Aubrey the Failformed: You apparently think my character has some bearing on my mathematical analysis of the system, so...no.
I he "fail-formed" because he agreed with 2 of your 3 points? Or because he disagreed with your last point?
And this post has nothing to do with mathematical analysis of the game.
I guess discussion of anything you post is a waste of everybody's time. Maybe I should post a thread entitled "Stop responding to Psychic_Robot's Posts: He doesn't want anyone's input anyway."
I bet I'd get as much response and flaming going on there.
Seriously, though, I hope you're getting vast amounts of enjoyment from this game you're playing. Keep posting your ideas and maybe some of the more civilized people here will find a way to discuss them around all of the s$#& storm you summon every time you post in a socially abhorrent way.
|
Aubrey the Failformed: You apparently think my character has some bearing on my mathematical analysis of the system, so...no.
It's comments that this that make your arguments fall flat. If you have a point, make it without personal attacks, otherwise you just sound like a five year old throwing a tantrum.
If you think that somehow the people at Paizo believe the best way to get a point across is by slinging insults, I think you're in for a world of disappointment once the Beta is done. You may have perfectly good points, but the reactionary backup behaviors of people who feel insulted or offended by their very nature will turn them off to your opinion, good or bad.
Let people make their own arguments, and let them stand on their own merits, I have faith the Paizonians will be able to see a good or bad idea when it comes their way because of its content, not because it's thrown at them laden with insults.
|
Even if that were going to be true -- which I don't see in the first place -- but if it did happen, that would mean that the vast majority wanted it that way as opposed to the way you want and it wouldn't be a shell to the majority and the majority would be happy.And often times, the majority of people are dumb.
The majority of people probably felt that shapechange was fine. The majority] of people probably never had any problems with gate. The majority of people probably never had any problems with druids dominating the game because most players don't go through the rulesbooks trying to find the strongest animal to turn into.
If they didn't have problems then by all accounts the rules worked. That doesn't make them dumb. They may be unaware of your, or others issues with the rules, but that doesn't make them dumb. I myself am of the school of use the tool that will get the job done, not of the school of get the biggest and most outragous tool to get the job done.
I´d be more convinced if his posts would contain more obviously outrageous b@!%*~!#. However, he generally makes very good points.Okay...
So saying that the average posters here are dumb, whiney idiots who are full of fail doesn't seem a touch outrageous to you? :/
As to how good his points are, I think that is debatable. He makes some valid points but I find many of his basic assumptions about the game to be specious.
No, you are absolutely correct, some stuff of what he says is quite rude, and I am not defending that. But a lot of time is wasted discussing about how rude he is, rather than discussing how to better the system.
I just want a better system and reasonable discussion about how to archieve that. :)
Aubrey the Failformed:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
he did that for th' lulz.
Aubrey the Failformed:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!he did that for th' lulz.
Definitely a lulz crew.
Get to know this word people. It explains a lot.
|
From wikipedia:
Laccetti (professor of humanities at Stevens Institute of Technology) and Molsk, in their essay entitled The Lost Art of Writing,[9][10] are critical of the acronyms, predicting reduced chances of employment for students who use such acronyms, stating that, "Unfortunately for these students, their bosses will not be 'lol' when they read a report that lacks proper punctuation and grammar, has numerous misspellings, various made-up words, and silly acronyms." Fondiller and Nerone[11] in their style manual assert that "professional or business communication should never be careless or poorly constructed" whether one is writing an electronic mail message or an article for publication, and warn against the use of smileys and these abbreviations, stating that they are "no more than e-mail slang and have no place in business communication".
No, you are absolutely correct, some stuff of what he says is quite rude, and I am not defending that. But a lot of time is wasted discussing about how rude he is, rather than discussing how to better the system.
I just want a better system and reasonable discussion about how to archieve that. :)
I thought this thread was about what arguments not to use against changes, not about changes themselves? At least that's what the title said...
There are quite a few (other) threads that succeed in having better discussions on systems changes that are solution and holistic based.
|
While I really can't stand most of his posts, PR is right about one thing: just because a problem doesn't appear in most games doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I just think it isn't top priority to fix these somewhat obscure leaks while there are other topics to be discussed and tinkered with, topics that affect the playability and the feel of the game for most (and no - I don't mean dumb by that) players.
Thus said I think, fixes to "obscure issues" should be maid if
- the adressed leak ist fixed easily without interfering to much with the rule system as a whole (all the better if the poster finding the leak already found and posted a viable fix)
- fixing the adressed leak doesn't affect the "feel" aka fluff of the game to much (i believe the game is meant't to play stories, so the fluff should't need to be adjusted to fit the rules).
In other words - fixes are valid if the fix does't affect the game more than the leak does.
Since I and at least some of the posters above seem to see no immediate need to search for loopholes and fix them and I'm sure Jason and the Paizo Team still work on topics in the PRPG that are - let's say more accessible for most playtesters, perhaps it would be a valid Idea to make a thread jsut for discussing discovered loopholes so Jason can look through them when he feels to have the time to do so without neglecting other work. Since there are many playtesters unconcerned about things like "effreeti granting unlimited wishes" it would also give them (us) the chance to participate in most of the playtesting without adressing issues that never showed up in our games.
I agree completely.
|
|
While I really can't stand most of his posts, PR is right about one thing: just because a problem doesn't appear in most games doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I just think it isn't top priority to fix these somewhat obscure leaks while there are other topics to be discussed and tinkered with, topics that affect the playability and the feel of the game for most (and no - I don't mean dumb by that) players.
Thus said I think, fixes to "obscure issues" should be maid if
- the adressed leak ist fixed easily without interfering to much with the rule system as a whole (all the better if the poster finding the leak already found and posted a viable fix)
- fixing the adressed leak doesn't affect the "feel" aka fluff of the game to much (i believe the game is meant't to play stories, so the fluff should't need to be adjusted to fit the rules).
In other words - fixes are valid if the fix does't affect the game more than the leak does.
Since I and at least some of the posters above seem to see no immediate need to search for loopholes and fix them and I'm sure Jason and the Paizo Team still work on topics in the PRPG that are - let's say more accessible for most playtesters, perhaps it would be a valid Idea to make a thread jsut for discussing discovered loopholes so Jason can look through them when he feels to have the time to do so without neglecting other work. Since there are many playtesters unconcerned about things like "effreeti granting unlimited wishes" it would also give them (us) the chance to participate in most of the playtesting without adressing issues that never showed up in our games.
*applause*
|
I´d be more convinced if his posts would contain more obviously outrageous b*~!%&~~. However, he generally makes very good points.
I´m just detecting that some people are wasting a lot of time to attack the OP, rather than his arguments.
I understand what you are saying, but in this case, what exactly were his arguments?
These are the kinds of things that drive people who understand some of the more intricate aspects of the system away. We are forced into the situation where we are fighting an ever-incoming tide of ignorance and fail. Paizo cannot make a better game with this nonsense polluting their boards--what we will be left with is a shell of a game whose merit was blown because a bunch of "yes-men" dumped all over everyone who had good ideas.
This is really his "argument" in this case. He has even confirmed and said that the majority of posters here are "dumb" and should stop posting. And that they are "literally" ruining the game for everyone that wants a good game.
Since that is the entire point of his post, I'm sure that every "dumb" poster will suddenly "see the light" and stop posting as a result. They will suddenly come to the same realization that they have all been "dumb" this entire time and will suddenly say to themselves "I've been dumb -- I must now stop."
And really that's what is being addressed here. In this case I think that it's hard to seperate the OP from his "arguments".
But perhaps you are referring to his supporting points to "demonstrate" just how "dumb" the majority is...
1. "My players have never had a problem with the difference in power levels between fighters and wizards. Everything is fine; don't change fighters or wizards."
2. "I took away the druid's ability to [3e] wild shape and cast ninth-level spells, so the class isn't broken. Don't change the druid class at all."
3. "One time, one of my players was trying to use [3e] shapechange to turn into a choker to cast an extra spell in the round. I said that he couldn't, so it's not broken."
1. There is a lot going on here. Anybody remember 2nd edition? I swear that there shouldn't have ever been a wizard that could have made it past 1st level. If someone sneazed on them they died. 3.5 is a VAST improvement over that. Regardless -- are the classes balanced? Probably not. Is this a problem? Maybe, but that's what the debate is about. I'm sorry, but a first level fighter should be able to destroy a first level wizard every time. That's just how I see it. At the same time, a 19th level fighter shouldn't even be able to lay a finger on a 19th level wizard. Is this a problem? I guess that it depends on the game. My players understand that they are a team and work together to accomplish the goals. Is it balanced? Not really. Is it a problem? It depends on your group. Does it need to be "fixed"? Maybe, but I think that there are more important things that need to be fixed first.
2. Did one person really say both these things? If so, then yes -- that is a silly thing to say. I've seen people say I took X away. I've seen people say that they don't feel that things are broken. But I haven't seen one person say both. However, even if that were true, a) what harm is there in posting what you think and b) don't you think that the designers can see that there is a problem if people are consistently eliminating certain rules in their games? People should be allowed to say what they want to say -- we're certainly giving PR that ability.
3. I'm not sure how shapechanging into a choker allows an additional spell casting by the RAW. Regardless, shapechanging is a huge endeavor. I think that it should be allowed, but it seems to me that either it would need to become so restricted as to be a nearly useless ability or else it would end up being broken. In the end I think that this is a case where "Rule 0" needs to be applied. I myself have seen some serious problems with some shapechanging. (Not the example given but other problems.) It's a DM nightmare and yet it's still a staple of many fantasy concepts. I think that people need to bring up their suggestions on how to fix it, but I have a feeling like it's going to eventually come down to "Rule 0" anyway.
But really, none of that was his true point or argument. He's telling people to stop the discussions. He's saying to stop disagreeing with his genius. He's saying that the majority of us are morons and shouldn't be posting. Is that really what you are defending? His "arguments"?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
But really, none of that was his true point or argument. He's telling people to stop the discussions. He's saying to stop disagreeing with his genius. He's saying that the majority of us are morons and shouldn't be posting.
When the OP called me and many others dumb I stopped caring about his opinion. I’ll sift through threads here and there and hunt for good ideas I may even find good ideas in posts by the OP and the others who think verbal abuse is the best way to be heard…but I doubt it.
Rather than all the things the OP wishes to remove from the discussion what I wish people would stop doing is arguing for changes when the designers say something is off the table. The Alignment argument went on and on even after Eric came on the thread and said Alignment wasn’t going anywhere. That is a waste of time and is only indicative some of the problem here.
I also wish that people would remember this is a playtest not design by committee. Paizo has invited us to help by posting the results of our tests. Some changes have already resulted from this feedback but that doesn’t mean that we are all co authors. YOUR way may work but that doesn’t mean that it is the ONLY way.
Mathematical and scientific analyses are all well and good but Jason and crew may not always agree with your analysis. Sometimes they may even be wrong. That’s okay because I think they have already demonstrated that they will be right more often than not.
If game design could be broken down to simple math and perfect simulation we’d all already be playing the same game not D&D, Pathfinder, The Storyteller System, M&M, True 20 nor GURPS. We’d be playing The One Game to Rule Them All and no one would ever need house rule anything. The truth however painful is not everyone plays the game the same way and as a result game design is as much art as it is science. Paizo in no way owes us that perfect system they owe us the best system they can make.
We owe them (and each other) courtesy and the help they have asked for. That help is constructive playtest feedback not fanatic support of our own pet rules ideas and rampant flame wars back and forth. Some veteran posters have been lamenting how pleasant a place the Paizo boards used to be. Courtesy shouldn’t be a thing of the past this is still a great place to post but it could be better.
Paizo in no way owes us that perfect system they owe us the best system they can make.
Amen!
One caveat: They owe us the best system for playing their Adventure Paths, and other products. They have no obligation to build a lifeboat for all the ornery 3.5 players in the world. They have their product line, just as WotC did before them.
And nobody knows better how to create a game for these APs and Golarion and Jason and his team. I'll go back to happily ignoring the changemongers now.
|
|
. . . just because a problem doesn't appear in most games doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I just think it isn't top priority to fix these somewhat obscure leaks while there are other topics to be discussed and tinkered with, topics that affect the playability and the feel of the game for most (and no - I don't mean dumb by that) players.
Thus said I think, fixes to "obscure issues" should be maid if
- the adressed leak ist fixed easily without interfering to much with the rule system as a whole (all the better if the poster finding the leak already found and posted a viable fix)
- fixing the adressed leak doesn't affect the "feel" aka fluff of the game to much (i believe the game is meant't to play stories, so the fluff should't need to be adjusted to fit the rules).
In other words - fixes are valid if the fix does't affect the game more than the leak does.
That is one of the proper conclusions to come to from examining the initial points in contrast with the opposing points I made. (Specifically what is a problem for one group not being a problem for another group.)
The other two are:
RAW vs. RAI
The correct solution is not to just change the rules to something else, but to change how the current rules are expressed. All too often the rules in RPGs are simply not presented in as clear a manner as they can be. This can be due to the designers indulging their love for colorful text (like the 1st ed DMG), the designers attempting to use "simple" (low reading level) text (like the 2nd ed DMG), the designers trying to standardize everything and missing the resulting problems (like the 3E DMG), or the editors/managers requiring text be cut to meet a particular size (not D&D, but the Mage Knight 2.0 rules are a perfect example of this).
Instead of revising the entire system just stop, take a deep (virtual) breath, and use as many words as needed to fully and clearly express the function and intent of every rule in the game.
Rule 0 vs. Finished Product
This is a much more difficult problem to deal with as it includes a heavy projected personal preference. Some people just plain prefer a system they can tinker with. Others just plain prefer a system that is complete. The more rules you absolutely, positively, completely define, the less room is perceived to be available for an individual to tinker with the system. Conversely the more rules you deliberately leave open, the more the system is perceived to be incomplete and thus not worth what was paid for it.
Both views have a valid basis, and both are complete and utter nonsense, "from a certain point of view".
The only thing the designers can do in the end is accept that some people are going to be irked and present the game system in a manner they feel is best.
Playtester must then accept that decision, and work within it. If the focus is on clarifying all the rules within the text then while it is nice you intend to change a particular rule, it is not useful to tell everyone to stop discussing it because you will not use it no matter what. If the focus is on leaving things open, it is not useful to post your house rule and insist everyone acknowledge it for inclusion.
Senior Software Developer
|
Aubrey the Failformed
Psychic_Robot, this kind of thing is way out of line and actively hurts our community.
We want the paizo.com messageboards to be a place where people can discuss nearly anything, including such divisive topics as 4th edition. We even have a "civil religious discussion" thread which has actually remained civil over the course of thousands of posts. We don't do a lot of moderation here. In fact, the only forum that is paid much attention to re: moderation is the 4th edition forum, mainly because there had been a lot of rancor there and it was becoming poisonous.
I know that this may not be what you're used to on the internet. Often it seems that a forum must be a walled garden, where any dissenting posts critical of the powers-that-be are deleted with extreme prejudice by moderators wielding banhammers at the drop of a hat. Or, everything is a wild-west shootout where insults are flung back and forth between posters and anything goes and He Who Posts Loudly Enough has a voice that is heard over those who must be trampled.
We really, really, don't want the paizo.com messageboards to be like that. We want the paizo.com messageboards to be different. Full of vital, engaging, interesting conversation.
Make your points articulately, defend them thoughtfully, and people will listen. Name-calling is childish and unacceptable.
|
|
It´s very sad that for some people social graces and brilliance of thought don´t seem to go along very well. A lot of insightful posts are lost this way.Actually, if you look at intelligence from a "Multiple Intelligence" perspective, lack of social graces would indicate lack of intelligence in one area.
Or possibly two: self-reflection might be another problem, which would be intrapersonal intelligence.
Character always influences analysis.
No, it doesn't.
See, the problem with thinking that "character influences analysis" and basing one's argument on it is that it's an argument that boils down to, "Well, I don't like him, so he's not right." It's not a valid argument. If Ted Bundy told me that my math wasn't working right because I'm a big dum-dum, I would ask him how to fix it (preferably after I had locked myself in the bathroom). Just because he was a serial killer, rapist, and necrophiliac doesn't mean that he wouldn't have a head for numbers.
Psychic_Robot, this kind of thing is way out of line and actively hurts our community.
Aubrey's been pretty consistently condescending and insulting, he's just subtler about it. He's also actively admitted to intentionally trolling (P_R at least seems to have good *intentions*).
But, hey, we like him, so that's OK, right?
Aubrey's been pretty consistently condescending and insulting, he's just subtler about it. He's also actively admitted to intentionally trolling (P_R at least seems to have good *intentions*).
But, hey, we like him, so that's OK, right?
Fact: If a troll doesn't say, "You're an idiot," he's not really trolling.
Or something.
|
|
Character always influences analysis.
No, it doesn't.
See, the problem with thinking that "character influences analysis" and basing one's argument on it is that it's an argument that boils down to, "Well, I don't like him, so he's not right." It's not a valid argument. If Ted Bundy told me that my math wasn't working right because I'm a big dum-dum, I would ask him how to fix it (preferably after I had locked myself in the bathroom). Just because he was a serial killer, rapist, and necrophiliac doesn't mean that he wouldn't have a head for numbers.
a minute on the gaming den has taught me everything I ever need to know about your desire to see a better PFRPG.
Eventually you'll learn that you can't win at the internet, until then please stop stirring, it's tiresome.
you boring, boring child.
Aww, sugarplum, you don't have to call names just because you don't have the mental horsepower to rebutt anything I've said.
It's okay. 4e needs people like you to support their products.
In this thread, it's okay to call Psychic_Robot names while complaining about how mean Psychic_Robot is for calling people names. What is wrong with you?
You're probably just Frank, which invalidates your post!
You're probably just Frank, which invalidates your post!
You're not helping.
(P_R at least seems to have good *intentions*).
Huh...
|
|
Aubrey's been pretty consistently condescending and insulting, he's just subtler about it. He's also actively admitted to intentionally trolling (P_R at least seems to have good *intentions*).
But, hey, we like him, so that's OK, right?
I have a feeling that it's because nobody has reported any of his/her/its posts. From the short period of time I've spent here it seems that the mods only act if someone actually reports someone else. Though you are correct in that Aubrey has thrown around more than a bit of... creative... language.
Of course, I could be incorrect in this assessment.
Character always influences analysis.
No, it doesn't.
See, the problem with thinking that "character influences analysis" and basing one's argument on it is that it's an argument that boils down to, "Well, I don't like him, so he's not right." It's not a valid argument. If Ted Bundy told me that my math wasn't working right because I'm a big dum-dum, I would ask him how to fix it (preferably after I had locked myself in the bathroom). Just because he was a serial killer, rapist, and necrophiliac doesn't mean that he wouldn't have a head for numbers.
It does more often than people will admit. Hence the practice of teams conducting said analysis, etc. Even scientists find themselves on opposite sides of legal issues. If one 'expert' testifies for the defense you have to wonder if the analysis/presentation is skewed by the fee they receive to do so. An expert who has proven themself to be impartial, lacking an agenda, etc. tends to have their opinion listened to and respected.
Analyzing a game system with so many qualitative features involves so much more than a localized numbers analysis. A effects B effects C and so on. BUT pointing out the numbers glitches/disparities raises the issues in a way that can be examined/confirmed by others, and hopefully fixed.
|
Senior Software Developer
|
Hey everybody,
Just as it's not OK for Psychic Robot to use personal insults, neither is it OK for anyone else.
I'm going to try an experiment here: I'm going to lock this thread temporarily. Everyone please take a break, step back from the keyboard, think about the difference between what you'd say to someone's face and what you'd type on the internet, and I'll unlock the thread later today.