Dear Paizo,
I've been posting on these boards for the last week, and I think I've done a good job of trying to be on top of things around here. I would just like to offer a place where you guys can talk to us, since we have numerous threads to chat to each other/give info. to you guys.
So I'm just wondering if after our tinkering and play-testing if you have had any questions or feedback you would like to give us...based on our feedback. Does that make any sense?
It just seems to me that no really new questions have popped up that haven't already popped up and I'd like some more direction for our efforts, but that's assuming you don't just want us to keep doing what we're doing.
Either way, I thank you again for putting your effort into making this system. I think I speak for most of us when I say we appreciate your hard work and allowing us to have some minor part in offering advice and opinions.
I second this. I would also like to see the playtest reports moved to their own section.
James has said on numerous posts they really want acuall playtesting not new varrient ideas
I know that's what they want, and I'm not talking about mechanics changes. People have been play-testing and they think, "so-and-so is weird about this mechanic or this rule interacts strangely with 'x'", but since there's not any one thread where responses are posted, then while you're playing you don't know what problems/mechanics have already been addressed unless you read in each and every thread that "might" have a post related to your issue.
Just sayin' there's probably a way of collecting all of Jason's replies and such in one place so you don't have to scan through everything. And since I know they are actively bouncing their eventual beta material off the play-testing, it just seems to me like at some point there should be some post from them saying, "we've noticed the problems with/spellings of, blah, blah..." so people don't keep arguing the same issues and posting the same back and forth.
And also, with play-testing, the individual game are tests with players as test variables. It just seems that the "testers" might want the players to run a certain scenario for them to get info. That way individual groups play-testing could all give feedback on one problem or issue that Paizo is dealing with. I'm not a publisher of anything, but it seems more scientific or guided "testing" logically leads to more specifically useful information.
Whatever. Nothing I post ever seems to help much around here, but I try my best.
Happy posting,
-James
|
I see where you are coming from too. I have run a couple of playtests and haven't posted about them simply because I am unsure what they want to hear about. A lot of the posted playtest notes are well written and extensive but these guys have jobs. They can't really wade through a couple hundred 1000 word posts a day looking for that one broken mechanic to come up.
My suggestions:
- A Playtest Submission Guidelines Document.
- A weekly "bang on this" thread for stuff that is on Jason's radar.
- A couple of PRPG scenario pack PDFs (maybe they have to have some encounters in a drawer that never made it to print that could be converted to PRPG for this purpose).
- A "Playtester's Feedback Form" type of outline with a list of what they actually care to know.
In short, we really want to help, tell us how best to do that.
Hip hip hazah to you for telling it like it is. I have been playtesting PRPG in paizo's very own Rise of the Runelords adventure path making changes on the fly, and having players change as well. so far it seems to be going ok once the players changed over and got used to new ways of doing things. But alas the things you mentioned could be quite handy