Chief Technical Officer
|
Folks,
In the near future, Jason will be returning from Gen Con UK and the Pathfinder Beta playtest will become his primary focus for next several months. As we prepare for that, I think it's important that everyone have an understanding of what we mean when we talk about "playtest feedback."
It's actually pretty straightforward—"playtest" is a compound verb made up of two smaller verbs, and both of those verbs are equally important to us. We've published a set of rules, and we want you to TEST them by PLAYING with them.
We're really not terribly interested in having people read the rules and then just imagine how things might play out. We already have talented folks on our payroll who are fully capable of doing that. What we need are people to put the rules into play in actual game situations, and tell us—good and bad—what happens.
I can promise you, when Jason's going through the playtest forums, reports of people actually playing sessions using the Pathfinder RPG rules will have a far greater chance of making an impact on the finished game than the people who are merely theorizing about potential rules applications.
Now, don't get me wrong, it's perfectly fine to theorize—that's where the TEST part of playtesting comes in. If you think a particular rule is problematic, set up a scenario to exercises that rule—ideally, a somewhat "realistic" scenario that one might find in a published adventure—and try it out with some friends. But please do it by actually PLAYING—and then, at the appropriate time, tell us about your playing and your testing in the playtest feedback forums.
Thanks!
|
How is a theoretical scenario different than actually playing?
I could be misunderstanding what Vic is saying, but it sounds to me like a theortical scenario would be one where a group said some like "hey, let's playtest the grapple rules tonight" and then proceeds to set up a series of grapple-heavy fights with opponents that have some proficiency with grappling (as oppoesed just playing module X with the beta rules). The point is that a "theoretical scenario" IS actually playing. At least that's what I've taken away from Vic's post.
Also, with the multiple players vs. single player thing: wouldn't you agree that multiple players bring multiple points of view on tactics to the table? I mean, one person only brings one set of ideas on how they envision a fight going (my fighter moves here, then my cleric moves there, then my wizard casts this spell). One person knows what each character is "thinking," whereas multiple players playing against each other have a greater chance of the opponent trying some tactic you didn't anticipate.
Just some thoughts.
-Skeld
Preposterous. If one can make an argument and support it mathematically, it should be given just as much consideration as someone who playtests the game. Vic, you can peruse these forums and see people who have...
...never had problems with the caster-noncaster imbalance.
...never had problems with spells like polymorph, shapechange, and gate.
...never had problems with a level 20 fighter built using only the Core books.
...had druids be the weakest member of the party.
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
How much do I need to playtest to tell you that Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, and Diehard aren't worth the cost of a feat? How much do I need to playtest to tell you that the fourth iterative attack a fighter gets is worthless? How much do I need to playtest to tell you that save-or-dies break the game? How much do I need to playtest to tell you that wizards smoke commoners?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think Vic is also saying play and test vs. just theorizing as a means of correcting for the fixation on corner cases. Take the lantern archon example. In theory:
a. you could call/summon a lantern archon
b. lantern archons can make everburning torches at will (silly ability but anyway)
c. everburning torches have a list price and can be sold
d. you can compel your called/summoned creature to do things
Taking these four facts in isolation from the game and linking them allows you to construct the scenario wherein you can compel your lantern archons to set up an everburning torch factory which will make you infinitely wealthy as you sell each and every one at the list price.
That works fine in a theoretical test.
In a playtest it doesn't work. Why not? Because a playtest involves playing the game. With people. Who will call bullsh*t on you when you are being stupid. Starting with the DM. Continuing with the other players. Hopefully ending with you yourself realizing you are being an idiot.
This is not a cop-out, defaulting to the DM and group as self-policing the sanity of the game world. This IS D&D. D&D is not played by robots who are unable to interpret. D&D is played by people who are.
I remember having a discussion with a friend years ago about Ross Perot's running mate for VP back in 1992 or 1996. He said it was unfair that the press got on the guy's case because he couldn't speak coherently in public or on camera. He thought that was not fair, that it was the person's ideas, whatever they might have been, that should have been the acid test for whether he was a good VP pick, not his communication skills.
But he was wrong. The job of the VP is about ideas, but it is ALSO about being able to communicate effectively. Are things like 'leadership' and 'communication' and 'charisma' nebulous concepts? Sure. But they are real. And it is part of the job of being VP. If you don't or can't do them, then you are not cut out for the job. If you have great ideas, be an analyst or an advisor.
The analogy, however stretched, is that a D&D group is not just about having rules, it is about operationalizing them. Comparing a tabletop RPG playtest to computer game testing is false comparison. With a compu-game, even with multiplayer action, it is ultimately just you and the box when it's time to play. It's you + a system.
With D&D, it is never that. It is you + a system + the other people at the table.
If you are trying to analyze the system but trying to do it in isolation of what other people at the table can/would/may do, you are only analyzing part of the equation, assuming that the interaction with others sitting at an actual game with you is irrelevant, then you aren't really analyzing D&D at all.
|
My boys just finished converting all their characters over to Pathfinder Beta. We're playing Age of Worms tomorrow at level 14. Party will be two fighters, cleric and a Wizard.
My guys will be testing the hell out of the modified abilities I can tell you, because they like to squeeze as much advantage for their characters as they can.
Will let you know how it goes.
A real playtest.
|
I think it's sad that as soon as Vic explains exactly what Paizo is looking for when dealing with PF Beta, people jump all over it.
I think what he said was very simple: Jason and Co. are going to want to look at reports from people who have tested the game by actually playing it. If something seems wrong with skill X, feat Y, or spell Z, the group should play out a scenario (encounter perhaps?) that uses that skill/feat/spell, to find out if there is something wrong with it. If there IS something wrong, change it, and playtest the same scenario with the changed rule. Then report your findings.
Simple.
Paizo defines Awesome. You guys are doing a wonderful job.
|
|
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
Here's an idea: why not just post your mathematical analysis on any of the subjects that you feel strongly about and let the community go from there. If the analysis really is worth something, then I'm confident it will get noticed and supported for what it is.
Vic's request aside, you're the kind of guy that's going to post whatever analysis you want anyway, right? [And understand that while I certainly don't often agree with your methods of presentation, I do think you have as much to say as anyone else.] If that's the case, then make something of it. Whether or not people care anything about the analysis you present isn't something you have any control over, but there might be some people that do find some nuggets in your work. And that's a good thing.
-Skeld
PS: In the above quote, if by "these people" you mean Paizo's customers, then I think those opinions do probably do count for a whole lot.
I, too, want to know what constitutes a valid playtest. Obviously, if I run a game for my friends in which they run a party through a Path of Worms adventure and a given monster kills them, that's valid under this rubric.
What if I run the character's myself as a solo exercise? What if I don't run an actual adventure, just a one-shot encoutner with said monster? What if I don't bother rolling all the dice, as I can already see that the party's chance ot win is less than 10%?
I do not see why my mathematical analysis would be worth my while if I know that it is going to be largely ignored in favor of the opinions of some "playtesters" because they are playing the game.
Mathematical analysis is far more efficient than playtesting, and it yields more accurate results.
If a playtester consistently rolls 20s throughout a playtest session, one could very easily say that wizards are underpowered because his character resisted all their spells. He could thus argue that wizards need a boost to their spell DCs.
Obviously, this is not the case.
However, given a mathematical analysis under the conditions of a fighter with a Fortitude saving throw of +6, a (generous) Wisdom modifier of +1, and a cloak of resistance +5 pitted against a wizard using a quickened dominate person spell in conjunction with a standard dominate person spell (Intelligence modifier of +10), we can see that the fighter has a +12 Fortitude saving throw vs. two DC 25 spells.
This thus gives the fighter a 65% chance of success against a single spell, which drops to a meager 42% chance of success given the second spell. We can thus conclude that the fighter's 58% chance of total and permanent negation from combat in a single round is unacceptable and he ought to be balanced in some manner against such attacks.
One could argue that the wizard would have to anticipate the fighter's existence as a threat, which is not guaranteed, and thus the mathematical results could be discarded on the basis of "it didn't really happen in the game." This, of course, is true, but given that the wizard has any number of spells that could eliminate the fighter entirely--such as wall of force--and that he would be quite the fool not to prepare or scribe a single one of those spells, we can thus conclude that the argument that "it didn't happen in a playtest" is invalid for this particular scenario.
To summarize: ignoring mathematical analysis in favor of playtesting is foolhardy at best and a potential game-breaker at worst.
|
|
Vic,
Thanks for your post encouraging the community to "get off our duffs and play" so to speak.
I've been having a blast playtesting.
To all of those arguing against playtesting - stop living in an artificial bubble. There are so many factors that come into play when you are rolling dice with other people. A battle that is "unwinnable" forces players to draw on all their resources. Suddenly, the unwinnable fight at level 10 against a Beholder becomes a victory with a party casualty, and then the cleric realizes he should prepare breath of life at all times in the future.
Mathematical formulae are all well and good, but you are wrong. They are not the final stage of testing. Building a model and testing it in the real world is the final stage. Otherwise car companies would go from blue-print to production with no intermediate steps. Or are you saying that you are so much better at math than engineers that you are exempt from this process?
EDIT: A 1st level human fighter has +5 to hit and deals 2d6+10 damage (average 17) per round. A 5th level elf wizard has AC 15 and 17 hit points. A single fighter can defeat a wizard 4 levels higher with one blow!
Thus I have proven...nothing.
|
|
Flawed analysisAnd yes, your posts are largely ignored because most people hate to go through all your needless ego speech.
come on , now. Psychic has been on good behavior, and his post here has a valid point to the discussion. lets not jump all over the guy.
i think that mathematical analysis is very important. But the game requires some real situations, with a variety of terrains, surprise, winning and losing initiative, etc... to determine the actual functioning of the rule in question.
As an example, one of the most common arguments about wizards I've seen you & others use is fly. In an outdoor environment, or in a large cavern, everything you claim is correct. But, in a building/dungeon with its almost universal 10' ceilings, fly does not put you out of reach for melee attacks. the theoretical advantage of fly for a wizard can be negated by the practical environment that the spell is used. That is a large part, I think, why Paizo has requested actual play be done.
|
|
I suppose my biggest problem with actually trying to playtest the game at high levels is that you run into a myriad of different assumptions about what you can do while getting there. See the lengthy debates on Planar Binding as to what some people just say 'it doesn't work, based on my perogative as the DM'. The thing is, I look at that and say 'by the rules as written it *could* be made to work, and if we assume a DM who just arbitrates the rules as they exist and doesn't try to control for balance, then you have that stuff happening'. Ultimately, that's one of my main issues - if you want to playtest the Pathfinder *rules* and not the DMs running the playtests, you need to not have a DM control for balance, but just run the rules exactly as printed. Because not all gaming groups will go 'oh that's broken, so no', many DMs just started DMing within the last year or two. They see spell X says it can do Y and will figure that its actually meant to be able to successfully do Y, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. Otherwise, why allow it to do Y in the first place?
Ie, any high level playtests I try to run will assume casters chain-binding efreets, using infinite wealth exploits via Wall of Iron and similar, and so forth - because the rules actually allow that. Until the rules don't allow that, it would be negligent of me to arbitrarily decide it isn't allowed. Of course it is. The rules say so in black and white. That's where the edge of the system is, and that's where it needs to be playtested.
You make an astute point here, and you are absolutely correct. If you playtest, you must playtest the RAW, and when making a ruling on an unclear issue (such as a wizard preparing bonus spells) be sure to note how you ruled and why.
But, if as you say you will playtest abuses, I have to ask: what adventure are you running that gives the players the time/resources to implement some (and not all, some can be done quickly) of these exploits. Many broken issues can only be broken if the PCs are assumed to be operating under ideal circumstances (ie. not adventuring).
Incidentally, I would love if PRPG came up with a system for adjusting the ECL of a character who has too much or too little wealth by level. That way, players who do find a way to exploit infinite wealth loops, or somehow acquire an item that gives them undue advantage, end up earning less/no XP for their conquests.
Maybe this is not a conception that needs dispelling, maybe I am about to say something incredibly obvious, but I think it's worth saying anyway.
Most of us do not make a session and say: Hey guys, today is Trip Day! Let's all make monks and fighters and playtest trip!!! No, we deal with the different Paizo rules as they come up... in our games.
The point of that was to make it clear that things don't always come up. Those of us who are lucky might get to play Paizo once a week. Where we have far more time to devote (at 3:45 am, for example, when I'm posting this) to going over the Beta with a fine tooth comb and noticing things that we like/dislike. Then we want to go on the forums and post whilst these things are fresh in our heads. We don't want to wait a week or more to make a grapple day or something.
And how exactly are we supposed to playtest some things, like bonus HP for favored classes? I was just reading a few threads on this, I mean... we all pretty much know how much +5 hp affects the role of a 5th level character. But what most of the arguments are about is whether or not it makes good sense for the elf to be tougher because he chose to be a ranger instead of a fighter. These are squarely in the realm of the non-playtestable.
One person mentioned the lantern archon summon trick. I personally like the one where you buy a 10 ft ladder, cut off the rungs, and sell it back as 2 ten foot poles, rinse, and repeat until you are a millionare. Now yes he was right when he said that somebody is going to call b%@$@@@@ on that. But the point is that we shouldnt *have* to call b~$~~!&$ on it.
It's also really hard to explain things in terms of playtesting. It's easier to do so with a theoretical character.
Purely made up example: My player's gnome cleric has a 16 str, and is multiclassed, he's a cleric 5/fighter3. He is having trouble grappling. Therefore, I think the 15+CMB DC is too high.
Does this tell you anything? Not really. You might question why a cleric is trying to grapple, why he would do so with his small size, whether his 16 str should be high enough, whether his cleric base attack is hurting his grapple mods. Does he have the proper magic items to help (belt of STR for example)? What monster was he fighting? Has this been ongoing? What are the monsters mods? Do they have special grapple abilities? It's far more useful for board members to post that a theoretical human cleric8 with a 16 str, has a +9 to grapple, giving him (a 8th level character) only approxamately a 70% chance to grapple a 1st level commoner.
[b]To summarize: ignoring mathematical analysis in favor of playtesting is foolhardy at best and a...
I dont think they are ignoring this- they believe they have passed this phase. If you believe that wizard/druids whatever beat fighters set up the scenario, test it and post the results. test your hypothesis.
presumably you have already come across these problems (that you have referred to) in games of 3.5, run the same scenario you had problems with in the 3.5 with the same characters changed to pathfinder characters- see if the problems still exist. Post the result.
If you feel the random dice element too likely to break the hypothesis maybe it isnt such a certainty.
(Perhaps the fighter in your example should have taken Iron Will : ), or given it was going up against a wizard capable of casting quickened dominate person some sort of specific mental defence (wisdom item, protection from evil, mind blank)
|
...a set of rules, and we want you to TEST them.
Okay, Vic, once you have a chance to digest all the hoopla in the posts above, please accept the following 2cp as well...
From a quality assurance perspective (a la software development) I have NEVER understood why makers of rpgs test such a narrow aspect of our game...
For over 25 years, I have suffered through some of the most horrible page layouts. I have abided long and painful "lookup" activities during the game. I have accepted lousey dm screens and poorly indexed books. I have wasted my time and energy "getting to the point" of text, rules, statistics, stories, etc.
When, oh when, will a game company finally realize there is much more to quality assurance than "playtesting?" Sure this is important, but please, please, can we finally go all the way and playtest some of the other product quality aspects? Here's what I mean...
Usability testing-does the DM screen rock-your-socks-off with a layout that is mind-mapped to actual in-game logic for looking things up (alphabetical skill descriptions, with a central panel breaking this progression for all CMB and attack bonuses/modifiers, so in play, the DM is not flipping around and craining his neck over something so central and frequently used - that is, giving primacy to the center panel).
Performance testing feat movement-did anyone realize that in 3.5 all the little pieces (if using a grid and miniatures) all swarm the creature attacked and just stay there in a big lump for the next hour? From a performance testing perspective, does anyone look at how movement "appears" to work in actual game play, how the rules actually perform in movement flow?
Regression testing-with Pathfinder being backward compatible, are Jason and Monte going to check if their enhancements (and you know I love them all) are breaking or otherwise damaging what has already been established as the backbone of the game? (Does adding a new rule, no matter how awesome, somehow compromise the use of previous 3.5 material on a large scale-that would be bad.)
There are many more types of testing-including the "mathematical" tests put forth in the descriptions above. In fact the person "arguing" with you about the value of their math testing has every right to be pissed off if "playtesting" is some how positioned as "trumping" the brass-tacks of math. Mathematical testing.... hell, just as valuable as "think-checking" the rules... they're all just different types of tests. And for good quality assurance, (I'm sure you're already aware of this from the proof-reading processs) several different types of tests combine to ensure a quality product goes out the door, and defects are driven out of the product EARLY on.
Vic - please know that I love PAIZO's quality. I speak from the expereince of being dedicated to PAIZO for about 5 years now. Just for example, even the high quality (the highest in the industry) of Dungeon and Dragon magazines could have used improvements. Not from "playtests" but from usability tests, with important words and content buried in the midst of massive paragraphs.
Yes, we all highly value and respect Monte and Jason and the others "on the payroll" that "can do that sort of thing." But if this community is willing to help be the eyes and ears, and hearts and mathematical minds in helping make Pathfinder the very best rpg, please rethink the completeness of your "playtesting" definintion.
In summary, even I find your definition of "playtesting" somewhat... overly-traditional in your thinking about it. Why not spell out each type of test this community can do, and move the whole concept of playtesting into the modern world.
Rock on Vic. PRPG Rules!!!
When computer game companies playtest games, they don't go find some casual players to play through the game and see if it was fun, they find people who are really good at trying to exploit the game and purposely try to break it so they can find issues that need fixing. That's the purpose of a playtest.
It should be noted that game companies are not going to look for someone to look at the system, crunch some numbers, then list the exploits they think they see in the game, while never actually playing the game to even confirm that list.
|
|
Squirrelloid wrote:
When computer game companies playtest games, they don't go find some casual players to play through the game and see if it was fun, they find people who are really good at trying to exploit the game and purposely try to break it so they can find issues that need fixing. That's the purpose of a playtest.It should be noted that game companies are not going to look for someone to look at the system, crunch some numbers, then list the exploits they think they see in the game, while never actually playing the game.
Again, ...just another type "capacity testing" or "overload testing" - is one type of test where you try to break the system.
My point, again, is let's not just say that "purposely try to break it so they can find issues that need fixing" as Squirrelloid points out, is the main point or most important, or only type of test. It is one way to test, one approach, one type of test, among many!
We're so quick to call rpg designers "designers" and game developers "developers" that I haven't seen enough focus on the role of quality assurance analyst. As my post above suggests, this is a much more mature and modern way of thinking about ensuring quality in an rpg, rather than just using the broad sweeping (and misleading) term of "playtesting." (see my post above)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I don't see much value in fixing edge case exploits that more or less involve being an obnoxious player (i.e. casting wall of iron over and over again). The space in a rulebook is limited. Every line spent closing a hole that can just be closed by DMing is another line that can't be used for something more useful. A big difference between computer games and RPGs is the presence of an arbiter to weed out bad play, and the rules should take advantage of that by focusing on rules that are needed, rather than covering all the possible abuses in the system.
Just my two cents.
|
|
quality control checking ...
Great point, Squirrelloid.
Again, these are all types of testing. And amidst those, are scores of testing techniques. All of which are extremely relevant to making an awesome rpg such as Pathfinder, and highly appropriate to what the mission is with backward compatibility (regression testing for example, and stress and overload testing to test other aspects).
Also - if I were Vic, I might come back and respond "well, all we're asking the community to do is..." but I think we sincerely need to re-think our paradigms as to just what this community is capable of doing!
In the Web 2.0 environment that PAIZO has set up with the worlds largest playtest ever in rpg history, yes, on one hand it is important to define "what playtesting is." So, kudos, Vic. On the other hand, I just feel you're using a stale and narrow, definition of playtesting to achieve something quite modern. Kind of like trying to solve 21st century problems with 20th century thinking.
In short: yes, important to define for this community what playtesting is. I just find (as you can tell from my posts) the definition to be lacking and antiquated. My two cp.
|
|
I don't see much value in fixing edge case exploits that more or less involve being an obnoxious player (i.e. casting wall of iron over and over again). The space in a rulebook is limited. Every line spent closing a hole that can just be closed by DMing is another line that can't be used for something more useful. A big difference between computer games and RPGs is the presence of an arbiter to weed out bad play, and the rules should take advantage of that by focusing on rules that are needed, rather than covering all the possible abuses in the system.
Just my two cents.
Part of me wonders how much of this mentality is a result of 3rd Edition and trying to have a rule for the majority of situations. It`s like the old adage that rules are made to be broken - the more rules you make, the more aggressively some people try to exploit those rules to prove they cannot be constrained by them.
Its called making sure the code compiles. Making sure things were implemented as per design documents. Yes, there are people who are doing this. Heck, a lot of the 'cheat codes' in video games were originally ways for quality control checking various portions of the game without having to actually play the game. That's what number crunching and exploit hunting are in D+D - trying to make sure the game functions properly.
Do I need to actually play a Wizard who uses Wall of Iron to get arbitrary wealth to understand that violates explicit game assumptions?
Yes. But the person who checks if the code compiles and the design documents are correct are likely to be the programmer, designer, etc. Not a random person.
I'm not sure how cheat codes are relevant here. I'm a little tired, but I thought they were use in playtesting was to skip to the part of the game you wanted to test, not skip the playing part.
While number crunching and exploit hunting are useful, it is not like you can avoid actually playing the game if you really want to make sure the game functions properly.
|
|
I'm not sure how cheat codes are relevant here. I'm a little tired, but I thought they were use in playtesting was to skip to the part of the game you wanted to test, not skip the playing part.
While number crunching and exploit hunting are useful, it is not like you can avoid actually playing the game if you really want to make sure the game functions properly.
Cheat codes enable the developers/playtesters to stabilize known elements in order to test other issues. For example, making a character invincible in order to test another combat feature without worry of being killed mid-action.
Again, ...just another type "capacity testing" or "overload testing" - is one type of test where you try to break the system.
Yes, but again it still, at some point, involves someone playing the game. Not that I am going to try to argue anything else at this time, I just found the comparison to games to be odd.
But what do you think the infinite lives cheats are good for anyway? Or the infinite money cheats in building games? They're so you don't actually have to play the game to get to various portions of it. You can just let the game drift along and look for problems. That's not playing the game, that's basically theoretical tests.
Sounds more like being able to play the same encounter over again and being able make a level 18 character without really leveling him from 1st level to 18th.
I'm not really trying to argue the usefulness of theoretical testing right now, just the use of an analogy between it and how things are done in the computer games industry.
|
|
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
As I read the original post, that's not what Vic said at all. What he said was that at this time in the process, they are focusing on actual playtesting of the Beta rules. Playtesting doesn't necessarily mean sitting down at a table and running through a random published or homebrew adventure using the Beta rules. It could also mean sitting down at a table, coming up with some theories about what does and doesn't work (said theories could be based on math) and then putting those theories to the test by rolling some dice using encounters designed specifically for the purpose of testing those theories. I don't think it's any different from various fields of science where theory involves a heavy dose of math and those theories are then put to the test in laboratories and what have you.
So am I to understand that you feel that your skills at mathematical analysis are superior to those actually playtesting the game? If so, I find that extremely arrogant. You don't know who'll be sitting around those gaming tables. I'm sure you're not the only gamer out there who's concerned about the math in all this. Give the playtesters a break here and trust that they'll playtest the game using all the resources available to them, including mathematical skills. And could it be that Paizo have the theoretical aspect in mind? This book is still a year away and far from finished.
Personally I'm glad that the finished product I'll be buying next August has been playtested by fellow gamers and that Paizo has opened this up to public playtesting. Furthermore, I trust that Paizo is more than capable of sorting through the playtest feedback and ultimately make decisions based on that feedback mixed with their own theories and common sense.
|
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
Is this for real? Or is this performance art? I find it hard to believe anyone could state something like this an not be tongue in cheek.
|
|
<cool, if somewhat obvious stuff>
Vic, I have a question that may already have been asked in this thread, but that's been bugging m from the beginning.
Will Josh be keeping track of the pbps that are using the beta rules, such as my CotCT?
I am guessing no, as it will be huge amount of work, but it would probably be more insightful even than posted playtests, as there is no one person from the game evaluating what happened, just the actual experience in full....
|
|
Personally I'm glad that the finished product I'll be buying next August has been playtested by fellow gamers and that Paizo has opened this up to public playtesting. Furthermore, I trust that Paizo is more than capable of sorting through the playtest feedback and ultimately make decisions based on that feedback mixed with their own theories and common sense.
Excellent point. I agree completely. My whole group agrees completely. PAIZO's judgment is not in question, and we love the public playtesting.
|
|
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?Is this for real? Or is this performance art? I find it hard to believe anyone could state something like this an not be tongue in cheek.
No, I think this is serious. And you know, he may be right, too. If the probabilities seem screwy in a given scenario, we need to examine the assumptions that went into it. My main problem with these posts is that folks assumed we knew what their base assumptions were, knew what the actual probabilities were, and understood the details of exploits none of us have seen. As many of the exploits are examined, some stand up, and some fail circumstantially. Seeing which is which can be valuable for PFRPG, too.
I guess my point is he may overstate his case, but a case can be made. Mathematical analysis is a useful tool when used correctly.
What this guy said.
When I play D&D (and that includes playtesting), I want to have a fun time. So by necessity, I probably won't be going out of my way to playtest something that I think is not fun. But, in a sort of catch-22, the "not-fun" parts are probably the ones that should be at the top of the list for change and therefore should have the most playtesting.
I do agree that playtesting is important; there are abilities that I thought were "broken" upon first reading them that I changed my mind about after playing with them, and there are abilities that I thought would be great that turned out to be not so great.
But voicing an intelligent opinion can be helpful, too.
Maybe this is not a conception that needs dispelling, maybe I am about to say something incredibly obvious, but I think it's worth saying anyway.
Most of us do not make a session and say: Hey guys, today is Trip Day! Let's all make monks and fighters and playtest trip!!! No, we deal with the different Paizo rules as they come up... in our games.
The point of that was to make it clear that things don't always come up. Those of us who are lucky might get to play Paizo once a week. Where we have far more time to devote (at 3:45 am, for example, when I'm posting this) to going over the Beta with a fine tooth comb and noticing things that we like/dislike. Then we want to go on the forums and post whilst these things are fresh in our heads. We don't want to wait a week or more to make a grapple day or something.
[many intelligent comments deleted]
Look, obviously there are some types of problems , especially more nebulous ones involving group dynamics or "fun" that are harder to do without sitting your friends down at the table.
However, is jury-rigging an encounter specifically designed to illustrate the flaws in the system is acceptable-- why on earth should I bother actually rolling dice? Shouldn't I instead crunch probability numbers? See how many rounds one team needs o eliminate the other, and compare? Etc.?
Seriously, I argue that "A Wizard with this build will affect a Marilith 65% of the time" is *more* useful than "I played a wizard, and my spell worked."
For my part, you need a better way to collect playtest Data than "the biggest megaphone".
The forum is part of it, but you really need to create a Post-game questionnaire for GMs and Players to fill out. This will give you an idea of who is actually playing and who's just blowing smoke. it will give you a different kind of mathematical analysis, the one that tells you whether the whole game is working, not just a few rules.
This could be done with relative ease on the web, with a questionnaire that duplicates the Beta ToC, and questions that rate rules along a continuum (This rule comes up (Often)(Occasionally)(Not at all)). At the end, include a feedback field for problems that can't be broken down into multiple choice. This has the added advantage of giving you as much data on what works as what doesn't.
Making playtest feedback private in no way stifles the advantages of the historic "largest open playtest." These forums aren't going anywhere. But remove the "audience" and you'll find that playtesters are under a lot less pressure to show off how they were the one to hack the new system, and they might just focus on telling you what happened in their game.
I think Vic's statement is correct because what I believe they're specifically looking for is what is happening in the course of 80% of normal gameplay. Addressing the other 20% may come up for review at some point, or it may never come up at all. The 80% deserves the majority of attention at this point.
So anyone who says that X is not a problem in their game because it doesn't come up is not saying that X isn't a potential exploit, but that X just doesn't warrant enough attention for fixing.
I think Vic's statement is correct because what I believe they're specifically looking for is what is happening in the course of 80% of normal gameplay. Addressing the other 20% may come up for review at some point, or it may never come up at all. The 80% deserves the majority of attention at this point.
So anyone who says that X is not a problem in their game because it doesn't come up is not saying that X isn't a potential exploit, but that X just doesn't warrant enough attention for fixing.
I guess my opinion is a bit different -- in an ideal world, I would like every spell and ability in the Core rules to be worth using. If there's something that hardly ever gets used, I hope that (a) it gets improved or (b) it gets cut out completely.
|
|
The forum is part of it, but you really need to create a Post-game questionnaire for GMs and Players to fill out.
This is a great idea. It'd be lot easier to review than a jumbled series of "My playtest" threads. Threads are still useful (and interesting) from a qualitative point of view, but that content could still be on the questionnaire under "comments."
I don't see the need for anonymity, but offering options is always fine. I'd be curious to see other people's results.
|
|
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
I think that is exactly what is being said, because these are rules for a game, not the laws of physics. The only worth that the rules have is how do they work in game play. I could sit down with my uncle, who is a gamer and a theoretical physicist, and we could punch all the numbers into the super computer that he has access to and that could give us some wonderful data. No one disagrees with that. But the most important data will come when we actually sit down and play the game and see how the rules work in the real world.
Yes, in the fighter vs. wizard debate, if all other things are equal the wizard will own the fighter. But in the real world all things aren't going to be equal. While the wizard is focusing his attention on the fighter, he has lost track of the rogue who is setting up for a sneak attack while the fighter does what he does best, which is flank and soak up damage. Meanwhile the wizard is also being peppered with arrows from the party's ranger and spells from the fighter's own wizard companion. And the party's cleric is burning through his allotment of spells to keep the fighter alive until the rest of the group can finsih the wizard off. That is why actual game play experience is more important than mathmatical theory in understanding how and where the rules have problems.
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
How much do I need to playtest to tell you that Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, and Diehard aren't worth the cost of a feat? How much do I need to playtest to tell you that the fourth iterative attack a fighter gets is worthless? How much do I need to playtest to tell you that save-or-dies break the game? How much do I need to playtest to tell you that wizards smoke commoners?
The thing is, D&D isn't math. Very few things are math, besides, well, math. You can provide a mathematical analysis to a family with a newborn conclusively demonstrating that they're better off if the mom goes back to work and puts the baby in daycare, or, alternatively, that the mom's salary doesn't cover daycare costs and they're better off if she stays home. In most cases, math isn't going to be the determining factor in the decision. What's more important is what the family wants to do, what feels right to them.
Personally, I don't care for Iron Will, et al. I think they're boring. But try telling a party they're worthless feats when the PCs' survival comes down to a character making a save he wouldn't have without the feat. Try telling a fighter his fourth iterative attack is worthless when he uses it to roll a crit that's just enough to take down the BBEG and save the world. Statistically, such things may well be insignificant. However, to some people, the one or two times they work make them worthwhile.
That's the difference between playtesting and math.