|
Well, PRPG isn't really designed to interact with 3pp products, so I don't know how useful that might be, but you never know.
I've noticed more than a few threads discussing how to convert various Pathfinder products into other settings, so that would be useful, but it might be seen as a bt too openly supporting the posting of non-OGL content. But I would definitely post there.
As for a CharOp boards? Please spare us! We should be playtesting, not sittingaroundmakingcoolcharacters-testing. CharOp (and the players who frequent them) are part of the reason for the demise of 3rd Edition (and will be for 4th Edition, mark my words).
|
Well, PRPG isn't really designed to interact with 3pp products, so I don't know how useful that might be, but you never know.
It's not? What about the compatibility logo they'll be introducing? What about the backwards compatibility statement on page 3.
I've noticed more than a few threads discussing how to convert various Pathfinder products into other settings, so that would be useful, but it might be seen as a bt too openly supporting the posting of non-OGL content. But I would definitely post there.
True.. but stats are stats. No one owns a stat block.
As for a CharOp boards? Please spare us! We should be playtesting, not sittingaroundmakingcoolcharacters-testing. CharOp (and the players who frequent them) are part of the reason for the demise of 3rd Edition (and will be for 4th Edition, mark my words).
While I agree that the focus FOR NOW is playtesting, eventually we'll be past the testing phase. So yeah.
I'll add that turning the dedicated minimaxers loose on a ruleset is a good way to find potentially broken combinations or rules loopholes, so that those problems can be fixed.
|
|
EDIT: Sorry if my first post was a bit harsh - I really do like the idea of a 3pp and a Conversion forum. :)
It's not? What about the compatibility logo they'll be introducing? What about the backwards compatibility statement on page 3.
What I meant was that it isn't supposed to be "balanced" with 3pp products.
True.. but stats are stats. No one owns a stat block.
I was more concerned with details involving history, deities, etc. If Paizo says "hey, come here for free information on the FR deities" that might cause problems. Believe, I am all for it, I just think a measure of caution could be in order.
While I agree that the focus FOR NOW is playtesting, eventually we'll be past the testing phase. So yeah.
So the open playtest process is:
read->speculate->complain->playtest->munchkin->complain ;)The way I see it, playtesting means playing with the rules to test them. After that comes playing, and min-maxing characters is not playing, it is tinkering. Just like having a fantasy football league is not playing football.
This also touches on Ross's comments, but I just find aggressive min-maxing to be the easiest way to break system, no matter how hard you try and fix it. No matter how much work Jason does, he can't account for every variable that a CharOp board could come up with. EDIT: This doesn't mean it isn't useful, but such reports can easily come up in the other forums in form of helpful feedback on the issue discovered, rather than an in-depth post on an entire character build.
I just find the whole thing turns into a distasteful contest over who has the most powerful build. Plus, once certain of my players get on it there is no turning back!
I don't know...bad memories of the Wizards boards I suppose. I enjoy a friendly discussion about classes and characters as much as anybody. I can just easily see it devolving into something like the 4th Ed boards at their worst.
Now, this is a moot if Jason thinks such a thing would help him, or if the other Paizonians feel it will help the community. I just haven't seen an overwhelming clamouring for it yet.
|
|
EDIT: Sorry if my first post was a bit harsh - I really do like the idea of a 3pp and a Conversion forum. :)
It's not? What about the compatibility logo they'll be introducing? What about the backwards compatibility statement on page 3.What I meant was that it isn't supposed to be "balanced" with 3pp products.
Right, which is why a forum for FAN discussion would be helpful. Whether Paizo supports it with input of their own or not some place for fan created conversion would be helpful to those playing with PRPG.
I was more concerned with details involving history, deities, etc. If Paizo says "hey, come here for free information on the FR deities" that might cause problems. Believe, I am all for it, I just think a measure of caution could be in order.
I don't see anywhere in his original post that said he wants to provide information on intellectual property. He want to to convert stat blocks and address conversion issues.
So the open playtest process is:
read->speculate->complain->playtest->munchkin->complain ;)
Seeing as how there's a large majority of people that aren't getting past the speculation part of your "process" I don't think a forum or two is going to matter.
The way I see it, playtesting means playing with the rules to test them. After that comes playing, and min-maxing characters is not playing, it is tinkering.
What better way to find wholes and flaws in the system then by min-maxing characters? Maybe there's a combination out there that just breaks the game.
This also touches on Ross's comments, but I just find aggressive min-maxing to be the easiest way to break system, no matter how hard you try and fix it.
So instead of letting min-maxing break the system now while the rules are being tested, we're going to turn a blind eye to min-maxing and hope that when the rules are FINAL no one min-maxes and breaks the system them?
No matter how much work Jason does, he can't account for every variable that a CharOp board could come up with. EDIT: This doesn't mean it isn't useful, but such reports can easily come up in the other forums in form of helpful feedback on the issue discovered, rather than an in-depth post on an entire character build.
Or not come up at all since we're turning a blind eye and not focusing in on it. A lot can break between August 2008 and August 2009.
Since the rest of your post is clearly aimed at behavior on Wizards.Com I'm going to not reply or quote in since this isn't Wizards.Com or the 4e forums and is not actually constructive or relevant dialog to the Pathfinder RPG. Unlike WOTC and 4e, Paizo wants use to tears Pathfinder RPG apart and find where it breaks so that when it releases in August 2009 it's the best product it can be.
|
|
Right, which is why a forum for FAN discussion would be helpful. Whether Paizo supports it with input of their own or not some place for fan created conversion would be helpful to those playing with PRPG.
Which is fine, Paizo has a history of having 3pp forums anyway. But the OP was asking for one in relation to the Beta playtest, which pushed my method of thinking to "playtesting in other 3pp products" - which may or may not be useful.
I don't see anywhere in his original post that said he wants to provide information on intellectual property. He want to to convert stat blocks and address conversion issues.
And nowehere in my post did I say he mentioned IP - I merely brought it up as an inevitable result of setting conversions. If Paizo has a "Forgotten Realms PRPG" forum, that could be trouble, since it is not entirely fan created.
Seeing as how there's a large majority of people that aren't getting past the speculation part of your "process" I don't think a forum or two is going to matter.
In this regard, no it probably wouldn't. The people who will playtest are doing so, and those who won't are speculating - it doesn't matter how many forums there are.
What better way to find wholes and flaws in the system then by min-maxing characters? Maybe there's a combination out there that just breaks the game.
A better way? Taking those characters through an actual game, with a DM, and seeing how they interact with both encounters and plots. A character that looks great on paper might play like crap, and vice versa.
So instead of letting min-maxing break the system now while the rules are being tested, we're going to turn a blind eye to min-maxing and hope that when the rules are FINAL no one min-maxes and breaks the system them?
I never suggested turning a blind eye, in fact I encouraged the notion of min-maxers pointing out flaws in the system in the relevant playtest threads (got a broken paladin build, put it in the "classes" report section). I just don't think we need an entire forum for such discussions.
Or not come up at all since we're turning a blind eye and not focusing in on it. A lot can break between August 2008 and August 2009.
Again, I never said "ignore min-maxing". I suggested using it with consideration and with the intent of providing clear, concise feedback on an issue that might concern the designers.
Since the rest of your post is clearly aimed at behavior on Wizards.Com I'm going to not reply or quote in since this isn't Wizards.Com or the 4e forums and is not actually constructive or relevant dialog to the Pathfinder RPG. Unlike WOTC and 4e, Paizo wants use to tears Pathfinder RPG apart and find where it breaks so that when it releases in August 2009 it's the best product it can be.
I believe that was a reply to my comments. :)
I think it is constructive for a fan to provide feedback that they don't think the Paizo boards are suited for CharOp discussions.
I'm starting to get a "hostile argument" vibe from this discussion, maybe we should both cool off a bit?
This also touches on Ross's comments, but I just find aggressive min-maxing to be the easiest way to break system, no matter how hard you try and fix it. No matter how much work Jason does, he can't account for every variable that a CharOp board could come up with. EDIT: This doesn't mean it isn't useful, but such reports can easily come up in the other forums in form of helpful feedback on the issue discovered, rather than an in-depth post on an entire character build.
Oh, I agree that it's impossible to kill every single broken possibility. But at the very least, we should find the easy ones now. If someone on the playtest boards can find that they, say, can make a completely broken barbarian just by picking two particular feats, isn't that something we might want to know?
|
|
Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization
I read that thread and noticed that somebody who posted in it a little over two years ago predicted that the next edition would come out in two years. Accounting for when the post was made, that would put it in February 08. Not a bad guess.
Nothing on-topic to add to this thread, just wanted to point that out.
|
|
This also touches on Ross's comments, but I just find aggressive min-maxing to be the easiest way to break system, no matter how hard you try and fix it. No matter how much work Jason does, he can't account for every variable that a CharOp board could come up with. EDIT: This doesn't mean it isn't useful, but such reports can easily come up in the other forums in form of helpful feedback on the issue discovered, rather than an in-depth post on an entire character build.Oh, I agree that it's impossible to kill every single broken possibility. But at the very least, we should find the easy ones now. If someone on the playtest boards can find that they, say, can make a completely broken barbarian just by picking two particular feats, isn't that something we might want to know?
I totally agree. We want - need - to know that. But that example should be posted in the playtest feedback under either the Classes forum or the Feats forum, so Jason knows where the problem is.
If you post an entire write-up of your character, that is a ton of information to wade through to find that the problem is caused by 2 feats in combination with a class.
|
|
I totally agree. We want - need - to know that. But that example should be posted in the playtest feedback under either the Classes forum or the Feats forum, so Jason knows where the problem is.
Except that by having a forum, you encourage the people that are good or like to min/maxing to do it.
If you post an entire write-up of your character, that is a ton of information to wade through to find that the problem is caused by 2 feats in combination with a class.
Not everyone is bright enough to realize the feat he took at level 2 is the cause of the feat he took at level 7 breaking the system. An entire write up can also provide insight into what someone is thinking, particularly if they're using something the wrong way.
Thorough testing is better then half ass testing.