|
... 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.
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.
As for what system it is supposed to support – primarily the Pathfinder line of products, the ‘feel’ of which has already been quite well established.
That's why DM's are called screen monkeys. They are like "gawd."You called? :oP
Now this maniac wants a cult, too. Great.
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.
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...
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.
|
|
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).
|
|
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.
|
|
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 :)
I found these things after a couple of minutes of looking. I imagine there are more:
Greetings and welcome to the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion forum.
This is the forum for general comments about the Pathfinder RPG and discussing the system with other fans. This is also where we will post announcements about upcoming Alpha releases and opportunities to play the game.
This forum should also be used to post up new rules and suggestions about parts of the system that have not yet appeared in an Alpha document.
We need your help to make this the best game possible. Thanks for checking out the Pathfinder RPG and welcome aboard.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Hello again,
Welcome to the Pathfinder RPG Alpha release 1 forum. This is the forum for posting specific observations, queries, and concerns about the rules in release 1.
When starting a thread, please list rules in question and a page reference in the subject line of the thread. Please take a good look through all of the threads first to see if there is already one in progress about the rules in question. As future Alpha releases become available, new forums will be created to support those releases.
Thanks again for checking out the Pathfinder RPG. I look forward to reading your feedback.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
We want your feedback. These rules are not yet
f inalized, and we’re turning to you to help us
polish them into the game you want to play. To
help us accomplish this, we will be unveiling the
Pathfinder RPG rules in a number of releases (this
is Alpha release 1). Over the coming months, all the
rules will be revealed, culminating in the off icial Beta
release, available this August. Your playtesting and
suggestions will help shape the Beta release and the
eventual f inished product.
sUbmitting Feedback
Once you’ve read through the rules and played a few
games with them, go to paizo.com/pathf inderRPG.
On the messageboards are forums for Pathfinder RPG
playtesters. Use these forums to post your own feedback,
read the feedback of others, and to talk to the Pathfinder
RPG design team.
General Discussion: This forum is for general
comments about the Pathfinder RPG and discussing
the system with other fans. This is also where Paizo
will post announcements about upcoming releases
and opportunities to play the game. You can also post
your ideas and suggestions for new rules to this forum.
While much of the game is already in design, we will be
monitoring this forum for good ideas and suggestions
as we move forward.
Playtest Feedback: This forum is for posting specif ic
observations, queries, and concerns about the rules in
current release of the Pathfinder RPG. When starting
a thread, please list the rules in question and a page
reference in the subject line of the thread. Take a good
look through all of the threads f irst to see if there is
already one in progress about the rule in question. As
future playtest releases become available, new forums
will be added to cover those releases.
Finally, the Pathfinder RPG design and development
staff would like to thank you for participating. This is a
big endeavor, and it would not be possible without your
support. Thanks!
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.
The example I gave in my earliest quote wasn't just user acceptance testing (this piece of jargon escaped me, but I think I'm getting a bead on it now that you have used it a little more). What the community contributed by playing the game, and what they reported was game design oriented, it provoked adjustments in balance, and the development of new game rules and the beta testing community is still today credited with some of the fundamental changes that were made. In the end, the hours people spent playing the game were far greater in the end than those spent writing the code itself. AND achievements made during the beta development of CS had a profound impact on the design of all 3D shooter games today.
So go ahead and throw around the word b%$!*+%& all you like, you're just trying to dismiss a part of a process that Paizo has chosen with an epithet. Again, this is the same tactic employed by some guy whose name I have now forgotten.
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).
I guess we have a different approach to quality management and continual improvement.
I’m willing to accept that declaration and agree to disagree on methodology. I’m “am” pleased to see you did take some initiative on implementation after all and started a “focus” thread. Well done.
Yeah, I was busily replying to the first bullet points while you had moved on to community involvement and design cohesion. No worries.
Speaking of laws used as a framework, the current design of Pathfinder strikes me as similar to the rule of law applied to pornography in America. Specifically, “I know it when I see it.”
Getting back to the 'vision document' thing, if you go back and reread the opening statements made by Lisa, Eric, and especially Jason from when Pathfinder was first announced, that should give you some idea what direction Paizo is going with PathfinderRPG. Jason brought up 3 points that defined in broad terms what they were after, and what they needed our help with. The goal isn't to make an entirely new game (which I think gets lost in a lot of the random posts), but tweak the present game so that rules make more sense and are more useful.
As far as the playtesting issue is concerned, I think the last 8 1/2 years of playing D&D constitutes a good pre-playtesting scenerio. Now they are presenting new/updated rules and asking us to run them and see if they work; if not, why; if so, are they better then the old rules? Are there any houserules that might be brought up that make more sense? We saw a lot of discussion when the skills were brought up, and while some opinions were merely of the like/don't like variety, some comments were fairly thought out or had some good ideas that Paizo could look at.
Could everything be run more efficiently? Maybe, if it were a different, more conventional type of playtest. Apparently Paizo wanted to try something different. This is the biggest open playtest of anything I've ever heard of. So unfortunately the randomness and unstructured method is going to rub some people the wrong way. To those people I suggest to sit back in your chair, take a deep breath, relax, and help point out some rules that need fixing. Because whether you are a number-cruncher or a emo-artsy-fartsy, or a combination of the two, we are all after the same thing. A great role-playing system.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em, folks.
I was not offended, merely pointing out that everyone here is moaning about being abused, many seem to have no compunction to hurl abuses back.
Actually everyone is not moaning about being abused.
Nor do I see "many" people hurling insults.
See us how you wish, sir, but understand that the way you are expressing it is very distorted.
|
stuff
What abuse have I hurled, exactly? I used the word "cult", which you didn’t like, so I explained why I used it. I wasn’t particularly aiming it at you in the first place, more at the generalised feeling among some people that Frank is somehow necessary for the success of this product. I have seen a fair bit of self-congratulatory back-slapping among some of Frank’s friends and associates – Psychotic Robot/BT springs to mind (I saw a post where he rather slavishly sucked up to Frank about how only those who have done the maths should be entitled to post, or something along those lines, though I can’t remember the context.) Plus, Frank did show up with a posse when he arrived on these boards. That’s not really psychology, it’s just an observation. And an obvious one.
And in any case, what are we supposed to do? Just roll over meekly when someone tries to shout us down? Hmm, is that the great online democracy in action? I’m entitled to defend my point of view, or those of others with whom I agree. You seem to be suffering from a very strong case of double standards, where Frank is just “being funny” but a couple of words from me and I’m “hurling abuse”. All I was doing was disagreeing with you.
And please don’t lecture me about having a thick skin online. That is (1) an excuse for the ignorant to act in an ignorant fashion and (2) totally false anyway – I see no reason why I should be abused any more online than I should be to my face. What I find somewhat amusing is how those handing out the abuse are really very thin skinned indeed when they get on the receiving end – most of Frank’s rants arose when he was challenged in his pronouncements, for example, and K cracked quite comprehensively before he finally flounced off. Even you have picked on the word “cult”, like it is a really big deal. Sure, the word has connotations, I am aware of those connotations and intended them to be there – an irrational devotion to an object or person. I disapprove of Frank’s methods, and am baffled that anyone seems to think that just because he had a few good ideas about D&D (and a few stinkers too, by the way - the dual-currency wish economy left me very cold, and was dealt with very easily by modifying the Wish spell) he is entitled to be abusive, or we should tolerate his outbursts. And I’m not going to pretend otherwise just to make you feel good. But as insults go, it seems fairly tame to me. Thick skin?
Rather than wasting both our times in this somewhat pointless exchange, can I humbly suggest you participate in the playtest and provide us with your insights? I think suggesting that the project will not be successful if we don’t have the numbers crunched by Frank and Co. is slightly hubristic – after all, D&D 3.0 and 3.5 were both very successful, and they embody the very errors the playtest is looking to fix – so I suspect that what you mean by successful is “whether ckafrica will buy it”. Well, that is your choice and the choice of every potential consumer. Personally, I have a great time playing 3.5, so it is successful for me, and I expect PFRPG will be too. I don’t need someone telling me how stupid I am all the time in order to fix a few corner issues (sometimes badly, with the dual currency fix). But if there are fixes to be had, by all means put them forward. It is up to the Paizo team, rather than you or me (or Frank) what will be in the final version of the game.
Just to let you know, I won't be responding anymore. I'm not interested in stoking any more of this. Let's concentrate on the game, which is why we are here.
Hey guys,
10,000,000 emo kids just called. They want their oversensitivity and complete lack of a sense of humour back.
<ducks ... leaves quickly ... locks door behind him>
Sense of humour (humor) ?
Could it be the mythical "sixth sense"?"I see funny people..."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Hey guys,
10,000,000 emo kids just called. They want their oversensitivity and complete lack of a sense of humour back.
<ducks ... leaves quickly ... locks door behind him>Sense of humour (humor) ?
Could it be the mythical "sixth sense"?"I see funny people..."
Yes, a sense of humour [<-- handy wikipedia link provided for those unsure about the concept]. As an instructor, I'm increasingly baffled when looking at my students to find them completing lacking in what I considered a necessity of life growing up. I suspect it is part of a new online mode of literacy -- when hit with a deluge of information, don't read -- REACT!
|
|
Yes, a sense of humour [<-- handy wikipedia link provided for those unsure about the concept]. As an instructor, I'm increasingly baffled when looking at my students to find them completing lacking in what I considered a necessity of life growing up. I suspect it is part of a new online mode of literacy -- when hit with a deluge of information, don't read -- REACT!
Great link - I've been engaging in recreational drollery and I never knew it.
Never mind, they'll probably just mope about and write bad poetry, cry a little, and cut themselves.
What are we talking about here ?
Emo kids or drow ? ;)/runs away, chased by a horde of Drizzters
you wouldn't understand my pain.
you wouldn't understand my pain.
Nice Avatar.