|
I'm sure that the good folk at Paizo will ship playtest feedback forms and guidelines, but I'd like to submit for your consideration a couple of guidelines for the upcoming PF Beta feedback on these forums.
Apart from [Think tank], few other tags are currently used. I'd venture that a clear tagging of the threads would make the feedback easier to find for Jason and the team. I'd also love to see clearer descriptions of suggested rules' modifications. Finally, I wouldn't mind not reading again the words "nerf", "sucks", "lame" and "stupid" in the context of the playtest. :-)
So here goes nothing:
1. Reporting usability issues
1.1 Recommended tags for threads' subjects/titles
[Typo]: spelling/grammar mistake, incorrect page reference, missing words, sentences, paragraphs, tables, etc.
1.2 Other info to provide in the thread's subjects/titles
- affected rules
- clear reference to the location of the issue (page/table numbers)
1.3 Info to provide in the post
- brief explanation of the issue (if necessary)
- current wording of the issue (if applicable)
- suggested correction
1.4 Example
(Title)
[Typo] Sorcerer - Psychotic bloodline - p. 246
(Post)
Description
The description of the "Evil cackling" psychotic sorcerer's bloodline power is missing the ability type descriptor.
Text
Evil cackling: At 3rd level, you can emit a nasty laughter as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. You deal 1 point of Wisdom damage for every two caster levels you possess.
Correction
Evil cackling (Su): Starting at 1st level, you can emit a nasty laughter as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. You deal 1 point of Wisdom damage for every two caster levels you possess.
1.5 Template
[code]
Description
Text
Correction
[/code]
2. Logging change requests
2.1 Recommended tags for threads' subjects/titles
[Clarification]: The text is ambiguous or inconsistent. A rewording may be necessary to avoid divergent interpretations and eliminate contradictions.
[Tweak]: Limited modification of an existing rule.
[Redesign]: Extensive modification of an existing rule.
[Addition]: New rule which deals with an area not covered by existing rules.
[Variant]: Alternate rule for an area covered by existing rules.
2.2 Other info to provide in the thread's subject/title
- affected rules
- clear reference to the location of the affected rules (page/table numbers)
2.3 Info to provide in the post
Enhancement requests should contain:
- brief explanation of the issue addressed by the enhancement
- current wording of the affected rule(if applicable)
- suggested modification
2.4 Example
(Title)
[Tweak] Attack rolls - relevant ability score - p. 173
(Post)
Description
Smart characters should be able to use their Intelligence modifier when attacking stupid foes.
Current rule
Attack Bonus
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
New rule
Attack Bonus
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier* + size modifier
*You may choose to use your Intelligence modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls made against mindless creatures. If you carry a helmet or a big hat, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
2.5 Template
[code]
Description
Current rule
New rule
[/code]
|
Great idea to start talking about this now. I appreciate your systematic approach but doubt that most folks will be that consistent. Your [tags] though are pretty straight forward and just those alone would help a lot I think.
Another possibility would be to have separate forums for:
* Proofreading and Corrections
* Theoretical Discussions - the way folks feel things should work
* Playtest Feedback - I've engaged in a lot of 'what if' discussions with the Alphas, but once Beta hits I think actual at-the-table feedback is going to be a lot more important.
On the subject of playtesting, I've read a lot of people say they've been playtesting with this house rule or that house rule. That's fine, but it's not really playtesting then. In this next phase, I think it's going to be really important for people to use the Beta rules as written, otherwise it will be hard for Paizo to evaluate their effectiveness. Maybe after six months or so you can say, "At first I ran the rules as written and didn't like X so the I tried Y for a few months and liked it better," but at least at first we all need to stick to the pure Beta rules as written (RAW I think it's nicknamed).
|
|
Another possibility would be to have separate forums for:
* Proofreading and Corrections
* Theoretical Discussions - the way folks feel things should work
* Playtest Feedback - I've engaged in a lot of 'what if' discussions with the Alphas, but once Beta hits I think actual at-the-table feedback is going to be a lot more important.
Mosaic,
Yours is probably the most manageable. Moreover, each of these could be broken down into Race/Class/Skill/Feat/Combat/Equipment/Magic/Monsters/NPCs/etc.
That said, the one your forgot was the gripes and wants. Unless you are including that in theoretical discussions, but I'd try to keep the "Kick up a Storm" board apart from the others.
I would add, however, that while it is important to use Beta as listed, and keep out house rules, that isn't to say that people shouldn't try the rules with other races and classes intermixed. That will be helpful for purposes of backward compatibility testing.
|
|
Great idea to start talking about this now. I appreciate your systematic approach but doubt that most folks will be that consistent. Your [tags] though are pretty straight forward and just those alone would help a lot I think.
Tags and explicit topic titles would make very happy already.
Another possibility would be to have separate forums for:
* Proofreading and Corrections
* Theoretical Discussions - the way folks feel things should work
* Playtest Feedback - I've engaged in a lot of 'what if' discussions with the Alphas, but once Beta hits I think actual at-the-table feedback is going to be a lot more important.
Where would you put tweaks (small changes) and redesign suggestions? These are not quite corrections of errors and often offer quite practical value. I'd rather discuss a rewritten rule and argue about the the author's stated objectives rather than simply throw ideas around.
On the subject of playtesting, I've read a lot of people say they've been playtesting with this house rule or that house rule. That's fine, but it's not really playtesting then. In this next phase, I think it's going to be really important for people to use the Beta rules as written, otherwise it will be hard for Paizo to evaluate their effectiveness. Maybe after six months or so you can say, "At first I ran the rules as written and didn't like X so the I tried Y for a few months and liked it better," but at least at first we all need to stick to the pure Beta rules as written (RAW I think it's nicknamed).
Excellent point.
|
|
Yours is probably the most manageable. Moreover, each of these could be broken down into Race/Class/Skill/Feat/Combat/Equipment/Magic/Monsters/NPCs/etc.
The current one-level structure is not very usable as it is.
Are you suggesting a nested structure for the forums such as:Beta forum > Proofreading and Corrections subforum > Races
Beta forum > Theoretical Discussions > Races
Beta forum > Playtest Feedback > Races ?
1.4 Example
OOT: I want to see the psychotic bloodline in the beta... >:D
Maybe there should be a place to discuss houserules specifically - because a houserule indicates what a group really wants the game to be.
Like: This is what we have written - what did you change for your needs and why and how significant was it?
|
|
A couple more thoughts on the kind of feedback that might be useful once the Beta hits:
Playtests of new, Pathfinder-generated characters vs. characters converted from 3.5. Not "vs." like they fight, rather "Do converted characters play as well as they used to?" and "Do converted characters play as well as new characters?"
Reports of folks converting old campaigns and any holes or missing pieces they discover as they try to convert from 3.5.
Playtests results of folks playing old 3.5 adventures as is vs. folks doing a full conversion of the old stuff.
Actually, it might be really helpful to have a couple of modules fully converted to the Beta rules so folks can playtest a Beta adventure. All the GameMastery stuff is owned by Paizo so my #1 choice would be an "official" Beta-converted adventure, but a sanctioned fan-converted module would do the trick. Might keep folks busy for a while too. I bet putting together a module would be a really useful perspective on the Beta rules.