect of The Game) until now, it has become so annoying to try to find useful threads that I'm giving up. I'll continue to playtest the game and as things are changed, I'll incorporate them, at least for a while, but in the end, I'll take what I want and leave the rest behind.
It's become like that jobsite commercial. "If you let everyone play, nobody wins."
There have been some good, insightful, pertinent posts on a variety of subjects. I just hope they haven't gotten lost in the combined yammering of 1005968447 chuckleheads.