I'm going to have to, once again, close up the playtest part of the forums, because I can't, without getting inordinately stressed out, participate in the playtest.
I really wish people could:
A. actually playtest things during a playtest instead of just reading something and "knowing" how broken something is. I'm not saying there isn't some value in just reading a class and giving impressions, but there certainly isn't value in assuming that you cannot learn anything from doing more than just reading the rules.
B. avoid putting words in other people's mouths when a discussion starts up. If you don't know for sure what someone is about to say, say your peace, defend your position, but don't tell someone else what they think or what they are about to say.
C. avoid accusing Paizo of doing things they aren't doing, i.e. not really wanting playtest data, being sure that their rules are 100% great because they actually ask people to playtest and not just guess at the degree of brokeness they are sure of . . .
Seriously, I've really liked what I've seen so far, so I hope nothing gets drastically redesigned based on a lot of grousing and sniping, especially when the feedback amounts to "you should never have made this class."
KnightErrantJR FTW.
Agreed. After Jason opened the official playtest forum there was like 50 posts (probably exageration) that werent playtests! its a playtest forum people!
KnightErrantJR FTW.
+1!!! Go KEJR!!!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Maybe I'm keeping my involvement light enough that I haven't seen the strident shrieking y'all are describing, but I think most folks just wanna talk. For the folks who wanna argue... let em. Don't let em steal your fun and your opportunity to talk. Ignore their posts (even if they're trying to reply to you) and keep on reading the rest.
2 cp
Best thing you can do is actually playtest the results and report your findings. I am pretty certain Jason will pay attention to that.
I am stopping my normal game for a while and am going to run a level 5 group through carrion hill. So far one player is gonna play a summoner, he is a bit of a munchkin so we will see what he comes up with. I also have another that is going to be a cavalier. No takers on the witch or oracle yet but we will see. Not a bad thing to have some standard classes in there too. I am gonna cut out my homebrew stuff from this adventure and just run it core so the playtest is more valid.
We have a chance to actually impact the development of the game we love, wasting because of a few people who over react is unwise. So I say participate in the playtest, but ignore the arguing afterwards.
|
Yeah don't worry about the Board Shriekers, while they emit a loud noise they are ultimately harmless in and of themselves (beware if there are any trolls in the area though, as the trolls listen for the sound of Board Shriekers for potential victims).
Do your own thing, playtest the classes and put your findings up on the boards. I'm sure that's the best way to give the guys useful feedback without fearing for Board Shrieker noise.
Here, here, having a thread about actually playtesting derailed by an arguement that 'saying the summoner plays kinda in the range of the druid, a comparable base class' proves that the summoner is totally broken.
That said, this is the internet, so I'm going to keep playtesting classes I really enjoy and buy some fire-resitant armor!
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm thinking Jason and the team now have enough experience with these boards to sort though the posts for useful feedback.
Well, if you think that the Core Rulebook improved between the Beta and the official release, I'd say that's pretty good evidence that your above statement is correct.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm going to have to, once again, close up the playtest part of the forums, because I can't, without getting inordinately stressed out, participate in the playtest.
I really wish people could:
A. actually playtest things during a playtest instead of just reading something and "knowing" how broken something is. I'm not saying there isn't some value in just reading a class and giving impressions, but there certainly isn't value in assuming that you cannot learn anything from doing more than just reading the rules.
Thanks for reminding me to repost this.
I hope you'll stick with us!
I'm going to have to, once again, close up the playtest part of the forums, because I can't, without getting inordinately stressed out, participate in the playtest.
I really wish people could:
A. actually playtest things during a playtest instead of just reading something and "knowing" how broken something is. I'm not saying there isn't some value in just reading a class and giving impressions, but there certainly isn't value in assuming that you cannot learn anything from doing more than just reading the rules.
B. avoid putting words in other people's mouths when a discussion starts up. If you don't know for sure what someone is about to say, say your peace, defend your position, but don't tell someone else what they think or what they are about to say.
C. avoid accusing Paizo of doing things they aren't doing, i.e. not really wanting playtest data, being sure that their rules are 100% great because they actually ask people to playtest and not just guess at the degree of brokeness they are sure of . . .
Seriously, I've really liked what I've seen so far, so I hope nothing gets drastically redesigned based on a lot of grousing and sniping, especially when the feedback amounts to "you should never have made this class."
Amen, brother, preach on!
What always puzzles me is how absolute brilliance in understanding game mechanics is so often paired with a complete lack of social graces.
I mean, seriously, I LOVE having people who can run the numbers, but is it really such an imposition to couch your criticisms constructively?
Basic communication theory states that the 'package' your information is wrapped in is as important as the message itself. If you turn your audience off by your communicative style, then you might as well not bother posting. No one's going to bother to read your mathematical brilliance.
Or as Mary Poppins would say: 'Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down ..'
i feel ya KEJR, i havent posted anything on the new classes yet, because i have yet to playtest any of them, although, im toying with the idea of playing a witch or summoner in my DMs new Legacy of Fire campaign.
if people want to gripe about "how broken it is" without actually playtesting it, then just refer to Vic Wertz' post, he makes a valid point of the PF core rulebookk turning out the way it did because of Paizo's workers and their ability to sift through the rubbish, and pull out the true gems that shine out.
but KEJR, if this is how you feel, then neither myself nor anyone else here can change that.
not sure how this post came out, it was meant to be a neutral POV.
anywho...off to annoy my DM with my new witch and summoner builds.
Ekeebe :D
I'm going to have to, once again, close up the playtest part of the forums, because I can't, without getting inordinately stressed out, participate in the playtest.
I really wish people could:
A. actually playtest things during a playtest instead of just reading something and "knowing" how broken something is. I'm not saying there isn't some value in just reading a class and giving impressions, but there certainly isn't value in assuming that you cannot learn anything from doing more than just reading the rules.
With all the times(psions, warlocks, ToB, monks even) have been proven not to be overpowered by actually playing them correctly I would have thought the idea of playing first and judging second would catch on. I would create(if I were in charge) a theory thread and a playtest thread. Anything in the playtest thread would need full stat blocks and a complete description of the events that led to a poster's opinion. I would also make a note that anything put in the playtest thread that did not follow the rules specifically would not be given the same merit as those that play that have actual details.
Basically putup or shutup.
I'm thinking Jason and the team now have enough experience with these boards to sort though the posts for useful feedback.Well, if you think that the Core Rulebook improved between the Beta and the official release, I'd say that's pretty good evidence that your above statement is correct.
That opens a whole different can of worms.
For example: what if one were to feel that the Beta rule book was better then the final project?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm thinking Jason and the team now have enough experience with these boards to sort though the posts for useful feedback.Well, if you think that the Core Rulebook improved between the Beta and the official release, I'd say that's pretty good evidence that your above statement is correct.That opens a whole different can of worms.
For example: what if one were to feel that the Beta rule book was better then the final project?
I figured somebody would ask that eventually. Well, the method and mindset we're using here will be pretty similar to the Core Rulebook playtest, so people in that boat may wish to digest the suggestions on the boards themselves for nuggets to add to their own house rules. (Or perhaps ignore the playtest feedback entirely and just keep playing with the playtest docs.)
I guess that's why they called it a playtest and not a lookjudge.
Nothing personal but your post was nice and succinct. I've personally got an issue with the prevailing attitude that it's impossible to have meaningful and useful input without actually rolling the d20s. This is as dismissive as parents who tell others "you can't understand, you don't have a child". There are some things that are calculable, observable, and evident without having to play to notice.
I'm not saying all un-played comments are accurate, or even most. I've been refraining from even posting about typos or grammatical errors because I'm going to get yelled at for not playing the class before daring to criticize the text.
I think everyone needs to calm down and accept that discussion and disagreement is natural and valuable. If you don't like what someone's posted, either disagree with them or ignore them. Freaking out because they haven't played the class is... unclassy.
What always puzzles me is how absolute brilliance in understanding game mechanics is so often paired with a complete lack of social graces.
I mean, seriously, I LOVE having people who can run the numbers, but is it really such an imposition to couch your criticisms constructively?
Basic communication theory states that the 'package' your information is wrapped in is as important as the message itself. If you turn your audience off by your communicative style, then you might as well not bother posting. No one's going to bother to read your mathematical brilliance.
Or as Mary Poppins would say: 'Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down ..'
+1
I hate it when someone posts something completely lacking in social graces, then gets defensive when people respond negatively. I sometimes just want to stop beating around the bush and say "Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying you sound like an @$$hole."
I guess that's why they called it a playtest and not a lookjudge.
LookJudge? Hey, thanks for the idea for the prestige class name!
|
This is as dismissive as parents who tell others "you can't understand, you don't have a child".
That’s going to be the analogy that proves your point? I don’t know if you’re a parent yourself, but in my experience, after many years of not being a parent and several years of being one, chances are VERY good that if you don’t have a child yourself, you DON’T understand.
Whether or not that also applies to playtesting is for wiser heads than mine to decide. I agree with you that (mostly) discussion and disagreement is natural and valuable. The point is, on the playtest forums, Paizo is asking for observations, calculations and opinions based on playtests.
You can still be a meaningful part of the playtest, KE.
Just post your results and don't read the other threads.
The point is, on the playtest forums, Paizo is asking for observations, calculations and opinions based on playtests.
Except, of course, that they aren't only asking for that. Or at least, that's what I gather from all the positive responses Jason's been giving to people who bring up questions and issues just from reading the documents.
If the only valid input was honest-to-god-I-gathered-5-people-and-ran-a-game input, there'd be about 10 threads total between the three playtest forums. Among other things, this is a horrible time of year to be asking people to run playtest sessions; most people, at least around here, are hard-pressed to get half their normal gaming sessions in during the time from the second half of November to the first half of January. Trying to do that and do playtests is asking too much, and most people would rather play their established games than do a playtest where half of the session is going to be figuring out all the new rules and the other half of the session is going to be realizing you read the rules all wrong.
People who try to shout down all the people offering input without having had a chance to playtest are just as noisome as anyone else being annoying and nonconstructive.
I guess that's why they called it a playtest and not a lookjudge.Nothing personal but your post was nice and succinct. I've personally got an issue with the prevailing attitude that it's impossible to have meaningful and useful input without actually rolling the d20s. This is as dismissive as parents who tell others "you can't understand, you don't have a child". There are some things that are calculable, observable, and evident without having to play to notice.
I'm not saying all un-played comments are accurate, or even most. I've been refraining from even posting about typos or grammatical errors because I'm going to get yelled at for not playing the class before daring to criticize the text.
I think everyone needs to calm down and accept that discussion and disagreement is natural and valuable. If you don't like what someone's posted, either disagree with them or ignore them. Freaking out because they haven't played the class is... unclassy.
It's not that discussion does not have merit, but the only to truly know how well a class works is to play it. The designers know this, and many of us have seen enough things called broken, only due to a misconception, so we don't take theories at face value. Once again I point to the monk, ToB, psionics, and the warlock being called broken by some, causing them to be banned.
I am an not saying the Eidolon is not a little too powerful, but I number crunching only goes so far, and it can't account for every common scenario, playstyles and so on. If you are going to insist on a change then you need to provide evidence of why that change should take place.
PS: The word "you" is a general statement, and is not directed at Anguish.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I guess that's why they called it a playtest and not a lookjudge.Nothing personal but your post was nice and succinct. I've personally got an issue with the prevailing attitude that it's impossible to have meaningful and useful input without actually rolling the d20s. This is as dismissive as parents who tell others "you can't understand, you don't have a child". There are some things that are calculable, observable, and evident without having to play to notice.
I'm not saying all un-played comments are accurate, or even most. I've been refraining from even posting about typos or grammatical errors because I'm going to get yelled at for not playing the class before daring to criticize the text.
I think everyone needs to calm down and accept that discussion and disagreement is natural and valuable. If you don't like what someone's posted, either disagree with them or ignore them. Freaking out because they haven't played the class is... unclassy.
Speaking as a parent, I will categorically say that there ARE some things you can't understand if you don't have a child. That doesn't mean you don't have the ability to make useful observations and interpretations of what you see, but there are some things you will see and interpret very differently if you are a parent.
I suppose that's the point of Jason B and Vic's repeated requests for at-the-table experience with the class. You can absolutely make useful observations and interpretations from lookjudging the class, and I don't think they've ever denied that point. However, there are different kinds of observations you can make about something once the dice drop in an organic situation, because what seemed like optimal strategies may or may not play out as well as you anticipated in a variety of contexts.
Jason B's a smart guy and knows a lot about games. So are lots of the people at Paizo, current and past. I don't have to just take it on faith; I know most of them and have gamed with some of them - them running, me running, both of us playing under somebody else. They've done a fair bit of lookjudging before the class ever hits PDF for the playtest. What they haven't had the time to do, simply because it is too time intensive and they are swamped with keeping the Paizo machine running, is to drop the dice with builds in situations. Ask Rob how full his days at Paizo are since he started!
It's not that they have no interest in lookjudge analysis; it's that, whether you agree with the skill, knowledge, and opinions of the Paizo staff or not, lookjudging is adding to a data pile that they already have.
Playtesting, on the other hand, is adding to a data pile that they mostly lack - that's why they want that kind of data, why it is more desirable. They don't lack in wit or intelligence; they lack in time resources. By farming out playtesting to the fandom, they are tapping a time resource that vastly exceeds what they can access in house, so they can get data they could not otherwise get.
That's how I see it anyway.
Speaking as a parent, I will categorically say that there ARE some things you can't understand if you don't have a child.
I think this would make an interesting off-topic thread.
You post three questions, people can respond with their answers, and you can guess if they have children or not.
If the lack of understanding due to not having a child is that profound, then given the right set of questions, it should be trivial to determine if the responder is a parent or not.
Science is fun.
EDIT: Questions like "Are you a parent?" being patently unfair (of course).
Speaking as a parent, I will categorically say that there ARE some things you can't understand if you don't have a child.I think this would make an interesting off-topic thread.
You post three questions, people can respond with their answers, and you can guess if they have children or not.
If the lack of understanding due to not having a child is that profound, then given the right set of questions, it should be trivial to determine if the responder is a parent or not.
Science is fun.
EDIT: Questions like "Are you a parent?" being patently unfair (of course).
Hey, quit using my avatar!
But seriously, I think the general attitude from this thread stems from the fact that most of the vocal and borderline offensive posters are ones who haven't bothered to play the classes they comment so fervently on.
I've looked over all of the classes, made my judgements and observations, and most of them have made it to the forums. I try to be as constructive as possible, to think as widely as I am capable, and to be open to criticism when it arises (and often does). I see actual playtesting as the better gauge to a class's power, but playtesting can often be misleading. Theoretical gaming is a valid submission to the forums, but only when supported by actual data, and not "+9 is far too high for a level 4 character to have- it's totally broken." Likewise, minmaxing (the pinnacle of theoretical gaming) often helps show the possible ways to break a certain feature, but rarely actually contributes to the health of said feature.
Just my 2 cp, though.
Hey, quit using my avatar!
My group playtested this thread, and thought this avatar better suited you than me. So I decided to ignore them and post something vocal about it being MY avatar. :-)
But seriously, I think the general attitude from this thread stems from the fact that most of the vocal and borderline offensive posters are ones who haven't bothered to play the classes they comment so fervently on.
I think this could be resolved by having those with actual play experience add [Actual Play] to the beginning of their post. It leaves room for the armchair players to comment, and makes it easy to skim the posts relevant to actual in-game experience.
-----
[Actual Play]
When my group was running Carrion Hill, we entered room 4 and the Oracle...
-----
Certainly not a requirement, but it might help.
PS> Quit using MY avatar! :-)
Maybe have two forums - "Discussion" and "Playtest", and specially note that the Playtest forum is only for those who have actually playtested the material.
Maybe have two forums - "Discussion" and "Playtest", and specially note that the Playtest forum is only for those who have actually playtested the material.
I liked the set-up with the Beta where there was a separate subforum for actual playtest reports.
Maybe have two forums - "Discussion" and "Playtest", and specially note that the Playtest forum is only for those who have actually playtested the material.
I suggested this in another thread, but nobody listen to the dude with a head surrounded by fire.
Seriously though, I think it would be a great idea.
Maybe have two forums - "Discussion" and "Playtest", and specially note that the Playtest forum is only for those who have actually playtested the material.
To be fair, there is a 'General Discussion' section. But then again, the What Playtest Is sticky is rather clear on the matter: they have people on payroll for speculation.
I didn't realize that discussion by those who can't playtest was that unwelcome. I don't mean that bitterly, I just feel rather bad about the comments I made then...
'findel
I suggested this in another thread, but nobody listen to the dude with a head surrounded by fire.
There's a dude with a head surrounded by fire? Where!?
I suggested this in another thread, but nobody listen to the dude with a head surrounded by fire.There's a dude with a head surrounded by fire? Where!?
Ok fine, a skull surrounded by fire. Picky Picky.
I know I'm guilty of the above. It's a bad habbit of mine in general to speak, then think, then speak again with a more level headed take on things. Unfortunately that doesn't get rid of the fact I opened my mouth too early to begin with.
We're running a game on Sunday so I'll have a player playing the summoner at 1st level. I might try and run a one shot 5th or 10th level adventure just to see how things change as well at higher levels.
The playtest forums, remind me a lot of character/class forums from MMO's a lot of the time.
I enjoy them, but you have to mentally filter out a good half, as with any internet text.
So, I've got a player that wants to give this a spin, so I'll post what we find out from what he's doing in the campaign. I hope this will be helpful for the guy at Paizo.
By the same token, I wish people wouldn't complain about people posting the obvious mechanical or thematic defects of a class from a quick readover or an in-depth deconstruction and pass it off as being some great personal sorrow to them.
I hate to be a buzzkill, but I don't need to play an Alchemist to see that it needs brew potion, or to do the math that Mutagen is underpowered at higher levels due to its lack of flexibility in comparison with Barbarian rage, or to see that seven total discoveries is not enough to make alchemists competent at any of their specialties in comparison with the ninth level spells and magic weapons of higher-level characters.
You are not the be-all, end-all of this playtest. The obvious mechanical, thematic, and mathematic flaws need to be exposed too, and playtesting is in fact subjective, NOT objective.
This is not to say that playtesting is somehow unimportant. But theorycraft is important as well. So don't make it out like it's some big deal that theorycrafters are shredding these classes. Objectively theorycraft is much more useful than playtesting; it provides a solid base on which to stand, minimums and maximums that are unlikely to come up in Real Play but need to be considered anyway, and things that anyone could point out as needing fixing.
You just come off looking like a jackass when you complain like this.
Now, putting words into peoples' mouths and accusing paizo of some sort of conspiracy, that I can get behind.
I guess that's why they called it a playtest and not a lookjudge.Nothing personal but your post was nice and succinct. I've personally got an issue with the prevailing attitude that it's impossible to have meaningful and useful input without actually rolling the d20s. This is as dismissive as parents who tell others "you can't understand, you don't have a child". There are some things that are calculable, observable, and evident without having to play to notice.
I'm not saying all un-played comments are accurate, or even most. I've been refraining from even posting about typos or grammatical errors because I'm going to get yelled at for not playing the class before daring to criticize the text.
I think everyone needs to calm down and accept that discussion and disagreement is natural and valuable. If you don't like what someone's posted, either disagree with them or ignore them. Freaking out because they haven't played the class is... unclassy.
I am of the same mind here. I do believe you can read something and come to a reasonable and logically reached opinion from past play experience to be able to give valid and valuable input.
This however, is not saying all input that has been given was reached this way and I also am not assuming all playtests are treated the same way.
You are all bozos! You don't know anything! Your opinions are worthless! How dare you think that these classes have any merit??? There's a strange ego/min-max/rules-frozen mentality that exists in some players. Are they the younger players? Maybe, but maybe not. People forget the one WRITTEN rule since D&D began. It's YOUR GAME. The books are guides only. Make it whatever you want to make it. PAIZO doesn't even have to playtest it with us (although it's frickin' brilliant marketing tactic that I personally love).
The only thing that bothers me is that the folios don't come out timely enough ;-)
You just come off looking like a jackass when you complain like this.
I can't tell if this post is sarcastic genius or just completely oblivious to itself.
Sarcastic, I was feeling ironic.
Less subtle next time, I was ready to b*&3h you out.