The point is that a lot of folks are unhappy with the tone of the dissent. Part of being a company that makes a product that a lot of people love is that you get free cheerleaders. These cheerleaders are very apt to defend said company if poorly thought-out, harshly worded criticisms of the company and the product appear anywhere in the public domain, like the internet for example. Just as someone (mdt in this case, but it could be anyone, I'm not picking on him) can say "If threads that have complaints/questions/negative feedback totally rack you off, [...] don't freaking read any threads on here!", I can easily say "If posters aren't prepared to justify their conclusions and opinions with some sort of tact and logic, they shouldn't put them somewhere that I can read them! And if they do, I'm going to call them out on their illogic and (more importantly) their boorishness!"
Yep, you can. The difference is, if the hacked off person follows my advice, they will no longer be hacked off. If they follow your advice, they're going to be hacked off, and other people are going to get hacked off back at them. :)
Seriously. No one is ever going to 'clean up the intarweb tubers' by telling people to shut up if they don't agree with them. The best they can hope for is to stop exposing themselves to things that raise their bloodpressure to dangerous levels.
Something that has not been pointed out by the OP, or yourself, unless I missed it, is that quite a few of the flame wars start with someone posting 'I don't think this works' or 'Woah, this looks really overpowered' or even 'I really really hate this mechanic/rule/change', and then a 'cheerleader' comes in and drops a tactical nuke post and insults them, their mother, calls them whiny, drops toxic sarcasm, and basically belittles them with no provocation. All in the name of 'defending our precious'.
I would have had less problem with this particular thread if it had come of as more of a call for people to quit doing stuff like that (on both sides). But what it really looks like is a giant flame bait thread based on the first dozen posts. It may not have been intended that way, but that's how it comes off. Basically, it's not going to change anything, it's only going to cause more arguments.
BUT, there is a big difference between negative / constructive feedback along the lines of ‘I don’t think this works’, ‘I don’t know what this means’, ‘this doesn’t work for me’ or ‘I would have preferred this was done differently’ to ‘WTF??? Seriously??? This sucks!!!’ or ‘I hate this you need to change it,’ or ‘What the hell were they thinking?’ or ‘this is totally broken why haven’t you fixed it?’ or ‘why didn’t you listen to ME ME ME during the playtest????’.
As I posted above, there's an equal, if not larger, sample of threads where people started off with the reasonable statements you have above, and then a cheerleader drops a toxic flame bomb on them, followed up by a chorus of more insulting belittling posts.
People who want to post that others can't complain need to remove the plank from their own eye and also tell the people who flame and spew bile at people posting ANY criticism. If you don't think there are posters on here that do that, I have to feel you've not read as many threads as I have. I suggest you find something that you don't like in the rules somewhere, and post a post about why you don't like it. Then count how many posts before a cheerleader spews bile all over your thread about how you are a suxor and PF for the win and you are a whiny baby. It won't be more than 10 I promise.
PS, It’s James Jacobs not James and Jacob. Or maybe I just missed the humour?
If you don't pose hosana's to James and Jacob and everyone else at Paizo, you are the devil incarnate.
That was supposed to be James and Jason.
|
How about an etiquette thread with humorous examples so that we can all figure out what's respectful and what's not? I think it could be fun, at the very least.
Good idea:
"Can somebody help me? I'm having a hard time understanding why anybody would make a non-human sorcerer. The new bonus is just so good! It seems unfair to make it human-only, so I might open it up to other races in my game. Can anybody think of a reason not to run it that way?"
Bad idea:
"lol, NEbody who makes a sorc that isn't human is stupid now. Piazo messed up. I'm going to have 20 new spells on my next sorc, b/c there's no reason to get anything else ever."
(Note 1: please don't actually post on that subject, it's been done to death, re-animated as a zombie, stripped of flesh and turned into skeleton, and then beaten from undeath back to life. I'm not encouraging anybody to write about that subject, just using it as an example!)
Good idea:
"How do I use fighters? It seems like they suck. Less skills than barbarians or rangers, fewer abilities than paladins... well, you get the idea. How do I use fighters so that they don't fail at life?"
Bad idea:
"Fighters are still the worst class ever! They need changing so they can keep up with the wiz, sorc, and cleric. My fighter is terrible! I mean, all fighters are terrible! You're a terrible person if you like them!"
(Note 2: see Note 1, above)
Squeaky wheel gets the grease. It has been, and still is, true. Some times being a prick gets things done when being polite and meek doesn't. And I would imagine that people who play in official games certainly have a reasonable expectation that new official interpretations or changes to game rules could occur based on feedback.
EDIT: I'm not saying this is how things should work (being a jerk gets more results sometimes than being nice), merely it is a reality.
How about an etiquette thread with humorous examples so that we can all figure out what's respectful and what's not? I think it could be fun, at the very least.
LOL
Only if you also do the 'How to respond' thread.
OP: Woah, this sucks! I hate the way the Gribit was changed! How do you play a Gribit now? Half his powers don't even work anymore unless you buy 3 feats! Someone help please? I'm hoping I am just misunderstanding the description of this class. :(
Good Idea : Hey, yeah, I can see where you might think that. I think the Snobit power does need an errata, the first sentence and the third one conflict with each other, resulting in a net sum zero. Can everyone tag the FAQ button? As to the other, it's not as bad as you think. What you need to do is realize the Gribit is a support class, not a primary spellcaster. So, it's not going to be the magical star. On the bright side, the new Throw Turtle ability really is kind of cool, and it has some interesting utility abilities.
Bad Idea : What are you, a 12yo? That Snobit power was completely broken in the playtest! You are just all pissy because your uber munchkin build doesn't work. Waah waaah, cry me a river you whiney baby! Why don't you shut up and quit posting on here, go play 4E! Paizo Rulez, and you drool dufus! Nobody wants to hear your whiney complaints!
How about an etiquette thread with humorous examples so that we can all figure out what's respectful and what's not? I think it could be fun, at the very least.
LOL
Only if you also do the 'How to respond' thread.
OP: Woah, this sucks! I hate the way the Gribit was changed! How do you play a Gribit now? Half his powers don't even work anymore unless you buy 3 feats! Someone help please? I'm hoping I am just misunderstanding the description of this class. :(
Good Idea : Hey, yeah, I can see where you might think that. I think the Snobit power does need an errata, the first sentence and the third one conflict with each other, resulting in a net sum zero. Can everyone tag the FAQ button? As to the other, it's not as bad as you think. What you need to do is realize the Gribit is a support class, not a primary spellcaster. So, it's not going to be the magical star. On the bright side, the new Throw Turtle ability really is kind of cool, and it has some interesting utility abilities.
Bad Idea : What are you, a 12yo? That Snobit power was completely broken in the playtest! You are just all pissy because your uber munchkin build doesn't work. Waah waaah, cry me a river you whiney baby! Why don't you shut up and quit posting on here, go play 4E! Paizo Rulez, and you drool dufus! Nobody wants to hear your whiney complaints!
Wait they changed Snobit from the playtest.:) J/K.
|
|
As I posted above, there's an equal, if not larger, sample of threads where people started off with the reasonable statements you have above, and then a cheerleader drops a toxic flame bomb on them, followed up by a chorus of more insulting belittling posts.
Yes, unfortunately I’ve seen threads like that too. Mind you, most of the ones I’ve seen that go that way have the OP posting in an antagonistic tone or with a provocative thread title or opening line, but maybe there are as many or more where that is not the case and I’ve missed the majority of them. I can’t comment on whether you’ve seen more threads than me, maybe that’s the case. If it makes any difference (and I’m not sure it does), I’ve been posting here since about 2005, have made 17,000 odd posts and read far more threads than I’ve posted in ... but maybe I have a blind spot for certain things.
People who want to post that others can't complain need to remove the plank from their own eye and also tell the people who flame and spew bile at people posting ANY criticism. If you don't think there are posters on here that do that, I have to feel you've not read as many threads as I have. I suggest you find something that you don't like in the rules somewhere, and post a post about why you don't like it. Then count how many posts before a cheerleader spews bile all over your thread about how you are a suxor and PF for the win and you are a whiny baby. It won't be more than 10 I promise.
I should give that a try, it would be an interesting experiment. I haven’t come across much that I really don’t like in the PFRPG rules as written so far, but maybe once I’ve read through the APG in greater detail I’ve had something – I have it on good authority that the book contains much that SUCKS!!! and is BROKEN!!! ;-)
That was supposed to be James and Jason.
No worries, simple mistake, didn’t mean to jump on you for it. I noticed someone addressing ‘Jacob’ in a thread recently (I think they meant James) and thought perhaps it was a common misconception.
I think it comes down to a couple things. First, people who like Pathfinder and post on forums tend to be tinkerers. D20 is the RPG tinkerer's dream. So many options, the ability to easily publish your own house rules, etc. So discussions about what does or does not work in the rules are natural on a board like this.
Since Paizo has a fairly large messageboard community, there will always be a small percentage of people who try to get their point across in less appropriate ways. I've seen people with points I agree with attack the problem (and others on the board) in a way that makes me ashamed to even remotely agree with them. And sadly it is the jerks that get the most attention.
So please, continue tinkering with Pathfinder and discussing variant rules. Just everyone try to remember to do it civilly, and with respect to others. Also, don't feed the trolls.
I know. Sheesh. Just house rule it. I swear, the d20 generation wants everything spoon-fed to them. Just because there's rules for everything, including removing the kitchen sink, doesn't mean you can't change them up to your liking...
One will ALWAYS hoserule RPGs. NONE plays by book, I guess.
Nevertheless, if I have to houserule a whole book, I just do it by myself and don't buy the product. If I point out something that in my opinion is a flaw, it's because I care of this game and genuinely think that is the best around here.
It's indeed funny for me because sometimes I find myslef in the side of those that X works even if people complain about it. Sometimes I find myslef among those concerned - an hint about how the thing is indeed subjective.
But, as said above, sometimes ACTUALLY HAPPENS that something needs a small change or clarification. nothing bad - if the developers consider it worthy, they do it, and everybody is back to the fun :)
|
That's true. A lot of stuff can still get better, but the threads that are of the opinion that broken things can be improved are few and far between.
Yah. And a lot of "still so-called broken" stuff is fundamental to the rpg, e.g., level, classes, linear warrior/quadratic wizard, etc. I swear I sometimes feel the folks posting the latest batch of complaints didn't participate/forgot that the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is supposed to be backwards-compatible to the 3.x ruleset of the World's Oldest RPG.
|
How about an etiquette thread with humorous examples so that we can all figure out what's respectful and what's not? I think it could be fun, at the very least.
LOL
Only if you also do the 'How to respond' thread.
OP: Woah, this sucks! I hate the way the Gribit was changed! How do you play a Gribit now? Half his powers don't even work anymore unless you buy 3 feats! Someone help please? I'm hoping I am just misunderstanding the description of this class. :(
Good Idea : Hey, yeah, I can see where you might think that. I think the Snobit power does need an errata, the first sentence and the third one conflict with each other, resulting in a net sum zero. Can everyone tag the FAQ button? As to the other, it's not as bad as you think. What you need to do is realize the Gribit is a support class, not a primary spellcaster. So, it's not going to be the magical star. On the bright side, the new Throw Turtle ability really is kind of cool, and it has some interesting utility abilities.
Bad Idea : What are you, a 12yo? That Snobit power was completely broken in the playtest! You are just all pissy because your uber munchkin build doesn't work. Waah waaah, cry me a river you whiney baby! Why don't you shut up and quit posting on here, go play 4E! Paizo Rulez, and you drool dufus! Nobody wants to hear your whiney complaints!
Of course, your example opening post is quite imflammatory. If that opening post had been more delicately phrased it might be more likely to get the 'Good Idea' answer than the 'Bad Idea' answer.
It takes two to tango.
Yes, unfortunately I’ve seen threads like that too. Mind you, most of the ones I’ve seen that go that way have the OP posting in an antagonistic tone or with a provocative thread title or opening line, but maybe there are as many or more where that is not the case and I’ve missed the majority of them. I can’t comment on whether you’ve seen more threads than me, maybe that’s the case. If it makes any difference (and I’m not sure it does), I’ve been posting here since about 2005, have made 17,000 odd posts and read far more threads than I’ve posted in ... but maybe I have a blind spot for certain things.
As I posted above, there's an equal, if not larger, sample of threads where people started off with the reasonable statements you have above, and then a cheerleader drops a toxic flame bomb on them, followed up by a chorus of more insulting belittling posts.
This. If your original post is derogatory and inflammatory, don't expect others to throw you a tea party. There is a good number of people on this board who seemingly cannot help themselves than to post their opening argument in an antagonistic way, which already sets up heated responses.
I've yet to see something going ballistic over a well thought-out and courteously presented argument over a rule. It's normally the usual suspects, who cannot help themselves but to sneer at the game and developers when they present a rules question, who provoke heated responses.
I support constructive critiques, some non-constructive posts too.
I don't support the pro-psionics lobby, the anti-psionics crew, and that kind of stuff (psionics chosen as example). If Paizo wants to know the public support for "X" they will make a poll.
Every day, it seems, there is a new thread questioning the mechanics of the game. And what's worse? It seems that the authors of these threads want Paizo to fix what THEY perceive as broken. Every time I read one of these threads, it first makes me mad
I hope that in time, you will learn that getting mad about random stuff you read on the internet is detrimental to your overall well-being :)
but it gives me even more faith in the products themselves.
Please elaborate. Why does an analysis of defective or suboptimal mechanics strengthen your faith in the product?
|
|
but it gives me even more faith in the products themselves.Please elaborate. Why does an analysis of defective or suboptimal mechanics strengthen your faith in the product?
Presumably, if people are debating vociferously then nothing is glaringly or damagingly defective.
Unfortunately you have introduced the word 'suboptimal' to the thread - it's all downhill from here...
:b
LOLOnly if you also do the 'How to respond' thread.
OP: Woah, this sucks! I hate the way the Gribit was changed! How do you play a Gribit now? Half his powers don't even work anymore unless you buy 3 feats! Someone help please? I'm hoping I am just misunderstanding the description of this class. :(
Of course, your example opening post is quite imflammatory. If that opening post had been more delicately phrased it might be more likely to get the 'Good Idea' answer than the 'Bad Idea' answer.
It takes two to tango.
Actually,
I intentionally chose a 'middle of the road' example to make a point. The post is neither inflamatory, nor polite, it's pretty much what I'd expect an average middle of the road post to be. It starts off stating an unhappiness (there's nothing wrong with someone expressing their opinion as long as they don't take it too far).Here's what I think would be a perfectly valid example of a 'sane' approach. The good/bad above is on the end of the bell curve, and are designed to be to show the two extremes. That's the point of examples like that.
Average example :
OP: Woah, this sucks! I hate the way the Gribit was changed! How do you play a Gribit now? Half his powers don't even work anymore unless you buy 3 feats! Someone help please? I'm hoping I am just misunderstanding the description of this class. :(
Avg Response :
Woah, chill. Yeah, the Snobit power got fubared and got missed in QC, the 1st and 3rd sentances cancel each other out. Mistakes happen. I'm sure the Errata will address it. If everyone clicks the FAQ I'm sure we'll get attention faster.
As to the rest of it, I don't agree. The class isn't supposed to be a rock star, it's supposed to be a support class, you just need to play it that way.
Oh, and btw, Turtle Throwing for the win! That is such a cool concept power!
Now, neither of the above is on the 'nice' end of the scale, but neither is on the 'jerk' end of the scale either.
You know ...
The PathfinderRPG would be way better if ...
This. If your original post is derogatory and inflammatory, don't expect others to throw you a tea party. There is a good number of people on this board who seemingly cannot help themselves than to post their opening argument in an antagonistic way, which already sets up heated responses.I've yet to see something going ballistic over a well thought-out and courteously presented argument over a rule. It's normally the usual suspects, who cannot help themselves but to sneer at the game and developers when they present a rules question, who provoke heated responses.
There is a large difference between 'I do not like this' post and 'what the @*##& were those @*#$&*# thinking! They broke the whole @*#&$ game!' posts. The problem being that I've seen derogatory and inflammatory responses to simple 'I do not like this' posts.
Woah...
Yeah, the point of this thread was to have my point heard and maybe have people be nicer when suggesting changes.Also, @mdt: Congratulations on being "that guy."
Then, may I suggest, you went about it in exactly the worse way? For all your posting of not liking the way people complain, your post was really, and ironically, the other side of the coin you claim to hate seeing spent. Doubly ironic considering your non-de-plume. :)
As to being, 'that guy'... Either it's intended as a joke, which I missed, or it's intended as a compliment I don't get, or, it's intended as flame bait.
|
|
Instead of seeing it as moaning, see it as people who care about the game.
Agreed. We're no different than the football fans who spend hours kvetching and moaning about various coaches, players, 'spygate', etc.
Anybody who has an interest in something is going to make comments, some of them critical, and have strong opinions about how things could be better.
In pretty much every aspect of life, it's not the ones that argue that are going to leave, it's the ones that don't really care enough to have an opinion one way or the other.
And, wow. Who could have predicted that a messageboard devoted to a hobby might have enthusiasts willing to talk about that hobby, and how they can tweak it to make things even more fun and entertaining for themselves and their groups? Crazy!
Just because I might add a few ingredients, or use a different amount of water, or not cook it for the recommended time, does not mean that I am an impossible-to-please bitter 'toxic fan' of Hamburger Helper. Yes, the 'designers' of Hamburger Helper may have many more years of experience and 'know better' how to use their product, but only *I* know my own tastes. Same for gaming.
Jason Buhlman may know forty-thousand times more about game design than I do, but I still don't like the Advanced Simple Template, and not just because the name makes me want to punch a frog.
Presumably, if people are debating vociferously then nothing is glaringly or damagingly defective.
This would only hold if you assume that a basic understanding of system mechanics is required to take part in the debate. This obviously is not the case.
Additionally, some people seem to have problems accepting that there can be issues with certain mechanics even if it doesn't come up in their heavily house-ruled games at home.
Unfortunately you have introduced the word 'suboptimal' to the thread - it's all downhill from here...
Now why would you say that?
...forgot that the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is supposed to be backwards-compatible to the 3.x ruleset of the World's Oldest RPG.
This.
In many respects, 3PPs have more room to play with Paizo's product that Paizo themselves. Paizo wants to keep their Core Product usable with 10,000,000,000+ (intentional hyperbole) existing products published under the OGL. They can tweak, enhance, and clarify, but cannot fundamentally alter the Core product while still keeping things compatible.
LPJ, SGG, 4W, and all the other guys can fundamentally alter the core product. The degree to which they can alter it depends on how strongly they want to be able to slap a 'Pathfinder Compatible' logo on it, but still.
[Added in an Edit. Because I clicked 'submit' instead of 'preview'.]
On the other side of the coin, the desire for compatibility does not excuse poor editing and fact-catching. In a recent thread, a question came up about an ability and how it scaled. The designer of the ability replied that the RAW is not what was intended. The author used specific wording piggybacking on another ability to reduce word count (which, unfortunately, is a publishing reality, no matter what you are publishing). It is not necessarily this author's responsibility to know that piggybacking the ability breaks the scaling - but someone on the editorial review staff should know enough about the original ability to at least catch that. I say 'should' because everyone is human, and everyone makes mistakes.
But, yeah, civility is important. It is also very hard to maintain on any internet forum. Some Sociology or Psychology major could probably have a field day with this as a thesis subject.
In many respects, 3PPs have more room to play with Paizo's product that Paizo themselves. Paizo wants to keep their Core Product usable with 10,000,000,000+ (intentional hyperbole) existing products published under the OGL. They can tweak, enhance, and clarify, but cannot fundamentally alter the Core product while still keeping things compatible.
Of course they can. And they did. CMB/CMD, many spells changed, more bonuses, ...
Compatibility doesn't really seem to be the goal anymore, but that's a not necessarily a bad thing.
Of course they can. And they did. CMB/CMD, many spells changed, more bonuses, ...
Your Experiences will, of course, vary. But what I've found is that CMB/CMD isn't such a fundamental altering of the rules. It looks different in a stat-block, but really it's just a streamlining of the existing rules for grapple/trip/etc. The games I played in before CMB/CMD, no one ever used Combat Maneuvers, because no one could remember the rules. Now they use them all the time.
Of course, that's not really the point of your post, and I digress. I apologize for that.
Changing some of the iconic spells is more fundamental, I'll give you that.
The d20 Ruleset is not my favorite ruleset. In fact, one of the things I hate most about the rules is the damn d20. This is because I do not like linear probability scales. In general, however, I think the PFRPG is the cleanest implementation of the ruleset. Which doesn't make it perfect. And errors will always creep in. Sometimes they are errors that were caught during proofing, but somehow didn't make it into the Print Master. Other times, it's that proofreaders know what the rule is supposed to be, so when they read the rule in the editing copy, their mind automatically sees the RAI, not the RAW. (This is why professional authors never do final editing on their own books.)
I also agree that, for my personal tastes, loosing some compatibility is not necessarily a bad thing. However, for a large portion of Paizo's customer base, it is. For the group that I currently play in, compatibility is a huge issue. We have one player in the group who refuses to play PF because she has 'neither the time nor the inclination to learn new rules.' And, while the base rules have not changed, enough has been tweaked that, for her, it is really learning a new rule set. So, in that game group, most of the characters are built using the 3.0 Rules, but the GM is allowing those of us who want to build characters using the Pathfinder rules. The catch is that we use all of the rules. We take any benefits the PF rules give us, and suck up any penalties the rules give us. This works in our game group, but it would not work in everyones.
So: Posting Rules Questions is good.
Politely Posting Rules Questions is better.
Constructive Discussions of Rules is awesome.
Flame Wars Suck. They always have, they always will.
Flame Wars, sadly, are inevitable. But if we all remember that Politeness is Awesome and Flame Wars suck, maybe there will be fewer flame wars.
And if there are fewer highly passionate "I'm right, you're wrong" posts, then there will be fewer 'Dude, that topic has been beaten to death' threads, because newcomers to the forum won't give up reading an existing thread on the first page.
And, maybe, I'm a hopeless idealist ;-).
Sometimes they are errors that were caught during proofing, but somehow didn't make it into the Print Master. Other times, it's that proofreaders know what the rule is supposed to be, so when they read the rule in the editing copy, their mind automatically sees the RAI, not the RAW. (This is why professional authors never do final editing on their own books.)
While one might argue that sometimes the editing in the latest Paizo products is not up to the standard of their storytelling, the problematic things are usually not 'errors' in the editing sense but decisions with implications which the authors seem to evaluate quite differently than some of their customers with an interested in game mechanics. E.g. human sorcerer racial spells in APG.
I also agree that, for my personal tastes, loosing some compatibility is not necessarily a bad thing. However, for a large portion of Paizo's customer base, it is. For the group that I currently play in, compatibility is a huge issue. We have one player in the group who refuses to play PF because she has 'neither the time nor the inclination to learn new rules.' And, while the base rules have not changed, enough has been tweaked that, for her, it is really learning a new rule set.
Well, she does have a point. =/
|
Pathfinder came about because people made these very same types of posts and complaints about 3.5.
Not really. Pathfinder came about because WotC released 4E, and there was a lot of backlash against that. Paizo themselves prefered 3E, but they knew that support for it would dwindle away with no first-class system that was still being published and supported. So they took the SRD, made some changes to it (while still keeping things within the realm of fairly easy compatibility) and took a huge chance by publishing it. And, from what I can tell, it seems to have paid off for them.
I know. Sheesh. Just house rule it. I swear, the d20 generation wants everything spoon-fed to them. Just because there's rules for everything, including removing the kitchen sink, doesn't mean you can't change them up to your liking...
I can't speak for everyone, but when I make a post criticizing a rule and suggesting a different way to do it, I'm not really looking for the developers to agree with me and throw my suggestion into the errata. I'm simply offering up an alternative rule for other games. I try to explain what my problems are with the existing rule, and why I think my suggestion works better. Not everyone will agree. But if I didn't put it out there, the same solution might not occur to those who DO agree. Hell, there might be some people who it never occurred to until they read my post.
Compatibility with existing 3.0/3.X/d20/OGL stuff is one of the main reasons that I switched over to Pathfinder. But I'm hoping that with Pathfinder 2E, they make more substantial changes, and don't necessarily handcuff themselves with compatibility issues. Pathfinder 1E convinced me they can make great improvements to an existing. I'm hoping that Pathfinder 2E convinces me they can make their own game that's just as great, or maybe even greater.
I think that we should all try to be kinder with our nitpicking. I know I will.I agree it is one thing to question the rules and discuss what you like or dislike about the rules. It is a completely different thing to disrespect the designers and other posters on the boards because you disagree with them.
+1
You know ...
The PathfinderRPG would be way better if ...
Yes? YEEEEEEEEES?!?!
Continue the sentence! I will help you finish the idea! Something aside from an ettiquite lesson can come from this thread!
You know ...
The PathfinderRPG would be way better if ...
Yes? YEEEEEEEEES?!?!
Continue the sentence! I will help you finish the idea! Something aside from an ettiquite lesson can come from this thread!
... I was making a joke there. ;D
But ...
If it had rules for:
... Ecetera
I know. Sheesh. Just house rule it. I swear, the d20 generation wants everything spoon-fed to them. Just because there's rules for everything, including removing the kitchen sink, doesn't mean you can't change them up to your liking...
No edition ever had letters sent into magazines or editors or anything asking on rules clarification.
None.
Ever.
Wait, yes they did. My god...you mean you can't just break this down into a simple Generation vs Generation black and white problem? Whatever shall we do?!
Incidentally, the post I just quoted? Exactly the type of problem these forums have. My snarky response probably not the most constructive either, admittingly ;p
I know. Sheesh. Just house rule it. I swear, the d20 generation wants everything spoon-fed to them. Just because there's rules for everything, including removing the kitchen sink, doesn't mean you can't change them up to your liking...No edition ever had letters sent into magazines or editors or anything asking on rules clarification.
None.
Ever.
Wait, yes they did. My god...you mean you can't just break this down into a simple Generation vs Generation black and white problem? Whatever shall we do?!
Incidentally, the post I just quoted? Exactly the type of problem these forums have. My snarky response probably not the most constructive either, admittingly ;p
Clearly everything in ADnD was perfect and now most younger rpgers are all wow players who want to bring their game to paper, didn't you know that?
/Sarcasm
But seriously, someone mentioned the squeaky wheel and such. It's true. The fact is the b***ing and moaning gets results. Look at the changes to the erata of paladin smite. That was a direct response to criticism about the power of the ability and there was LOADS of argument about that ability. Same goes for the playtest version of the summoner. Those discenting posts have actually changed the game, so its hard to say they are pointless. As long as paizo keeps reading these boards it at least possible to change the game by posting here arguing about the rules.
mdt, you asked what I meant by calling you "that guy." This is what I meant by that statement. It was meant to call you on your hypocracy. I may have spelled hypocracy incorrectly.Hmm,
I may be wrong, but if I read the OP's point, and those who are cheering him on correctly, the point of this thread is...1) If you don't love PF, don't post on the threads.
2) Paizo is perfect, and all those who disagree are heathen infidels.
3) All rules are perfect as written, despite an errata to the contrary.
4) If you don't pose hosana's to James and Jacob and everyone else at Paizo, you are the devil incarnate.Now, I don't agree with any of those points.
No hypocrisy at all.
I didn't call you names. I didn't call your parentage into question. I didn't call you a whiny crybaby. I didn't curse you out.
What I did was enumerate how your post came across. I listed how your points, and the follow up of your cheerleaders, came across.
I also never claimed I was perfect or innocent, and I never claimed I didn't respond to what I consider to be flame bait posts with some acrimony. If I'd said 'Hey, you moron, why don't you shut up! I hate it when people tell me to shut up!' then that would have been hypocrisy. If I'd said 'I never flame people' that would have been hypocrisy.
What I said was 'If you want to complain about people posting negative feedback, you should also post about people who respond to negative feedback with flames'. I never claimed I didn't flame, nor do I apologize for the quoted bit above. Your original post came off as an attempt to alienate and insult anyone who didn't follow your own beliefs, to belittle and marginalize anyone who posted anything negative about Paizo or Paizo products. I called you on it. If you don't like being called on it, that's your problem.
@mdt Don't feed the troll. Ironicdisaster is obviously just looking to get a reaction out of you, with the name-calling and all.
|
I have never understood why people become annoyed or upset about rules as written. I have always believed that the books should be an outline or guide, not dogma. If all the players in a campaign think that a particular rule is bad and should be changed, let them play by a set of rules they find preferable.
PFS play is an exception, of course. Some flexibility has to be sacrificed for uniformity. Other than that, if you think monks should be proficient in all exotic weapons, but no simple or martial weapons, go for it! Why not?
You know ...
The PathfinderRPG would be way better if ...
Yes? YEEEEEEEEES?!?!
Continue the sentence! I will help you finish the idea! Something aside from an ettiquite lesson can come from this thread!
... I was making a joke there. ;D
But ...
If it had rules for:
Bionics
Automatic Weapons and Energy Weapons
Space Travel
Psionics
Radios and Cell Phones
... Ecetera
Weirdly enough I have rules for two of those and was working on a third...
I would like to make my rules for prosthetics require something a bit more unique in their rulings. At present they're excellent replacements that give a small penalty on some dex-based checks for a month or so, with a bunch of unique augmentations that can be added to them. Most of the augments can also be given to folks with all their natural limbs, so PCs don't just look at the rules and then suddenly hack off their leg to get a replacement.
I do want to collab with a player on the weaponry stuff since his goblin rogue/alchemist made firearms powered by alchemist's fire. At present the setting only has semi-auto siege weapon, but it's just a matter of time before him or one of the other inventors makes one.
As far as space travel goes, suffice to say that's a ways in the future...
EDIT: Actually I did make magical cell phones of a sort. They're cheap (20 gp) ioun stones you can embed in your skin that you can use to send messages to other people. The speed is slower than that of a message spell, but it can travel for a very long distance over a number of days. Reception beyond 100 miles usually takes around three days or more, however, so their utility is somewhat limited. I made them because I'm running two groups and I wanted them to communicate with one another.
Hmm,
I may be wrong, but if I read the OP's point, and those who are cheering him on correctly, the point of this thread is...1) If you don't love PF, don't post on the threads.
2) Paizo is perfect, and all those who disagree are heathen infidels.
3) All rules are perfect as written, despite an errata to the contrary.
4) If you don't pose hosana's to James and Jacob and everyone else at Paizo, you are the devil incarnate.Now, I don't agree with any of those points.
<snip>
There are threads I avoid like the plague because they always tick me off...
Yeah. There are a bunch of self-appointed Paizo guardians on these forums. Feels like an Apple board, imho. Personally, I think the Paizo staff is big enough to take the feedback (James Sutter's very puzzling post not-with-standing.) If they can't take opinionated people, then they picked the wrong business. Gamers are nothing if not opinionated about their passion.
If Paizo wants to know the public support for "X" they will make a poll.
If they don't want the feedback, I'd appreciate it they'd just say "no critical comments will be allowed."
|
In my experience on these boards, I've discovered there are two types of people who post rules questions.
There are those who don't understand a rule, and there are those who don't like a rule.
The first category generally ask politely for advice and usually get polite responses.
The scond category generally ask politely but throw in some form of snarky comment, usully becasue they're vexed that there is a problem they percieve. Alternatively if there is no snark, the post is written in such a way as to portray the OP as incontrovertably correct and people should just acknowedge this. Most times they just come off as completely arrogent.
Unfortunately, these people do not like it when others tell them they don't agree with their arguments and so chaos ensues. Very often the second category come in with a mathematical approach to a game where the sheer quantity of variables in any one situation make accurate mathematical predictions impossible to use. Which is why they get disagreement from many people who regularly play the game. These naysayers of the maths are quickly labelled as "fanbois" or "Homebrewers" who can be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
While I enjoy reading good discussion about the rules, I rarely get to see good discussion on the boards. Too many people take criticism in either direction to heart and then the flamewars begin.
Some suggestions for threads where rules discussion is to occur
- Make your point about why you do/don't like a rule and then let others decide if they want to use it. Don' try to force your opinion on others.
- Suggest alternative rules that may be used instead, preferably having playtested these rules yourself and present anecdotal evidence to show how they work. (I think its Kirth Gurson? who has a whole bunch of homebrewed rules he runs in his game, including redesigned classes. He posts his ideas without telling everyone else that they should be using them. Read some of his posts to see what I mean here.)
- By all means attack a persons argument, but do not attack the person making them. You will never convince anyone that your point of view is correct once you have inspired them to hate you.
I think rules discussions are important, they have allowed me to learn whole new ways of playing the game. Unfortunately given the general anonymity of the internet, I believe civil discussion in those threads may never come about.
Cheers
Self-aggrandizing, calls for action, and berating those who disagree are all silly ways to spend your time.
However, everyone plays the game differently, and I can say that certain specific rulings in the game drive me nuts too. GMs need a place to discuss alternatives.
I can't really support the case that the RAW is perfect and everyone should abide by it. People just need to be realistic about what merits a change in the RAW, what should be a house rule, and what is a simple matter of preference.
Agreed. I buy much of what Paizo produces, including the PF rule books,but I don't play Pathfinder because Paizo can't make it into what I want, a heck of a lot SIMPLER. I do like what they have done, I don't always see why they did things the way they did, but I do like how responsive they are to what they are able to be responsive to.
Even they have said in numerous places, the RAW isn't for everyone, so do what you need to do for your own groups.
I like that attitude.
|
Even they have said in numerous places, the RAW isn't for everyone, so do what you need to do for your own groups.I like that attitude.
Yes that is fine...however the RAW should...umm you know...WORK. I don't think that asking for a working ruleset is a bad thing (look at calcifing touch). And then the game developers jump in and butcher the existing rules to try to make that one thing work which opens up a whole slew of well that breaks everything else (like James saying that feats can be anything...which means improved crit can be a spell like as it duplicates keen edge *rollseyes*)...which really isn't good for the system.
Unfortunately, these people do not like it when others tell them they don't agree with their arguments and so chaos ensues. Very often the second category come in with a mathematical approach to a game where the sheer quantity of variables in any one situation make accurate mathematical predictions impossible to use. Which is why they get disagreement from many people who regularly play the game. These naysayers of the maths are quickly labelled as "fanbois" or "Homebrewers" who can be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
“Whoever despises the high wisdom of mathematics nourishes himself on delusion.” -Leonardo da Vinci
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable sub-human who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." -Robert Heinlein
|
|
My gripe is why did it take so long for someone to figure out how to have a "living" campaign with it breaking down to hunts for certs, transfer and gifts between PC', and other abuses that carry over from one game to another; so there isn't the remotest chance in hell that a module being written, without it having a 90% chance of being broken by an item in a players possession. Every character stand on its own here, no free buffing with previous PC's gear, gold or items. Every module writer know what items could possibly be in a game at a certain level, and also knows that there is a finite amount of gold a PC can have at given level, so no fear of a level 1 character outfitted like a level 7, or even the possibility that a PC could acquire a particular item above level. I congratulate the designers on doing a superb job of handling game balance.
'
But seriously, someone mentioned the squeaky wheel and such. It's true. The fact is the b***ing and moaning gets results.
There is also the idea that an arguement can be won by the person who yells the loudest and the longest. Eventually you will drive off your opponents because they get bored and win. The Burning Wheel RPG actually used this method for how dwarves did arguing.
"YOU CAN WIN AT THINGS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WIN AT, LIKE YELLING!!!" -Powerthirst 2
The scond category generally ask politely but throw in some form of snarky comment, usully becasue they're vexed that there is a problem they percieve. Alternatively if there is no snark, the post is written in such a way as to portray the OP as incontrovertably correct and people should just acknowedge this. Most times they just come off as completely arrogent.
Unfortunately, these people do not like it when others tell them they don't agree with their arguments and so chaos ensues. Very often the second category come in with a mathematical approach to a game where the sheer quantity of variables in any one situation make accurate mathematical predictions impossible to use. Which is why they get disagreement from many people who regularly play the game. These naysayers of the maths are quickly labelled as "fanbois" or "Homebrewers" who can be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
I don't agree with you there. Just because the math part overwhelms you doesn't mean it's impossible to use math to analyze the game. And a good answer to mathematical arguments is not an anecdote from a (possibly houseruled/homebrew) game. No wonder such answers are dismissed.
If you want to be taken seriously and convince someone of your arguments regarding game mechanics, write a better analysis, not a story how this or that problem didn't appear in your own game, and your answer will be seen as a contribution to the discussion and not just thread derailment.
Edit: oh, others were faster to respond. Great quotes, pres man.