Design Requirements

[A T]

I am pretty new to this and I was wondering a couple things about the open design process.
* First what are the stated design requirements?
* What formal documentation is requested?
* How "open" is the the design process?
* How closely does the design team follow the boards?

Here are my concerns.
* Am I going to be heard?
* Are the stated design requirements in line with my own requirements for a new edition of D&D?

I want to know what the design requirements are. If these are not out in the open and clearly defined then it will set this game up for a failure to meet requirements. The design goals set expectations and if they are not defined expectations will be wildly variable.

[Montalve]

the requierements i suppose are the same that used JAson in first place:

-Improve the Game
-Add Options
-Backward Compatibility

they are defined elsewhere (like Pathfinder RPG Beta)

Jason has been clear that he will listen to all, but this is about to test what he already gave us and see if it works and how it will work best, not just what we want...

i hate 3.5 magic, but still i wont push tp change it like i would like it because i know is not part of the design idea

but i can arwe to take out things that doesn't work or make them a bit better, or comment in things that are working great

aside of that, you will be as listen as the rest of us... in due time and step by step, because while they will be listeing their attention will be in the sections they have asked to be attended... like right now is "Ability Attributes & Races"

hope this helped

[Marc Radle]

Welcome to the Paizo boards AT.

First, keep in mind that Paizo is actually not conducting an open design process for the Pathfinder RPG. It is an open playtest. Meaning, they are designing the rules, not all of us together. They ARE however absolutely listening to feeback we give as we playtest the various versions of the rules.

As for your question if Jason and company are listening to what we say, they are very much listening. Here is just one recent quote from Jason ...

"The Beta rules are still very much in flux. Due to the preciously small amount of time between the Alpha release 3 and the Beta, we did not have the time to enact a number of the great suggestions posted to the boards. The reasons for this are a bit more involved though. First off, many of them came after the window for such large scope changes had closed. We were not ignoring you. As a matter of fact, I have a notebook on my desk with a number of lists of ideas to revisit as we make our way through the Beta process. Second, the Alpha playtest was way too disorganized. To be honest, we are learning about running a playtest as we are going along and one of the things we quickly realized is that the Beta process needed to be more structured (as it now is).

So, when we get around to some of the changes and ideas that were missed in the Beta, please bring them up again. Just because they got skipped, does not mean that we are disregarding or discarding them. The Beta playtest is our chance to make sure we've got it right and I have every intention of spending the time needed to hear all of your ideas."

[Epic Meepo]

A T wrote:

First what are the stated design requirements?

The design goals are stated on page 2 of the Beta. Essentially, Pathfinder is supposed to be 3.5 with a few tweaks here and there, not an entirely new system. In my opinion, it's like the change from 3.0 to 3.5.

A T wrote:

What formal documentation is requested?

None. Just post your thoughts to the website. I believe the designers have stated that they are most interested in comments based on specific playtest experiences, not just gut-reactions. And I'm sure a well-structured, to-the-point post is more likely to be considered that something just slapped together, willy-nilly.

A T wrote:

How "open" is the the design process?

Anyone can post feedback on this site, and most of it will be read, if that's what you mean by "open." Of course, Paizo still makes all the final decisions, and they don't always explain the reasons for the choices that they make. So it's not "open" in the sense that we get to sit in on Paizo's internal decision-making process.

A T wrote:

How closely does the design team follow the boards?

I've regularly seen both the head designer and the CEO responding to various threads here. Though, of course, there are weeks when the Paizo staff is busy, so they'll be quiet from time to time.

A T wrote:

Am I going to be heard?

Personally, I've had at least four of my suggestions added directly into the official rules, and I know there are other posters here who've had an even bigger impact on the rules. There are also several thousand people whose suggestions were read but not used. So you'll definitely be heard. Just be aware that "being heard" doesn't necessarily mean "having your ideas used."

A T wrote:

Are the stated design requirements in line with my own requirements for a new edition of D&D?

If you basically like 3.5, but would like to see it tweaked here and there, you'll probably like Pathfinder. If you think 3.5 is fundamentally flawed and want the basic assumptions of the system to be gutted and replaced, you'll probably want something other than Pathfinder.

[A T]

Thank you for the responses. This does answer a lot of my questions on "what is going on around here".

Here and other sites I am seeing a disconnect on what the stated design goals are and what is being accomplished verses what the expectations of the design goals are. They should be very up front on exactly what the design goals are so that expectations will be met. It would be a sad thing for PF to have a difficult time do to company and customer expectations not seeing eye to eye. We call it customer sign off, in the IT world - very very important - it saves everyone the headache of going back to the drawing table to fix something that the customer didn't see coming.

[veector]

A T wrote:

Thank you for the responses. This does answer a lot of my questions on "what is going on around here".

Here and other sites I am seeing a disconnect on what the stated design goals are and what is being accomplished verses what the expectations of the design goals are. They should be very up front on exactly what the design goals are so that expectations will be met. It would be a sad thing for PF to have a difficult time do to company and customer expectations not seeing eye to eye. We call it customer sign off, in the IT world - very very important - it saves everyone the headache of going back to the drawing table to fix something that the customer didn't see coming.

I can understand your frustration, but in this case, I don't think the analogy fits.

I believe Paizo has been very up-front about the kinds of changes they would like to make to the game. And that being said, those decisions are in line with a long-standing history of complaints about D&D 3.5. They didn't really have to focus group any of that, the feedback was all over the place... Wizards Boards, EnWorld Boards, you name it.

In this case, they decided to chart a new direction for the good of themselves as a company and hopefully to meet the demand out there for a new product (change in a product as it were).

However, in IT where it is the business units who drive a lot of the requests for change and they are the ones responsible for justifying the effort put in to making change, in this case Paizo is at the helm from beginning to end.

It is an open playtest, but that doesn't mean the customer gets final say in what goes in to the product. That's not a criticism. It's just the way it is. But even with that said, I do trust that Paizo will make better decisions about what goes in to their products than WotC has done in meeting my needs for the game.