I think PAIZO is giving us exactly one swords and spells class and the Magus, like it or lump it, is it.
I'm not saying either was perfect, just that wizards did TRY to make an arcane caster that also fights. I definately prefer the magus to both, but I wouldnt mind seeing a hexblade like class done right (didnt like the WotC class much) where a class is full bab and 4 levels of casting with something like the witch's hexes. Kind of like Paladin is to Cleric as this new class is to witch.
I do believe you are correct, and so far though it has kinks it needs to work out I like the conceptual magus. So I am pleased so far, and PFRPG has great 3rd party support so any gaps that paizo might not fill the will (or have filled already).
Psionic warrior was also a gish in a can.
Ardent was literally called "Gish in a can."
And the Magus is almost directly relatable to both Psionic Warrior and Duskblade.
Claiming WotC never made a full 1-20 gish class is simply factually incorrect. They made more then one.
Gentlemen, let's keep it on topic.
Remember WOTC. Remember how they gave us the finger and put out 4th edition with no playtest and told us to suck it and like it?
Not to totally derail this thread, but that isn't true -- WotC did several rounds of a closed beta on 4E. I'm not sure how they handled who was invited for it, but most of the convention-going 3.5 die-hard crowd gamers I knew were involved.
Now, whether their feedback was taken seriously, it's impossible for me to say.
|
I think that ending playtesting or changing to a closed beta format would be incredibly damaging to Paizo. What would have happened if no one had bothered to point out that an Eidolon could have a bojillion attacks? That the Magus is nearly unplayable until mid to high levels because of some of the mechanics?
Paizo would, I think, become little more than a miniature WotC with splat books that increasingly made certain paths of character building ideal and others horrible.
There is a good analogy of computing power here. The old supercomputers or yore can't do a fraction of what can be done now with distributed processing. Information held in the hands of the few is simply never as powerful as it is in the hands of the many.
Yes, there is undue rancor in the forums. That's simply what happens on the internet. Anonymity begets asshattery. It's like a law.
Two useful ideas that I'm not the first person to think of:
1. Community moderators. Many forums utilize these. They are generally quite useful as the threat of suspension or the ban hammer is far more real because of the increased presence of authority. These mods can edit or delete posts which are too inflammatory before things get too out of hand.
2. Get an intern or two. I would be absolutely shocked if Paizo couldn't find volunteer help locally or teleworked. Press aides and interns in my previous place of work would read all the local newspapers and a couple of the more important national papers to distribute a daily summary of pertinent news to staff. An intern that perused the forums looking for interesting notes and specific items that Paizo staff expressed an interest in could provide such a daily summary complete with links so that staff could see a thread for themselves if they wanted to delve deeper into an idea. This would eliminate the crap that must be sifted through to find the bits of precious gold.
In summation, ending playtesting bad. Finding ways to make the playtesting data easier to find by utilizing alternative methods or better policing the community good.
Actually this is a good argument against restricting the playtest to Paizocon. You run the risk of it being open to only the most die hard fans of the company who are more likely to give praise to whatever they are testing face to face and be less critical. Not to mention those who withhold criticism for fear of being excluded from the next playtest. The open playtest on the boards does allow the feedback to be more brutally honest.
That is not to say that using playtest at Paizocon as an additional source of playtest data is not without merit as it would increase the sample size. Either way there will be negatives on data quality, but the overall increase in data quantity would more than offset it.
I pretty well agree with this, actually.
I think there are some kinds of data you're only going to get from actual play, and the best way to simulate that under circumstances you (Paizo) can control really is to set up a few things at cons that you can really watch and gather good information from.
But...
I think there are also mistakes or odd details that are better found by letting people have a beta draft and a few days to digest it and try to put builds together and experiment with different angles, too.
|
|
....I would suggest a board with usage flags linked to the user accounts that the moderators could switch on and off it people go beyond testing and move to insulting and bickering. Giving a 24 or 48 hour posting ban on the testing boards to let people cool off would work, I think. Also locking out threads more quickly if they move to two or three people debating something that is not relevant to the testing.
...
I totally agree. I am very much for free speech and the ability to share thoughts but when it goes past sharing thoughts to a slug fest then not any productivity is performed. When people say they want to participate in making a better game they should understand the responsibility of doing so. Other threads can be made to have open words but certain threads, like play test threads, should be marked as productive and require a code of conduct to allow smooth feedback recording.
I would be sad to see playtesting go. And on the other hand, who can blame Paizo if they do? There are posters here who need better manners, and Paizo has stuck their necks out again and again.
I like the idea of the +1 post. It appears as though if Paizo would keep the playtest, they need a system that will aid them in handling some of the load. And--we as players need to realize that we hold responsibility for our own actions. As a community, we hold responsibility for eachothers' actions as well. We hold responsibility for the past, and the future.
Once it's online, it's immortalized, guys. Do you want some of these posts dredged up and shown to your kids?
"Yeah, dad was a real sh--."
It's easy to get wrapped up in a game or a hobby. It's easy to believe "my interpretation is the correct one." And it's easy to argue that, with brimstone and fire.
It just doesn't make for a great environment.
And oh, hey. Guys? It's potentially preserved forever.
And oh, hey. Guys? It's potentially preserved forever.
I love the sentiment, Ruggs, but I'm afraid the brand of jerk who is causing these issues probably won't be dissuaded by the prospect of immortality.
And oh, hey. Guys? It's potentially preserved forever.I love the sentiment, Ruggs, but I'm afraid the brand of jerk who is causing these issues probably won't be dissuaded by the prospect of immortality.
In about ten, twenty years when the Facebook Generation begins to run for office, go through divorce and childcare proceedings and being the backers behind corporations--we might see more awareness, because this "immortality" will begin hitting the news in larger waves. We may end up with juvie laws for FB posts (the suicide taunts come to mind here).
Thank you for starting this, by the by. I hope Paizo is able to find a system.
I think they would do well to look towards their community for part of it--other posters recognize the jerks. They recognize the earnest contributors. Harnessing this in a positive, careful manner could give Paizo the added manpower it needs, while at the same time--letting the community work on itself.
I like the +1 idea since it lets the community work for Paizo by awarding those contributors--but not letting vengeful others disenfranchise "a differing opinion."
There is just a little bit of "my opinion is different" with DnD and RPGs. And not everyone in the human race, myself included, is good at handling different opinions.