It is certainly one of the bigger problems.
All of the original complaints and all of the examples based on it regularly come down to just one thing, as Shadowdweller noted:
"My anecdotal experience is better than your anecdotal experience."
The plural of anecdote is "data."
This goes back to a point I tried to make in the previous (angry) thread. All analysis is affected by the character of those performing the analysis. Proper scientific studies show that in analysis, the analyst is more than twice as likely to misreport data (accidentally) in favor of their own hypothesis. (Including me, and every other scientist or other analyst, like it or not.)
I've been privately entertaining the notion of a more scientific approach to playtesting. Right now, we're all like the early natural philosophers— basing our assumptions on personal experience and attacking those whose experiences are dissonant with our own. A proper playtesting structure could turn these ubiquitous "laundry lists of what is broken in Pathfinder" into useful tools. Stripped of it's emotional content and brought down to simply data, P_R's original inflammatory post is actually quite useful as data, at least as useful as anyone else's.
We can't please all everyone. We should decide how many people we are trying to please, and how many people are currently pleased, and figure out how to reconcile the two. A bunch of intellectual jousting on a web forum (as fun as it is) is not efficiently contributing to the solution. We're just hiding the useful data in a sea of flames.
|
The plural of anecdote is "data."
Right, the plural is.
The singular, which is the form I used, is still "anecdote".I've been privately entertaining the notion of a more scientific approach to playtesting. Right now, we're all like the early natural philosophers— basing our assumptions on personal experience and attacking those whose experiences are dissonant with our own. A proper playtesting structure could turn these ubiquitous "laundry lists of what is broken in Pathfinder" into useful tools. Stripped of it's emotional content and brought down to simply data, P_R's original inflammatory post is actually quite useful as data, at least as useful as anyone else's.
We all are?
You acknowledge your observer bias, and thus desire to beg the question, but I reject that from you as I would reject it from anyone else. Do not project your playtesting performance onto me.As for a "proper playtesting structure", that is another attempt to short-circuit discussion by suggesting a new format that is not merely unproven to be superior, but outright unspecified. That fails as well.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Isn't this about the point where Erik pops into the thread and says something like:
"First of all, I'm pleased to see that civility has returned to the Paizo boards. Let's keep it that way. Second of all, this is an open playtest and we would like to hear from as many people as possible."
"We can benefit most from contributions that are to the point, respectful, and succinct. Rest assured, we will be paying attention to your feedback."
I've really enjoyed this discussion. Now, what are we going to actually apply our respectful, intelligent, and insightful criticism to?
|
Completely agreed, again, with the caveat that I'd like to see playtest evidence actually given. Play the game and report how and why it didn't work.Naturally playtest data is much more interesting than hypothetical situations, but the problem with demonstrating something is "broken" through playtesting is that most people would prefer to play in a "non-broken" playtest.
For instance, consider this playtest report:
Yet that Bralani could have used its whirlwind form to effectively become an elemental.
Also, according to the SRD:
A calling spell transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on. The spell grants the creature the one-time ability to return to its plane of origin, although the spell may limit the circumstances under which this is possible. Creatures who are called actually die when they are killed; they do not disappear and reform, as do those brought by a summoning spell (see below). The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous, which means that the called creature can’t be dispelled.
Since planar ally does not limit the circumstances the creature may return to its home plane, unless it agrees to a service, the Bralani could have just fled the trap.
Since planar [binding] does not limit the circumstances the creature may return to its home plane, unless it agrees to a service, the Bralani could have just fled the trap.
Hmmm? There are specific circumstances under which a bound outsider can leave:
"The creature can escape from the trap with by successfully pitting its spell resistance against your caster level check, by dimensional travel, or with a successful Charisma check (DC 15 + ½ your caster level + your Cha modifier). It can try each method once per day. If it breaks loose, it can flee or attack you."
We all are?
You acknowledge your observer bias, and thus desire to beg the question, but I reject that from you as I would reject it from anyone else. Do not project your playtesting performance onto me.
As for a "proper playtesting structure", that is another attempt to short-circuit discussion by suggesting a new format that is not merely unproven to be superior, but outright unspecified. That fails as well.
I didn't mean to speak for everyone, it was just an opinion.
The way I see it, there is nothing but observer bias in the playtest right now. If there were a way to quantify these problems, we'd be in a much better position to decide which rules urgently need changes and which rules might be abused but don't really cause problems for most people.
It may be impossible to quantify the results in such a way, but it would be nice to have the real data.
|
|
Since planar [binding] does not limit the circumstances the creature may return to its home plane, unless it agrees to a service, the Bralani could have just fled the trap.Hmmm? There are specific circumstances under which a bound outsider can leave:
"The creature can escape from the trap with by successfully pitting its spell resistance against your caster level check, by dimensional travel, or with a successful Charisma check (DC 15 + ½ your caster level + your Cha modifier). It can try each method once per day. If it breaks loose, it can flee or attack you."
Yes, but your playtest specifically involved planar ally.
Yes, but your playtest specifically involved planar ally.
Oh. I meant Lesser Planar Binding; wizards can't cast Lesser Planar Ally.
|
The way I see it, there is nothing but observer bias in the playtest right now. If there were a way to quantify these problems, we'd be in a much better position to decide which rules urgently need changes and which rules might be abused but don't really cause problems for most people.
It's pretty much impossible to remove observer bias, 'cause we're not robots.
I can run a computer program showing that a 6th level Fighter with a longsword does more damage to an AC 15 target than a 6th level Monk using Flurry, but the 'bias' is going to come in based on my weapon choice (Why didn't you pick a Greatsword or TWF? Why did you pick AC 15, when AC 10 would have given the Monk a better showing? Is it valid to compare a Fighter with no Feats to a Monk using Flurry? What about if the target is attacking back, who *takes* the least damage, and shouldn't that be part of the overall combat performance metric?) and on what those numbers *mean.*
Do they mean that the Monk is 'too weak?'
Do they mean that Flurry of Blows on a less-than-full-BAB class is 'a trap?'
Do they mean that I'm a whiny powergaming 'rollplayer' who 'doesn't get Monks' because of my observation that an unoptimized Fighter is mechanically superior in direct combat?
Note that these aren't mutually exclusive. The Monk might indeed be 'too weak,' Fluffy of Blows on a medium-BAB class might indeed be 'a trap,' and I might indeed be a whiny powergaming 'rollplayer' who 'doesn't get Monks.' :)
It's all about what's fun, in the end, and when one character of equal level to another character is outshining them in every way, *some* players get discouraged and think that the game itself isn't placing them on a level playing field, but 'playing favorites.' In America, we like to pretend that we all have a chance to succeed, and that nobody starts out with no chance at all to reach the top. Fair play is a big part of our culture, and it's why we get outraged at sports stars using performance enhancers and 'cheating,' because we want to admire them for winning fairly, preserving the fantasy that we could someday be the big winner too, and that the 'winner' titles aren't all reserved for special classes of people who have unfair advantages.
"There you go, Dennis, nattering on about class again..."
Well, I don't have a problem with the general nature of the OP's post.
|
|
Completely agreed, again, with the caveat that I'd like to see playtest evidence actually given. Play the game and report how and why it didn't work.Naturally playtest data is much more interesting than hypothetical situations, but the problem with demonstrating something is "broken" through playtesting is that most people would prefer to play in a "non-broken" playtest.
For instance, consider this playtest report:
The bralani should've been able to easily escape the "prison". Assuming you meant Lesser Planar Binding, and used a Magic Circle against Good (or Chaos) to create the calling diagram, the water would immediately disrupt the circle and allow the bralani to leave the area. And being able to change into a whirlwind or zephyr, it can leave via the air holes that were left open.
So I'd say this is a "Rule 0" problem rather than a RAW problem.
Back on topic, though, I partially agree and partially disagree with the OP. Those statements, in and of themselves, don't add anything to the conversation. But if used as the lead in to why someone feels that way, they're just as valid as any other opinion.
(And before anyone says "feelings" and "opinions" have no place in a debate, this *isn't* a debate, or even an argument. This is a discussion about what is "broken" and how to fix it. And as such it is very much open to opinions and feelings. At least, that's my opinion, YMMV.)
I find the entire concept of a thread arguing about the appropriate ways to argue.... hilarious. Keep up the good work guys.
Rule 0 - a creature that can shapechange into an element at will cannot be drowned or suffocated to death. FWIW
Read my playtest again -- the DM didn't do use "Rule 0", he used "Rule DMG-to-the-head". :-)
It's all about what's fun, in the end, and when one character of equal level to another character is outshining them in every way, *some* players get discouraged and think that the game itself isn't placing them on a level playing field, but 'playing favorites.' In America, we like to pretend that we all have a chance to succeed, and that nobody starts out with no chance at all to reach the top. Fair play is a big part of our culture, and it's why we get outraged at sports stars using performance enhancers and...
When I speak of more methodical playtesting, I mean that I'd like to seek out data on what people are using, who has complaints about what rules, and how frequent those complaints might be. As the open playtest goes, the "bug reports" go to the person with the biggest megaphone.
Ideally, I would like to see a database for anonymous bug reports. Input would be via form that would consist mainly of the Beta's table of contents. People would input note their specific gripes, their severity, and whether they were a GM, PC directly affected, PC bystander, or just reading the book when they noticed the "problem".
I suspect that such a system would produce much more meaningful data than the forum does (which is not to discount the value of a discussion forum). It could turn out that the vast majority of players intensely dislike something heretofore unreported, or that a very vocal minority is calling for blood on a few corner cases. More likely though, with enough playtesters, you'd have a statistically accurate cross section of the player base's highest priorities for a new design.
This would require a lot of infrastructure to pull off. I'm not even really advocating it, just wishing for it, because it's the kind of process I think is "neat". At the end of the day, I know Paizo has good designers, so I'm not too worried about public opinion, but such data would be a powerful tool to aid the designers.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Rule 0 - a creature that can shapechange into an element at will cannot be drowned or suffocated to death. FWIWRead my playtest again -- the DM didn't do use "Rule 0", he used "Rule DMG-to-the-head". :-)
I would have used that Rule as well. "Eladrins are free-spirited, but they are also mighty champions of good." You heartless mustard! You drowned bralanis. All the forces of good should hound you to your graves.
Furthermore, I'm confused about why they couldn't blow the water back out at you with their whirlwind blasts. I must have missed it.
|
|
Rule 0 - a creature that can shapechange into an element at will cannot be drowned or suffocated to death. FWIWReally, the outsider rules should say they don't breathe. I mean, they're beings of pure thought, why do they breathe?
But they specifically say they do breathe, so this is a problem. Even changing into a cyclone doesn't technically stop their need to breathe.
Who says they breathe what you breathe? For all I know a creature that can turn into a whirwind might be able to breathe anything thats not poisonous, even his own expelled breathe.
|
|
Rule 0 - a creature that can shapechange into an element at will cannot be drowned or suffocated to death. FWIWRead my playtest again -- the DM didn't do use "Rule 0", he used "Rule DMG-to-the-head". :-)
If thats what it takes :)
There needs to be advice in the DMG about the appropriate times for such measures.
|
|
The way I see it, there is nothing but observer bias in the playtest right now. If there were a way to quantify these problems, we'd be in a much better position to decide which rules urgently need changes and which rules might be abused but don't really cause problems for most people.
It may be impossible to quantify the results in such a way, but it would be nice to have the real data.
The observer is Jason.
What bias do you perceive he is bringing to the playtest?Do not confuse the inherent variation in the sample (us and the comments we produce) with a bias deriving from the person running and analyzing the results (Jason and everyone else working on PFRPG at Paizo).
However bizarrely we present our views it is still real date. What remains is how it is used.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The way I see it, there is nothing but observer bias in the playtest right now. If there were a way to quantify these problems, we'd be in a much better position to decide which rules urgently need changes and which rules might be abused but don't really cause problems for most people.
It may be impossible to quantify the results in such a way, but it would be nice to have the real data.
The observer is Jason.
Poor Jason.
The observer is Jason.
That's taking me rather out of context. I'm done here. No hard feelings.
|
|
Ok, ignore the water. They seal the room airtight and leave it sit for a week. Oxygen runs out, Bralani suffocate. You can probably get the exact waiting time down to a science based on room size.
So the Bralani just uses gust of wind or wind wall at will, effectively creating an unlimited air supply.
|
|
Ok, ignore the water. They seal the room airtight and leave it sit for a week. Oxygen runs out, Bralani suffocate. You can probably get the exact waiting time down to a science based on room size.
The bralani should've been able to easily escape the "prison". Assuming you meant Lesser Planar Binding, and used a Magic Circle against Good (or Chaos) to create the calling diagram, the water would immediately disrupt the circle and allow the bralani to leave the area. And being able to change into a whirlwind or zephyr, it can leave via the air holes that were left open.So I'd say this is a "Rule 0" problem rather than a RAW problem.
That was the quick and dirty initial reaction. After looking at the spells and creature a bit more, here's what I've come up with:
There's the starting fact that you have a 10'x10'x10' volume of mud to get rid of before you can proceed.
Also, there's the fact that you're trying to summon the bralani into an area to small to hold him (after creating a 5' "roof", there's only 5' feet left the him to stand up in). The spell (at least in the SRD) doesn't specify that the area must be large enough to contain the creature, but I'd assume that.
But let's say you conjured him laying down, then immediately sealed it over before he can do anything. He still has however long the air will last to create an opening. And he can do 3d6 damage basically at will to blast a hole in the rock to create some air flow. I'm not sure how long the air would last, but it would only take him just over 30 minutes to blast through the ceiling, assuming average damage (math below). So now all he has to do is wait out the duration of the circle. And if he happens to die while trying to blast a hole in the rock, well he's in whirlwind form so no sword or bow anyway.
Again, it comes down to the DM reacting smartly to the PC's actions. If he lets each action happen in a static environment, with nothing beyond the literal scope of the rules, then he might as well be replaced by a computer.
Edit: OK, did the math on how long the bralani can survive in the sealed environment. A man running at 4MPH consumes about 35 liters of air a minute. One liter of air is about 0.0353 cubic feet. In a 10x10x5 foot area, there are 500 cubic feet, for a total of ~14k liters. At 35 liters a minute, that's just over 400 minutes, or over 6.5 hours. Sources in the second spoiler.
Math:
60" of rock @ 15 HP/inch = 900 HP
Blast does 3d6 = 10.5 average damage per round
Stone hardness is 8 = 2.5 average damage per round
900 HP / 2.5 damage per round = 360 rounds
360 rounds / 10 rounds per minute = 36 minutes
Sources:
|
|
The problem is that outsiders carry real weapons at all. They're creatures of pure thought, what are they doing wielding real +1 swords and armor?
If anything an outsiders weapons should just be an extension of its body. A solar's or Balor's weaponry is simply part of it. It's not a magical item anymore than the creature is and it can't be wielded by anyone else. There's no magical weapon factory producing solar swords and bows and making them all alike. The weapons are actually generated by the creature and when the creature dies or stays away from the weapon for some time, it should really just dissipate.
...
I, as a DM, would have an utter blast with this. Just describing it to my players alone would be awesome. Not only that, it would give outsiders a really cool feel as well.
I'd just like to add a bit here about the nature of play testing. Generally, when a company tests a game they do not focus on what is right. They focus on what is wrong. They have a few people playing 'as intended', and the vast majority attempting to go off the rails on purpose to see what happens, intentionally trying to break the game. After all, this is about the only way you can find what is broken in a game, and thereby fix it. When playtesters are appointed in the professional sense, they often have quotas to meet, and will literally lose their job if they don't find enough problems to fix.
So when someone pulls out say... Planar Binding Wish loops, they are doing the designers a big favor. Because of this, said designers might for example make the economy Wish based, where infinite cash does not break the game as anything over 25k isn't buyable for any price, and as an added bonus it means concepts such as the exceptionally rich person with a lavish mansion are possible characters without heavily skimping on the combat gear to afford it and thereby being ineffective as a PC and relegated to NPC status because you need no longer be concerned about Wealth By Level.
Now, you could make up some house rule where the character can have whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't pertain to combat effectiveness as long as there is a story reason for it. Then you can have your mansion, even at level 1 and not be overpowered. Though more likely it'd be a reward from some Lord or another at level 5, because you saved his land in addition to the roughly 9k of combat gear. The problem of course with this approach is there is nothing stopping that character from selling his estate and even if he only gets a tiny fraction of its worth... well you get the idea.
In a nutshell, playtesting feedback needs to be as general as possible so as to appeal to and be relevant to as many people as possible. Bringing house rules into a feedback discussion is simply not the way to go because they make it overly specific (only applying to your gaming table).
|
|
actually, wouldn't a house rule used in a game to fix a specific problem players had with a game mechanic, in essence provide possible workable solutions to said problem. That have actually been tested.
I thought that was what part of this playtest was about as well.
These forums have always been about people discussing solutions to what are percieved problems. It's only since Beta's release that people are telling everyone what they should and shouldn't be posting. I find that ....odd
I can only imagine it's some strange way to get their perspective across without any form of possible competition from others.
Let the developers determine what they want to read and let people post their advice or gameplay results or mathematical analysis as they will.
As long as its all kept fairly civil then things should be ok.
Vic Wertz created a thread on what he wanted from the playtest, yet it now has people arguing with him about what a playtest is. It boggles the mind really.
It could if done right. But in such cases, it would be getting presented as a solution to a problem and not x is fixed by y, so x is not a problem. Also keep in mind that testing it is not just a one session thing. It requires far more extensive research in order to be considered testing.
A great deal of the reason why D&D 3.5 is so imbalanced at release is because they did not do nearly enough research. They had one test cleric who severely underutilized himself by making himself a healbot, oh and I think he was the one that took a 2/2 skill feat so that he would have a negative three modifier to something or another instead of negative five. They had one test wizard, who was a Toughness elf specializing in the worst school of magic in the game (Evocation) but that WotC thinks is the best with a secondary focus in Enchantment (arguably second worst, due to all the immunities/redundancies). Then their test Fighters (they actually tried two approaches here at least!) were both decently done (by Fighter standards), and their test Rogue was actually pretty good within the Core guidelines. Other seven classes got almost no play time. No wonder they missed full caster brokenness. Especially the Druid. What makes it even worse is they missed the Druid in 3.0 as well. They had to sneak a fix into the DMG, because no one noticed in several months that a stock animal companion > the beatstick character in every way and the PHBs were already printed and shipped.
By done right I mean the solution actually fixes the problem. Even the professionals often screw this up because balance is such a complex web it just isn't possible to foresee the full extent of the cascade effect brought about by any change. Often, something that appears to fix a problem at best replaces it with another (and sometimes worse) problem. More typically, the problem is or is not fixed, but there are now two or more worse problems brought about so it is still an objectively net loss.
This assumes everyone involves knows their stuff at a professional level. Since everyone involved is not a professional, the degree and scope of error is much greater. For example, a number of people believe that the Core rules of D&D are the most balanced. This is erroneous, and it is easy to see why this is erroneous if approached from the proper perspective. From the wrong perspective though, you get a false correlation between more books and more imbalance, just to cite one of the most common misconceptions.
When example person X has an issue with a Fighter taking a single level of Barbarian so as to get the Pounce ability via the Complete Champion variant, but doesn't bat an eye at the Save or Die/Crowd Control Wizard otherwise known as a God build who is pure Core it is a pretty good sign they do not actually know what balance is as full attack on a charge or no full attack on a charge, the melee guy still cannot do anything meaningful the wizard cannot. It is simply a manifestation of that false belief. Because their perspective is skewed, so too is all that they see. Along the same lines, you can give the melee guy every book in existence, and the Wizard Core, and there will still be a disparity. There will be less of a disparity however, as it is far easier to find improvements when you're nowhere near the top of the heap by default. Give the Wizard every book in existence, he will not improve nearly as drastically as there are far fewer things better than what he already has.
By Wizard I mean any full caster. Clerics and Druids are arguably worse. Likewise by Fighter I mean any hit the thing with the other thing, sans magic type. Not just that specific class.
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.
Ok, yes, such opinions are just as valid as others, the conclusions drawn are the problem. There's also the problem that some are not stated as opinions, but rather facts. "I haven't seen imbalance, so it doesn't exist" is an opinion stated as a fact and the drawn conclusion is that there is no imbalance because people don't run into it. This is wrong. You're welcome to your opinion, but if you're not going to debate and critique with the skills of someone above the age of two, gtfo, we don't need your opinion in this thread, where PR is trying to actually help Paizo make a good and profitable product.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
done right ... solution to a problem .... extensive research ... imbalanced at release .... underutilized ... healbot ... full caster brokenness ... complex web ... objectively net loss ... this is erroneous if approached from the proper perspective ... false correlation between more books ... simply a manifestation of that false belief ...
It's like we are speaking different languages.
How do measure possibilities for plot twists? How do you mathematically determine interesting characterization? How do you statistically analyze potential for bringing into play an interesting fantasy trope?
I'm not trashing you Crusader, but we may come at this game with different sets of assumptions. One of mine has always been that wizards will be weaker at lower levels and have frightening power at higher levels. I know, I know. Nutty, eh? That, for me, is what a wizard is and does.
Also, this balance/unbalanced perspective seems to always assume that characters are optimized. I don't try to optimize my character. I try to make them interesting. I don't want to create a character that can make it through the dungeon. I want to make a character that I WANT to make it through the dungeon ... I'd prefer to play a flawed character that I love flaws and all than a 'balanced' character that has been rigorously tested through a complex algorithm.
Nowhere in these discussions of balance do I see reference to any of the authors of fantasy that inspire these designers. Where are they?
I'm not saying that you can't have both, but if I do that would be more by chance than by design.
Cheers,
Tarren
|
|
You're welcome to your opinion, but if you're not going to debate and critique with the skills of someone above the age of two, gtfo, we don't need your opinion in this thread, where PR is trying to actually help Paizo make a good and profitable product.
Okay, but runon sentences that barely qualify as readable are hunky dory?
|
|
You're welcome to your opinion, but if you're not going to debate and critique with the skills of someone above the age of two, gtfo, we don't need your opinion in this thread, where PR is trying to actually help Paizo make a good and profitable product.Okay, but runon sentences that barely qualify as readable are hunky dory?
of course they are. if they extend 70 pages, and you're a drunk irish guy living in paris in the '20s, they call you a "genius" and revere you in lit classes forever...
sentences that barely qualify as readable are hunky dory?of course they are. if they extend 70 pages, and you're a drunk irish guy living in paris in the '20s, they call you a "genius" and revere you in lit classes forever...
“A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery.”
--James Joyce
of course they are. if they extend 70 pages, and you're a drunk irish guy living in paris in the '20s, they call you a "genius" and revere you in lit classes forever...You're welcome to your opinion, but if you're not going to debate and critique with the skills of someone above the age of two, gtfo, we don't need your opinion in this thread, where PR is trying to actually help Paizo make a good and profitable product.Okay, but runon sentences that barely qualify as readable are hunky dory?
There's also the fact that there is a difference between "run-on" and "long." I'll admit I occasionally tow the line, but... a certain level of literacy is required of all forums, and if you cannot read a long sentence without difficulty... I suggest some classes.
There's also something to be said for the fact that few if any people send their posts off to an editor before posting.
|
|
sentences that barely qualify as readable are hunky dory?of course they are. if they extend 70 pages, and you're a drunk irish guy living in paris in the '20s, they call you a "genius" and revere you in lit classes forever...
“A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery.”
--James Joyce
if you ever move to houston, you have a place at my gaming table...
if you ever move to houston, you have a place at my gaming table...sentences that barely qualify as readable are hunky dory?of course they are. if they extend 70 pages, and you're a drunk irish guy living in paris in the '20s, they call you a "genius" and revere you in lit classes forever...“A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery.”
--James Joyce
And if you should ever find yourself on the sunny shores of Cape Cod the same applies :)
|
|
of course they are. if they extend 70 pages, and you're a drunk irish guy living in paris in the '20s, they call you a "genius" and revere you in lit classes forever...You're welcome to your opinion, but if you're not going to debate and critique with the skills of someone above the age of two, gtfo, we don't need your opinion in this thread, where PR is trying to actually help Paizo make a good and profitable product.Okay, but runon sentences that barely qualify as readable are hunky dory?There's also the fact that there is a difference between "run-on" and "long." I'll admit I occasionally tow the line, but... a certain level of literacy is required of all forums, and if you cannot read a long sentence without difficulty... I suggest some classes.
There's also something to be said for the fact that few if any people send their posts off to an editor before posting.
Oh, like Advanced 12th Grade English with a test at the end that garnered me 6 free college credits? That kind of class? And it's "toe the line."
I'm thoroughly schooled in the difference between a run-on sentence and a long one, and let's just say Joseph Conrad could pull it off, and everyone else should avoid it, because, it just makes your entire sentence hard, hard to understand, it's just bad writing, and it makes an intellectual appeal for logic in argument look cheesy, if you can't not write in run-on sentences. I don't know what's so difficult about periods replacing commas in order to make yourself easier to understand.
... I don't know what's so difficult about periods replacing commas in order to make yourself easier to understand.
Preach it Werewoof!
I am a recovering ROSaholic. My drill sergeants beat the habit out of me in DINFOS (Defense Information School). After editing a military newspaper for 3 years I grew to love concise prose. I always see if I can put a period in place of a comma. It's really easy once you get the hang of it.
|
|
I'm thoroughly schooled in the difference between a run-on sentence and a long one, and let's just say Joseph Conrad could pull it off, and everyone else should avoid it, because, it just makes your entire sentence hard, hard to understand, it's just bad writing, and it makes an intellectual appeal for logic in argument look cheesy, if you can't not write in run-on sentences. I don't know what's so difficult about periods replacing commas in order to make yourself easier to understand.
Ladies and gentleman, let me introduce Heathy, master of irony. :)
|
|
... I don't know what's so difficult about periods replacing commas in order to make yourself easier to understand.Preach it Werewoof!
I am a recovering ROSaholic. My drill sergeants beat the habit out of me in DINFOS (Defense Information School). After editing a military newspaper for 3 years, I grew to love concise prose. I always see if I can put a period in place of a comma. It's really easy once you get the hang of it.
i won an essay contest my junior year of high school with a disseration on "farenheit 451" that had no sentences longer than eight words. (i was actually trying for that, after reading many an essay that suffered from erudiarrhea, otherwise known as "an attempt to seem knowlegeable by utilizing hyper-complex sentence structures peppered with ten cent words...")
|
|
i won an essay contest my junior year of high school with a disseration on "farenheit 451" that had no sentences longer than eight words. (i was actually trying for that, after reading many an essay that suffered from erudiarrhea, otherwise known as "an attempt to seem knowlegeable by utilizing hyper-complex sentence structures peppered with ten cent words...")
Interestingly, and this is by no means a comparison to anybody nor intended as an insult, but one of the primary criticisms of Adolph Hitler's writing in Mein Kampf as a literary work is the blatant and rampant use of run-on sentences, sometimes for entire pages, in an attempt to make himself appear smarter while "borrowing" ideas from others.