Fellow Pathfinder players, I have a request to ask of you. It may not seem like a large request, or one of particular importance at first glance. However, it is incredibly important if we want to foster an atmosphere of intelligent discussion and debate that will allows us help the Pathfinder developers create the most revised, “fixed” version of 3.5 possible. Please, hear me out.
I would request that every poster not use any of the following arguments when discussing whether or not something needs to be “fixed” with the Pathfinder RPG.
1. "My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I house-rule it, so it's not broken."
3. "You can use Rule 0, so it’s not broken."
4. “I don’t care if it’s broken.”
While a lot of these seem to make sense at first glance, all of them fall short of being positive contributions for discussion, and they end up hindering intelligent discourse. Unfortunately, these seem to be common arguments on the Paizo forums, so I’m hoping that we can agree to avoid using them in debate.
Of course, I’m sure that you’d like proof of all these things that I claim and request—and who wouldn’t?--so I shall readily comply as a gesture of good will.
1. The first argument used boils down to, “I haven’t experienced it, so it doesn’t exist.” This, of course, is a silly line of reasoning, particularly when one considers the following: suppose one were to move to a country along the equator and then speak to the natives of ice falling from the sky. Undoubtedly, they would boggle at such a concept—unless they had seen snow, of course—and question your soundness of mind. Of course, we all know that ice does, in fact, fall from the sky. Thus, this line of thinking is invalid and based upon an argument from ignorance: just because one hasn’t seen the proof—i.e., experienced any broken aspects of the game—doesn’t mean that game isn’t broken.
For instance, there are a number of groups that apparently have not experienced the power imbalance between fighters and wizards. However, anecdotal, statistical, and mechanical evidences demonstrate otherwise. It would thus be an enormous error on our part to argue that the imbalance does not need to be fixed.
2. The second and third arguments are reduced to the Oberoni fallacy: the claim that nothing is broken because the DM can house-rule it. And while it is true that the DM can alter rules to suit him, the idea that one should not revise the rules because of this is mind-boggling. Rules revisions and re-balancing are a huge aspect of the Pathfinder RPG. To argue against them on the basis of house rules undermines the very principles upon which the Pathfinder RPG is founded. Now, we are all here because we love 3e and want to continue to support it even though it is technically out-of-print—and we all want to see the Pathfinder RPG to succeed.
For example, one can take away the druid’s ability to wild shape in 3.5, and the class becomes significantly less overpowered. This, of course, is a house rule. To argue that all groups should alter the rules to the point where the game functions better is, for lack of a better word, nonsense. Think of what it is to ask them to do such a thing: pages upon pages of class changes, spell alterations, and mechanics re-working. It would be like asking them to write a new edition! I think that we can see why this wouldn’t work.
3. The final argument is one that saddens me the most. I have seen it a few times, and it is a grievance of the worst kind against the Pathfinder team’s work. What one is arguing when one says this is that one’s opinion matters more than another’s—more than the developers’ opinions. The developers want feedback on how to make the game more balanced and playable at all levels. Simply because one “doesn’t care” about a rules exploit doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be fixed.
Suppose, for instance, that you are one who “doesn’t care” about the power imbalance between the fighter and the wizard. Or perhaps you are one who “doesn’t care” that gate could summon a powerful outsider strong enough to challenge a group of level 23 adventurers. Maybe it doesn’t cause a problem in your games. But to actively work against fixing a vast mechanical oversight—to encourage the existence of such—is to hinder the Pathfinder development team, as their purpose is to “fix” the rules. We want to work with them, not against them. Such a line of reasoning is self-focused, and it hurts the Pathfinder RPG.
We have to support the Pathfinder team by suggesting ways to move forward, not backward. Any sort of discussion is crippled by using any of the above four arguments, as they do not contribute anything positive to the discussion.
Please, let us stop using these arguments to fight a change in the game system. We need to work together—all of us.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
|
snipped for brevity
I agree with and I support this post wholeheartedly.
I'm also impressed that you are willing to work with us considering how much you've been attacked on these boards (I apologize, for what it's worth), I can assure you that the rancor that has been flowing around lately is not the norm around these parts.
Still. Thanks for being willing to give us another go even though we've given you no reason to do so.
Regards,
-Gene
I am duly impressed by your change of delivery tone PR! Kudos for taking the time to scrub out the abrasiveness! I think you will get a much better reception from now on :)
To be as polite as possible I will answer as simply as possible.
No on all accounts.
Why do you say such a thing? I feel that it is unlikely that you took the necessary time to examine my post and understand what I am trying to say.
What parts do you disagree with and why?
|
Fellow Pathfinder players, I have a request to ask of you. It may not seem like a large request, or one of particular importance at first glance. However, it is incredibly important if we want to foster an atmosphere of intelligent discussion and debate that will allows us help the Pathfinder developers create the most revised, “fixed” version of 3.5 possible. Please, hear me out.
I would request that every poster not use any of the following arguments when discussing whether or not something needs to be “fixed” with the Pathfinder RPG.
1. "My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I house-rule it, so it's not broken."
3. "You can use Rule 0, so it’s not broken."
4. “I don’t care if it’s broken.”While a lot of these seem to make sense at first glance, all of them fall short of being positive contributions for discussion, and they end up hindering intelligent discourse. Unfortunately, these seem to be common arguments on the Paizo forums, so I’m hoping that we can agree to avoid using them in debate.
You know, if you had posted this way in the get-go I think you would have seen a very different response. If you want these to be the ground rules for your threads, link to it when you start a new discussion. I think most of us will be happy to comply.
FWIW, I disagree with you about whether or not answers like this are helpful - while they don't help resolve the rules issue, they are representative of what is going on in actual gaming groups. That being said, it really doesn't contribute to what you're trying to do and on that basis probably should not come into a result oriented discussion.
Why don't you start up a clean discussion on one class or rules issue & we'll see what kind of focused feedback and ideas can come from that?
|
|
Wow.
Color me impressed. :)
One other thing that would really help the debates: People need to stop begging the question.
I am coming to dislike the word broke, but when a claim is made that a rule is broken, there should at least be a consensus achieved as to whether a rule is actually broken or whether some people like the rule the way that it is.
This is not the same as people saying they like things to be broken. This is people saying they think that they like the options the game allows in its current form.
|
To be as polite as possible I will answer as simply as possible.
No on all accounts.
Why do you say such a thing? I feel that it is unlikely that you took the necessary time to examine my post and understand what I am trying to say.
What parts do you disagree with and why?
I disagree with any attempt to curtail my opinions. Paizo sets the rules for this forum and until I see something from them CoC that says that sort posting is forbidden, I will pick and choose how I will respond to any post.
I read your post and while you don't like what some have posted, those opinions are just as valid as yours. If you disagree with someone, then just disagree. I suggest you would be more successful with your point of view if you stop picking a part others view points on logic and simple make a case of how you can make the game better with actual fixes.
Contributor
|
I also agree that these types of arguments are poor, with the caveat that sometimes "I have not experienced this" means "I have experienced the opposite." In this case of course the person needs to be more clear and say "In my experience fighters actually kick ass compared to wizards, who seem weak by comparison" rather than "I have not seen that fighters are weaker than wizards."
Actually, I have a second caveat, which is that "Fixing this problem will create X problem, and I care more about X problem than I do about this problem" is also valid.
Note that neither of these caveats invalidates nor disagrees directly with PR's position, they simply clarify some corner cases that I feel look similar to but are actually different from PR's examples.
The Rambling Scribe
I disagree with any attempt to curtail my opinions. Paizo sets the rules for this forum and until I see something from them CoC that says that sort posting is forbidden, I will pick and choose how I will respond to any post.
I read your post and while you don't like what some have posted, those opinions are just as valid as yours. If you disagree with someone, then just disagree. I suggest you would be more successful with your point of view if you stop picking a part others view points on logic and simple make a case of how you can make the game better with actual fixes.
Herald, I am not in any way saying that one should not voice one's opinion. However, I am merely requesting that one not use the listed reasoning as support for one's opinion--a vast difference. The reason that one should not use the listed reasoning as support is because they are logically invalid. To make an argument for or against something, one must base one's reasoning upon solid logic--and for RPGs, sound mechanical analysis. You would, of course, think it quite silly if I were to argue that the 3e gate was not broken because I didn't think it was.
If the reasoning behind an argument is invalid, the argument itself is invalid...at least, until sound reasoning can be discovered. I do not desire to "pick apart" opposing viewpoints, but rather demonstrate how they are flawed so that we may work together to find a solution.
Again, I have no desire to moderate your freedom of speech, but rather to help us make Pathfinder the best RPG it can be.
hm?
Wow.
I'm listening now. In all seriousness.
|
|
To be as polite as possible I will answer as simply as possible.
No on all accounts.
Why do you say such a thing? I feel that it is unlikely that you took the necessary time to examine my post and understand what I am trying to say.
What parts do you disagree with and why?
I disagree with any attempt to curtail my opinions. Paizo sets the rules for this forum and until I see something from them CoC that says that sort posting is forbidden, I will pick and choose how I will respond to any post.
I read your post and while you don't like what some have posted, those opinions are just as valid as yours. If you disagree with someone, then just disagree. I suggest you would be more successful with your point of view if you stop picking a part others view points on logic and simple make a case of how you can make the game better with actual fixes.
First of all, when you post in opposition to fixing something you are not stating an opinion, you are making an argument (that problem X shouldn't be fixed). Arguments must be both valid and sound if they are to be worthwhile arguments.
A valid argument requires the conclusion actually follows from the premises, assuming those premises are true. Now, as I'm going to assume anyone posting here isn't lying, we can probably assume premises based on game play are generally sound as representations of actual experience. (Obviously posters can be mistaken about what the rules actually say, and this failure to create sound premises can and should be addressed.) But just because you personally have never experienced a problem, it does not follow that one doesn't exist. That argument is invalid. It fails prima facia.
The Oberoni fallacy is another great example of what's wrong with another type of invalid argument. Saying the DM can just houserule it is admitting the rules as they exist are broken. Instead of fixing the problem, you require that every DM who ever plays...
I understand that you are trying to make things better, but as I stated before, IMHO debating on how someone debates doesn't help Pathfinder in anyway. I think you need to make your points on the strengths of you point of view, not on what you consider to be a fallacy of the counterpoint.
|
That's all it took for me to actually respond; something not laden with insults. I will assume that it's not dripping with sarcasm and you're really trying to make the effort.
I generally disagree, and here's why.
1. "My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
All too often, the only thing organizations hear through unsolicited feedback are the negatives. I work very closely with the marketing department in my company on a day-to-day basis and they hear negative feedback about projects we're doing on sometimes an hourly basis. Yet when overall feedback is directly solicited, our company has a 98% satisfaction rate with 95% of the companies indicating they want to work with us again and would recommend us to colleagues. This can translate directly to the responses to a playtest. More often than not Paizo will hear about what's "broken", not "what works" (which if you pay attention to these boards is also true). In theplaytest, indicating problems you have with the system due to the way your players handle the systems is a good thing to do. On the flip side of the coin though, I would be remiss as somebody who takes playtesting somewhat seriously to not relay my experiences, even if it means stating "my players don't do that."
Every game system has the players who attempt to break things, that's the very nature of the "rules lawyer" playstyle, but the developers need to know if that's an outlier or a standard and the only way they'll know this is if people actually respond if their experiences do not match the person making the complaint. Sometimes what isn't said is just as important as what is said, thus is the nature of soliciting feedback.
The game is not being written by committee, but they have asked for our opinions, even if those opinions may seem to not direct the supposed problem to a solution that only the person who views it as a problem believes is needed.
2. "I house-rule it, so it's not broken."
You're absolutely right, this is not a valid argument in regards to whether something in the system works. By its very definition you're agreeing with the person relaying a problem because you too have the problem and have found a solution you like.
There's a corollary though to this statement. If this same person follows up their statement with their personal house rule it could provide a solution somebody is looking for. So perhaps the more reasonable request is, if you say you house rule something, why and how does it work?
3. "You can use Rule 0, so it's not broken."
Again you're absolutely correct, that exact phrase is not terribly helpful; however, "You can use Rule 0 if you don't like it, I don't believe it's broken" is again a perfectly legitimate (and helpful) response. See argument #1 related to relaying that things do work.
4. "I don't care if it's broken."
This is the one I agree with 100%. Every previous example can be helpful because of what the message says between the lines. Stating that you "don't care" is completely contrary to the whole point of discussing issues in the first place. If you don't care, why bother post?
The end message is, you're right, the behavior listed isn't always productive, but if the single sentence presented actually comes with more information, it can be used to move the discussion forward, and even if more information is not presented, it may let the developers know some trends to what the players are seeing. Some people just aren't idea people, but their feelings about what works and what doesn't work is just as valid as yours or mine, so stating that they shouldn't even indicate they have no issues may not move your agenda forward, but it does provide some level of information. It's not your job, or my job to determine if what is being suggested is worthwhile, so let what people say stand on their own merits, not just stifle discussion because you might believe that a statement doesn't "move the discussion forward."
|
|
guys... If herald disagrees this strongly, you're not likely to change his mind. You might as well let him be. try to focus on the productive side of a discussion instead of stamping out all objectors.
Many of us will be willing to go into one of your threads in the spirit of your request. That should be pretty productive. I don't think it'll be possible to get everyone to agree on anything on the internet.
Senior Software Developer
|
Psychic Robot, when I saw that you had resurrected a temporarily locked thread, my first instinct was to be annoyed. After reading your post, let me say thank you for this one. This is precisely the kind of tone that resonates with our messageboards.
(I also think you make good points, but as I'm just a software developer and not particularly a gamer, I stay out of the substance of these discussions.)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The arguments you have cited are not reasons to leave rules unexamined. We should be willing to examine various options.
People who make these arguments, however, should not have to put up with a bunch of abuse for doing so. I think it is important for Jason and Paizo to know how much people care about one rule or another. So, "I don't care if it's broken" is a valid contribution to the discussion. It may not be one that you agree with, but it is one that Jason and Paizo need to hear.
There may be people -- just maybe -- who come to the game with a different set of assumptions than you do.
You have provided an example of one of your assumptions:
For instance, there are a number of groups that apparently have not experienced the power imbalance between fighters and wizards. However, anecdotal, statistical, and mechanical evidences demonstrate otherwise. It would thus be an enormous error on our part to argue that the imbalance does not need to be fixed.
This argument relies on an assumption that classes should be 'balanced'. Most of us probably agree that to make a variety of options attractive to players, some degree of balance should be sought.
Not everyone, however, shares that assumption. I would like to hear from them as well.
You also have assumed repeatedly that if players can find a loophole in the mechanics of the game then the fix must be mechanical. That the game provides a solution in the story of the game would not be appropriate. Other players may see the rules as a resource they share with players in their cooperative story telling. For them, the game requires a certain amount of cooperation, patience, and maturity. The game only 'breaks' when players fail to demonstrate these traits.
I would like to hear from these players as well.
So, while I understand your point, and while I won't make many of those arguments myself, I politely request that you continue to adopt this tone with people that do.
|
|
I love the idea of robust and logical discourse. I also feel that certain rules need addressing.
The trick is identifying which rules need to be changed while maintaining compatability and flavour.
To that end, in order for a rule to be fixed, the developers need to know if it is truly broken. In an open Beta that means asking the question (is this broken?). If the overwhelming response is no! (no matter what reason) then the matter really doesn't need to be addressed by the developers.
If, however, it causes a mojority split (and I'll let the developers determine the benchmark here, not me), then obviously it needs looking at.
By throwing out the options in the OP, you effectively railroad a vote as you limit the response of the No its not a problem team.
I'd also say that there IS a rule written into the DM guide that specifically states a DM can make judgments as they see fit, even changing the rules. In other words there is a rule that says a dm can change the rules. This is important and powerful (Page 4 DM guide for those that want to read it)
It allows the designers to focus on the major breaks (as determined by them OR a consensus vote). Effectively it means if only a small number of people have a problem with a rule, they have a rule that lets them break it fairly. This should then stop anyone at the table taking them to task.
The benefit of intelligent and polite discourse of course, is it allows you to try and sway people to your way of thinking, and hopefully pull the vote over the benchmark for what you see as the error. The way the OP presented this time is far more influential on that process than many of the discussions around this topic in the past.
To be as polite as possible I will answer as simply as possible.
No on all accounts.
agreed!
Cudos to a very respectful new thread!
|
So it's OK to say "Well I have not experienced a Wizard really being more powerful than a Fighter. Yes he can drop a fireball into the middle of a huge mass of wolves and kill the majority of them. The Fighter was struggling with just 2 or 3. The Fighter DID however survive while when 1 or 2 wolves slipped past him my Wizard went down hard and fast. In my experience the Wizard is not more powerful than the Fighter."
Granted that same Wizard was somehow able to go up against a Drow Sorcerer and a couple of Drow Soldiers. He didn't kill any of them but he seriously injured and incapacitated them in the process, and made it out alive to tell the story. Could a Fighter pull that off? I'm sure that he could given the right circumstances. I think to a great extent that it boils down to play style and luck of the roll as to which class is really more powerful.
Another example would be that while yes Grapple was confusing in the beginning, with time and practice we were able to use that rule with little to no slow down and with confidence. As a group we did not think the rule was broken and did not really need to be fixed, for us. We had a different experience with it. We are not however oblivious to others who seemed to have trouble with it. And we have welcomed the change. Just saying though that if they had not fixed it it would have been a non issue for us.
The Gate and Wish spell mechanics. Again in my groups experience there has been no exploiting of these spells. There has been no summoning of XP. There has been no Wishing for unbalancing or overpowering sums of Gold, Items etc. I don't doubt that the exploits are there. Should it be fixed? In my opinion I don't think that it's a fix that should be at the top of their list that's for sure. If it doesn't get fixed it's not going to be an issue to us either. Honestly I don't know why my group has never made use of these exploits. SHHHHHHHHHHHHh...they may be listening!!!
As far as some of the other "Exploitable" mechanics. Yeah they are there. Sure they can be fixed. As posted in various other threads however players will always find some kind of mechanic to exploit. When will the mechanic fixes end? Will it just go on and on for as long as the game is being published? I'm sure it will. Ultimately however, and perhaps some will agree with me (maybe even the Paizo designers), it's up to the GM to rangle in players who would exploit these mechanics and make sure that the game continues to entertain his or her players. Just because the exploit is there doesn't necessarily mean that EVERYBODY is going to use it. And if someone does figure it out I don't think that it means we need a whole new rewrite of the rules. YES it is going to fall on the GM to take care of the problem. That's just the way it is going to have to be.
Furthermore I think that we need to not just assume that Jason or anyone else at Paizo is offended by people saying they just house rule something. I'm sure that the Pathfinder crew would welcome the sharing of some of those house rules. I mean isn't that what the play test is about anyways? Sharing opinions and ideas in a constructive way in order to help Pathfinder be the best that it can be? I think that the train wreck that were the other various P-R threads, and not entirely due to wording choices by P-R but by I'm sure myself and many others, are MORE offensive to the folks at Paizo.
Finally to P-R. SO I guess you could say that I agree and disagree with your post. I don't see any problem with using these examples as far as arguing against fixes etc. as long as they are backed up with evidence as to why. I will also say that this is the kind of tone and discussion that Paizo, Pathfinder, and this community needs.
EDIT: I always hate typing these long a$$ posts. By the time you finish someone else has already said what you've been typing for so long and I always feel like a doofus.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Mr Slanky has it right - some of those answers do imply that there is more behind that answer. Those of us against these arguments want to hear that extra punch. We want to know what your houserule is that has worked (maybe its the basis for a more general solution), we want to know why you don't think its broken. And we want you to be able to defend that position against counter-arguments.
Well, then replying by asking "What was your houserule and how did it work?" would seem entirely appropriate. Let's try that!
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
This thread has a much better tone than the last one. Thank you.
That's all it took for me to actually respond; something not laden with insults. I will assume that it's not dripping with sarcasm and you're really trying to make the effort.
I generally disagree, and here's why.
I agree with your post entirely. . . except on one corner case:
Sometimes the "I don't care if it's broken" argument isn't about general apathy but it may be something more like "I think this rule is fun and I don't care if it is broken." Not every game imbalance is a break in the system and if you think something is broken doesn't mean that everyone else is going to agree that it needs to be fixed. Some won't care if you think the rule is broken or not.
|
|
We're not limiting your responses, we're trying to limit the clutter created by non-responses. Because ultimately that's what most of those responses are.
Actually you're not limiting anyone's responses. :)
Granted, you are attempting to ask people to follow the guidelines that you personally think makes for the best discussion,... yet one's person clutter might be another persons strongly held opinion and I don't think you are actually going to stop people from posting their opinions. What you might do though is manage to debate their opinion in a nonconfrontational way.
It seems like the best course to follow in a discussion such as this is for one person to suggest a percieved problem, perhaps suggest a solution or two and then ask for feedback. Sometimes though the feedback might actually be people who think the rule works 99 times out of a hundred.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
It seems like the best course to follow in a discussion such as this is for one person to suggest a percieved problem, perhaps suggest a solution or two and then ask for feedback. Sometimes though the feedback might actually be people who think the rule works 99 times out of a hundred.
To make things even easier for Jason and others at Paizo, we could also occassionally call for a summary of the arguments made so far in the thread. In the end, it might be best to sum up and then decide whether we are just beating a dead horse.
Look, saying "I house rule this to work like X; I recommend that Pathfinder do the same" is valid.
Saying, "I house rule it to work like X, so let's leave the printed rule as is"... is not.
And the test of an exploit is *not* if everybody will use it, it's if *anybody* will use it. Any rules abuse that can be fixed without destroying the rule's less abusive purposes should be fixed.
|
|
And the test of an exploit is *not* if everybody will use it, it's if *anybody* will use it.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Anybody covers a lot of ground. :D
And I'm not so sure that some of the so called abuses aren't based off of faulty reasoning to begin with. The famous 10 foot ladder - 10 foot pole cheat being a prime example. I was thinking about this last night and wrote up an illustration of the fallacy today. In a nutshell, the 10 foot ladder/10 foot pole cheat assumes 1) the PCs can buy a huge number of ladders, 2) there is a huge market for 10 foot poles and 3)any old ten foot long piece of wood is identical to another ten foot long piece of wood. If any one of those three assumptions is faulty then there really is no problem with the rules as written. All that is needed is perhaps a tiny bit of text describing what makes a ten foot pole unique. Or alternately, the pricing could be changed so people don't get confused. The point is - both are perfectly reasonable alternatives. What is not reasonable is assuming that one persons assumptions are automatically valid if there is another equally reasonable assumption one might arrive at.
|
|
To make things even easier for Jason and others at Paizo, we could also occassionally call for a summary of the arguments made so far in the thread. In the end, it might be best to sum up and then decide whether we are just beating a dead horse.
I think the summary after several pages of discussion was an excellent idea. :)
|
|
Fellow Pathfinder players, I have a request to ask of you. It may not seem like a large request, or one of particular importance at first glance. However, it is incredibly important if we want to foster an atmosphere of intelligent discussion and debate that will allows us help the Pathfinder developers create the most revised, “fixed” version of 3.5 possible. Please, hear me out.
I would request that every poster not use any of the following arguments when discussing whether or not something needs to be “fixed” with the Pathfinder RPG.
1. "My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I house-rule it, so it's not broken."
3. "You can use Rule 0, so it’s not broken."
4. “I don’t care if it’s broken.”
In general, I would like to say that I am much more inclined to be open-minded toward these assessments when phrased this way. And I generally agree with them, although I personally applaud what was said before, stating that one House-Rules and/or uses Rule 0 is probably as important to the feedback of a playtest as simple number-crunching. Especially considering that if the majority of the players are house-ruling or skirting, this is further indication of a problem with the original rules.
Number one, for that same reason, however, is a sticking point for me... because if a large majority of the players that are playtesting (as many of us are) have no apparent issue with a rule as written then it would seem that their efforts in fixing the system would be better served in focusing on other, more obviously glaring ones. And that being the case, it only makes sense that Jason (and Paizo, et al.) know that what may seem like an issue to some may simply not be to others... they are looking for feedback, and there is a large diversity of gaming styles here to draw from. It can only make the game better in the long run to draw from everyone's past experiences, be they for or against changes in the rules.
I am in total agreement with you on 4, however. If someone just states that they "don't care," then that feedback really doesn't really at the surface seem constructive.
Frankly I agree with psychic_robot. Otherwise constructive threads to discuss rules are all getting cluttered with many variants on these logically invalid arguments, and it doesn't help anything. These forums here are to playtest rules. I don't think we need to worry that Paizo will suddenly become paralyzed due to their inability to make the ruleset completely logically perfect. But the value of these forums is to try to refine the rules to make them better. If you don't want better rules then fine - sit back and see what comes out in a year.
If you are houseruling it, or ignoring it, then you don't need to care about how refined the rule is. People that aren't doing that do need to care, and want to work with the Pathfinder devs to refine them. I am frankly totally unclear on the motivation to chime in with 1-4. If you don't care, don't care... But it doesn't help anyone to fill up these forums with junk posts repeating that over and over.
|
|
Psychic_Robot:
thank you for the more amicable tone in this post. i agree with the others that you'll find this tact will draw a more robust, meaningful debate on the merits of the rules you feel need to be revised.
now, as a procedural point, i think the designers are taking the rules chapter by chapter during the playtest process so they can focus debate to a limited set of topics at any one time, and iirc, right now they are focusing on ability scores and races. so, in order to make things easier for the powers that be, i think we should focus, as posters, on what the designers wish to focus on at the moment, as to cut back on the white noise and lessen the chance that someone with valid points to make (such as yourself) do not feel they are being "ignored" when, in fact, the rules they are discussing are slated for focus at a later time.
anyway, without the vitriol and condescention, your points are definitely something to consider, and your new presentation and tone will allow us to absorb your observations and debate their merits rather than just dismiss them out of hand because the tone makes the debate less fun (which is what this is all about, after all).
|
|
1. "My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I house-rule it, so it's not broken."
3. "You can use Rule 0, so it’s not broken."
4. “I don’t care if it’s broken.”
I wanted to address each of your points, as I understand that if someone were to dismiss a criticism of the rules in the way you describe, with a simplistic statement as you present, it would be ill-advised (however, if they provide a detailed account, that is just as useful as a suggested rule fix). I don't think people shouldn't use the arguments, I do think that if they do they should help Jason and the community by explaining themselves more clearly.
1. Why don't your players do it? Do they not know the rules enough? Do they not care to out of compassion for their DM? Do they know the rules well enough that they want to avoid rampant abuse?
2. What house-rules do you suggest to fix the problem, since you recognize it as such. The more houserules we see, the greater likelihood that Jason will stumble upon a brilliant insight into the problem.
3. Same as number 2. I would like the add the caveat that I do agree with those who have said for something like gate or planar binding there are roleplay issues that can negate the problems of the spells - summoning efreeti should have consequences, whether or not they are being abused for infinite wish spells. That said, the problems of the spells can be lessened at the same time. A simple fix might be that if a creature is trapped using planar binding, it cannot use any of it's spell-like abilities as a consequence of the trap.
I think what puts off some of us simulationists is the argument that a player can abuse something just because the rules don't say they cannot. I find that equally as problematic as arguing that Rule 0 can fix any problem to the point of making it not a problem for anybody. In the case of gate, I agree that the potential for a single CR 23 creature for 20 rounds of combat can be problematic. I've always used the houserule that the caster must actually possess a material gate of the appropriate style (Stargate style!).
The point here is that I want useful feedback, just like you P_R. I just think that in many cases, if people suggest that they like a rule the way it works, Jason should be obliged to follow the majority. The minority can then houserule to their own ends.
I know some people don't think Pathfinder should be the "game of the majority/game by committee", but I think it should. The more people that like or dislike a rule, the more likely it is going to be changed.
I disagree with any attempt to curtail my opinions. Paizo sets the rules for this forum and until I see something from them CoC that says that sort posting is forbidden, I will pick and choose how I will respond to any post.I read your post and while you don't like what some have posted, those opinions are just as valid as yours. If you disagree with someone, then just disagree. I suggest you would be more successful with your point of view if you stop picking a part others view points on logic and simple make a case of how you can make the game better with actual fixes.
Herald, what you are saying boils down to "you can't make me stop posting!" Nobody is trying.
Psychic_Robot makes and supports very solid points. Saying "I changed Rule A in my game so Rule A is fine" is not logical and not helpful. It's also not as valid as what Psychic_Robot has posted, precisely because it is not logical.
"I disagree with any attempt to curtail my opinions" is tantamount to saying "I refuse to accept that I might possibly wrong and will never change my opinions." Surely you can't mean that. If you're not open to discussion, why discuss things?
|
|
I agree with your post entirely. . . except on one corner case:Sometimes the "I don't care if it's broken" argument isn't about general apathy but it may be something more like "I think this rule is fun and I don't care if it is broken." Not every game imbalance is a break in the system and if you think something is broken doesn't mean that everyone else is going to agree that it needs to be fixed. Some won't care if you think the rule is broken or not.
That's a communication problem more than a problem with the statement then. If by stating that "you don't care if it's broken" you really mean "I think this rule is fun and I don't care if it's broken" then make the second statement. There's a big difference between the two, and I would have no issues with somebody making a statement like the second.
On a related topic but in no way directed to you, I know people keep talking logical arguments and like throwing around legal and debate terms, but fact of the matter, sometimes in something as "squishy" as an RPG, people just like thinks. It has nothing to do with logic or balance, but their personal opinion is just as valid, even if you don't agree with their less than logical reason why.
|
|
Hey PR or OP whatever you want to go by on this thread, I must say, I'm glad you are approaching the discussion this time sounding a lot less confrontational, I actually wanted to discuss some of those points last time this thread was posted but honestly, the sense of nerd rage permeating the post (and please if nerd rage sounds offensive it isn't meant to be, I myself suffer from it sometimes it merely is something nerds do and is not a put down to me but if it is to you just let me know and I'll recant the statement) made me switch out, this time around I was actually able to read it and think that it sounds well reasoned, I agree with the poster who said that when you make new threads you should link to this one so that people reading it will respond in a manner to your liking. Once again, thank you for toning down the confrontational tone of the last few threads you posted.
yA know PR when posted like that and in that maner you make and bring up some very good points. I dont agree with you on everything but what a dull world that would be huh. Anyhow I think you should link this to every post you start and yes we need to stop the fighting between posters everyone has the same overall goals to make a better funner game.
Did anyone actually make that quote or are you just making up an example of what you are afraid someone is going to do?
It's a summary of reasoning people actually employ. I've heard, for example, "Wild Shape isn't broken, you just have to interpret Wild Shape and familiarity in [some really stretched, illogical manner]."
|
|
Did anyone actually make that quote or are you just making up an example of what you are afraid someone is going to do?It's a summary of reasoning people actually employ. I've heard, for example, "Wild Shape isn't broken, you just have to interpret Wild Shape and familiarity in [some really stretched, illogical manner]."
As opposed to interpreting it in the most advantageous way possible for the druid, which is what the people who argue it is broken do.
I do agree that with so much confusion, the wording can be clarified to the benefit of all.
|
|
Wow.
Color me impressed. :)
One other thing that would really help the debates: People need to stop begging the question.
I am coming to dislike the word broke, but when a claim is made that a rule is broken, there should at least be a consensus achieved as to whether a rule is actually broken or whether some people like the rule the way that it is.
This is not the same as people saying they like things to be broken. This is people saying they think that they like the options the game allows in its current form.
At the same time, some options just cannot be balanced relative to each other. Imagine for a moment that you're playing a superhero game. Everyone is happy playing Hawkeye, Iron Fist, or Daredevil power-level characters. Then a new player joins and he wants to play Superman or Thor. Should he be allowed to?
Now, if everyone wants to play Superman, Thor, Phoenix, etc... then there's no problem. But Daredevil has no business being in the same game as them.
Ie, there are some ranges of options that are completely unreasonable. You can't have infinite cosmic power playing the same game with 'I know kung-fu'. It doesn't work. At some point balance means making everyone's options roughly equal, and options that cannot be sufficiently powered up/down have to get axed, because they are ultimately bad for the game.
Actually, I have a perfectly good time playing Marvel FASERIP, which is based upon the exact situation you describe. Thor is so amazingly better than most other heroes that the game is "broken" - but it is still very fun. Plus, I think a more apt comparison would be Punisher or Daredevil to Doctor Strange. Even then, it is still possible to be useful in the presence of Strange. Just like in D&D, he doesn't have many hit points.
As opposed to interpreting it in the most advantageous way possible for the druid, which is what the people who argue it is broken do.
I do agree that with so much confusion, the wording can be clarified to the benefit of all.
No. People interpret it in a reasonable way and then argue that it is broken, because by any remotely reasonable interpretations, it is (and even the unreasonable ones just mean a few extra lines of background). They do not intentionally interpret it in the most powerful way possible.
|
|
No. People interpret it in a reasonable way and then argue that it is broken, because by any remotely reasonable interpretations, it is (and even the unreasonable ones just mean a few extra lines of background). They do not intentionally interpret it in the most powerful way possible.As opposed to interpreting it in the most advantageous way possible for the druid, which is what the people who argue it is broken do.
I do agree that with so much confusion, the wording can be clarified to the benefit of all.
Explain how? I find it difficult to believe a 20th level druid is "familiar" with everything in every Monster Manual or splatbook, which tends to be the argument from people who feel it is broken.
If a 20th Level Druid says "I want to change into a T-Rex" and has never actually met a T-Rex, then that character is arguing using the vague RAW to the best possible advantage.
ah the driud knows every critter that ever walked debate. A classic Humm wording of the nature that they can use any basic critter[MM] or critters they have seen and studied would go a long way to ending that one
|
|
ah the driud knows every critter that ever walked debate. A classic Humm wording of the nature that they can use any basic critter[MM] or critters they have seen and studied would go a long way to ending that one
Agreed. The fact there is a debate means the rules are unclear. The RAW crowd finds this broken, and it wouldn't bother me, so let's push for it!