|
The Beta is going to be the real deal, the official playtest, before the REAL real deal comes out in August 2009. The way we as a community provide feedback is going to be important. With the Alphas, we went wild and were all over the map with ideas and suggestions - which was fine - but with the Beta I think we're moving into a phase that would benefit from a little more discipline ("storming" vs. "norming").
With that, I'd like to suggest that Paizo put up the Beta forums as soon as possible. Lock them or do something so we don't start posting prematurely, but at least let us see how you are thinking of structuring them and give us the opportunity to give feedback on things like categories, etc. Some discussion of this has already begun in this thread.
Other folks have started threads about what we should be playtesting, which is great because, again, I see this phase needing to be more focused. Which brings me to my last point. I've read a lot of posts where people say they've been playtesting with this house rule or that house rule. That's fine, I house-rule like crazy, but it's not really playtesting if you house-rule too much. 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 we can say, "At first I ran the RAW 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.
|
It's not playtesting if you house rule at all. Alpha and Beta isn't about how you want to play the game, it's about making sure the game Paizo makes WORKS. If you have to house rule something because it doesn't work then that's feedback Paizo needs to know about. If you house rule something because you don't like it... well.. you're not contributing.
All that aside, I don't see the point to beta forums early, especially if we can't post in them. The web guys and the rules guys have other things to worry about then forums aren't needed yet (particularly when the Alpha forums aren't being used right by posters.)
|
|
(particularly when the Alpha forums aren't being used right by posters.)
That's partly what I hope sharing the Beta forum set up would avoid. I think part of the reason why the Alpha forums are being used correctly is because they aren't set up the way people want to respond (and - granted - partly because people aren't reading the directions). If Paizo showed us the categories they're going to use for the Beta forums, folks could chime in and give suggestions.
But maybe you're right, maybe it doesn't need to be a full blown forum yet. Still, I think it would be helpful to at least post the categories so people can troubleshoot them a little. Also, it would start a discussion of what should go in each category and how to use the new forums correctly (i.e., keeping ideas for new rules, etc. out of playtest reports, avoiding house rules, and so on).
Chief Technical Officer
|
Please keep in mind that the point of the playtest forums is, well, to help Jason playtest the game. To that end, there's really only one opinion that Gary and I care about when it comes to how the Beta forums are organized, and that opinion is Jason's. We'll do whatever he thinks will get him the most usable feedback.
I believe he already has some ideas about how to better direct things in the next round.
|
|
"If you have to house rule something because it doesn't work then that's feedback Paizo needs to know about. If you house rule something because you don't like it... well.. you're not contributing."
I understand your point, but I don't agree with it.
I think Paizo also needs to know about the aspects that may work logically, but that people don't like emotionally. If it turns out they create some rule that 99% of people dislike and don't want in, then I think they should know that, even if that rule works on a technical level.
In other words, I think emotional criticism is also valid, not only logical criticism.
If -- taking an extreme example to illustrate the point -- Pathfinder says that all hobgoblins are rapists by nature. It might work, rules-wise. But I bet a lot of people would "house rule it because they don't like it", and I think it is definitely contributing, if you let Paizo know that you're house ruling it away.
|
|
Suggestions for the new forums-
In the Playtest Feedback section, consider subheadings for Character Creation, Low-Level Play, Mid-Level Play, and High-Level Play. People will be playing at different levels and may have different experiences, but they all need to work well.
Different sections for New Campaigns started using the Beta rules and Converted Campaigns from 3.5. Again, folks may have very different experiences but both need to work well.
People should also tag their posts somehow regarding how much converting they are doing - running old adventures as written but with Beta characters; only changing a few stats like HP, feats and spells; re-stat'ing major NPCs; fully and completely re-stat'ing everything so it is now basically a Pathfinder adventure. It would also be helpful to know just how cumbersome the different degrees of conversion are.