My eternal thanks to Rogue Eidolon for starting this thread, which has given us all respite from the gibbering throngs of one-upmen. It is very nice for me, since I don't have time to participate in the playtest, but I still want to read people's responses to the new class, without having to wade through the horror.
In James' personal Q&A thread, he said that the aggressiveness of posters in the playtest may be enough to make Paizo consider abandoning the playtest. In response, I think we have a duty to learn from Rogue Eidolon's thread, and to suggest ways we can improve the forum playtest for future use.
So please, post your ideas here!
I will start: With apologies in advance to Gary, I think it would be very nice if there were a special type of post that served the role of formatting results similar to Rogue Eidolon's thread. Basically, you would start a new thread, but instead of just the "Subject" and "Body" text fields like a normal post, you actually had a form with multiple text fields designed to collect the data that the designers are after.
Subsequent posts would be limited to comments, perhaps with agree/disagree options in the post. I understand the aversion that Paizo has to this kind of feature in the work-a-day forums, but honestly it could lend some clarity to the proceedings.
We could still have a free-form discussion forum where people can just wail on eachother, but this idea is about sorting the wheat from the chaff. If we give posters the choice of posting in "wheat" forum or "chaff" forum, even those players who are hellbent on thought experiments will be forced to format their results like a proper playtest, instead of just calling the last poster an idiot.
This is not a perfect idea, though. What's yours?
The alternative to what Paizo is getting is very little feedback.
Feedback delivered by people wearing their posteriors as hair ornaments is better than no feedback at all.
I heartily approve of a submission form that captures specific data.
I'd also recommend that there be a specific sub-forum for "Number crunching" people that's ignorable, and has two volunteer moderators who have the job of writing a daily summary from the pit-fights with slide-rules with links back to the real analysis.
In James' personal Q&A thread, he said that the aggressiveness of posters in the playtest may be enough to make Paizo consider abandoning the playtest
I realize what I am about to post runs against the grain of what you intend this thread for, so I will put it in spoiler tags to keep the general flow of the thread pristine.
It is apparent that Paizo can't handle playtests. That isn't to say they aren't capable. Just that they do not have the manpower, if not the temperament, to weight the feedback - good and bad.
The overall impression is that they ignore the feedback, at best, or select feedback of their own criteria at worst. Either way, it clearly isn't based on quantity of opinions, or quality of suggestions.
And if my little, tiny, corner of the hobby is any indication, they would do better going with their first drafts over playtest encouraged changes anyway. (We use the Beta RPG rules, and if we use anything from the APG, it is likely to be Beta as well.)
All in all, that kind of shake up might be what is needed to turn around the opinion of Paizo that I get from people who aren't regulars on these forums.
My eternal thanks to Rogue Eidolon for starting this thread, which has given us all respite from the gibbering throngs of one-upmen. It is very nice for me, since I don't have time to participate in the playtest, but I still want to read people's responses to the new class, without having to wade through the horror.
In James' personal Q&A thread, he said that the aggressiveness of posters in the playtest may be enough to make Paizo consider abandoning the playtest. In response, I think we have a duty to learn from Rogue Eidolon's thread, and to suggest ways we can improve the forum playtest for future use.
So please, post your ideas here!
I will start: With apologies in advance to Gary, I think it would be very nice if there were a special type of post that served the role of formatting results similar to Rogue Eidolon's thread. Basically, you would start a new thread, but instead of just the "Subject" and "Body" text fields like a normal post, you actually had a form with multiple text fields designed to collect the data that the designers are after.
Subsequent posts would be limited to comments, perhaps with agree/disagree options in the post. I understand the aversion that Paizo has to this kind of feature in the work-a-day forums, but honestly it could lend some clarity to the proceedings.
We could still have a free-form discussion forum where people can just wail on eachother, but this idea is about sorting the wheat from the chaff. If we give posters the choice of posting in "wheat" forum or "chaff" forum, even those players who are hellbent on thought experiments will be forced to format their results like a proper playtest, instead of just calling the last poster an idiot.
This is not a perfect idea, though. What's yours?
I truly hope that we don't lose our opportunity to help Paizo playtest the new classes due to the behaviour of an (admittedly extremely vocal) minority. I was somewhat disappointed by the way that a few things went in the previous playtest, so I resolved this time to do my best to make sure it was as easy as possible for Jason to find actual playtest data to separate out from all the rest--I wanted this playtest to be successful and useful because Pathfinder is a great game, and it benefits greatly from the opportunity to playtest new classes in various environments to reduce imbalance due to operating assumptions in in-house playtesting. The results of that thread were quite enlightening--I think we found a lot of balanced perspectives about where the Magus lies (by balanced I mean, some playtests the Magus did quite well, in others it turned out to be weak) as opposed to the seemingly-universal derision from the threads that didn't run playtests, which I think paints a very different picture about where to go from here.
How to move on from here? The easiest thing that require least work from Paizo would be for a thread like mine from this playtest to be stickied. If we want to add a little extra work, effort could be made to have a mod (or other trusted person) have the power to take side discussions and armchair analysis and give them their own threads, removing them from the sticky--however, at least in the Magus playtest, this turned out not to be necessary. We can say what we will about the people who got a bit heated or rude during this playtest, but they had the opportunity to come into my thread and start posting that kind of stuff and they did not. Even though I'm just another random forumite, in general people really respected my wishes for that thread, so for that--thank you to everyone, not only those who posted but also those who read something there, felt an emotional response to it, and then chose not to post that (and extra kudos if that inspired you to run a playtest and post that up there!.
~RE
|
As a heavy particpant in the Playtest for the Core book, I found the process invigorating. When the APG playtest hit I expected to find it invigorating as well, but found that it was, instead, exhausting. Partly I had no dog in the fight. None of the classes were anything that I had thought of playing before, unlike the core book. I also found the open ridicule and instant spam attacks to be somewhat disheartening. Sadly they may have served their purpose and pushed some of us with valid ideas or thoughts out of the process and allowed those with more anger or at least louder voices to be heard over us. I can understand why the designers would abandon the playtest at this time. I look back upon the Core Book Playtest fondly and remember some great arguments and even better discussions.
What I think might float my boat is a separate subsection for actual playtest reports.
I could at least read the first post and junk the rest, and skip the armchair actuarial analyses by laymen that would be relegated to another subsection.
This is what I would like also. That would seperate theoretical data from actual data. I would even accept pretend battles, such as a simulated PC and/or NPC rolling a 10 or 11 for every roll to see how it came out. This was done with the Summoner by a few posters.
|
Maybe future playtests should be conducted at Paizocon.
Everyone who signs up for the playtest gets the pdf a few days in advance, they play through an event using the rules as written, then comment on those rules after the event. At the same time, the people running the event keep notes about playtest-relevant data.
That would create a controlled playtest environment instead of an online free-for-all.
That sounds like a really good idea.
Like a closed beta? That would rock.
All of this sounds pretty good. I for one really appreciated Rogue Eidolon's thread, I think it's the only one I actually read too much because of the rampant hate that was floating about.
I really like the idea of a thread strictly for play test data. I don't know how much you can really limit the people who want to gripe about things, but I for one have enjoyed every opportunity I've had to playtest anything for Paizo.
I might recommend stricter posting rules for the playtest thread. There were a lot of duplicate ideas being posted in large complaint threads that were bandied about a LOT. Something that bothered me was that I saw people with dissenting opinions get a legitimate answer to their question from the designers but wouldn't consider what they were told.
Ultimately, no one can say in such a short time that the class works or doesn't work conclusively. I think the majority of the playtest data showed that it was playable and could contribute to the goals of the party without being overpowered. Personally, I'd rather a clas was slightly underpowered on initial release, then ramped up slowly and cautiously so that we avoid options that are TOO good.
I think the idea of a playtest submission form on the forums would be great, it would do a lot for standardization.
Normally, I don't usually agree with what I am about to say but because game balance for Pathfinder is on the line, I'm going to cave and make this suggestion.
I believe there should be a "zero tolerance" rule for post attitude in the playtest forum. This means that anytime someone breaks these five points
* Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
* Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
* Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
* Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
* Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.
they will be banned from the playtest forum and their inflammatory post edited or even deleted. Alot of the posters in the playtest forum really turned my gaming group (about 20-22 people) off of the playtest and Pathfinder in general. It was a real shame for it because alot of us wanted to participate, but we felt that any suggestion we made would be drowned out in a sea of posts ridiculing Paizo and ourselves for so called "incompetence". Too many trolls, flame wars, and nasty attitudes. This is also a shame because some of the people with the bad attitudes really did have good points, but poor social execution.
Anyways, I do hope to see continued playtests with Paizo and maybe a zero tolerance rule is all that is needed to make people think twice before posting.
|
My only reservation about increasing the playtest posting rules is that more rules will require more moderation and more moderation means Paizo guys spending more time moderating and less time cranking out the awesome.
For that reason alone, I can see open playtest going away entirely as they become an increasingly bigger hassle.
-Skeld
For that reason alone, I can see open playtest going away entirely as they become an increasingly bigger hassle.
Which is terrible because if the "play tests" show anything it's that they need more 'play testing'.
My only reservation about increasing the playtest posting rules is that more rules will require more moderation and more moderation means Paizo guys spending more time moderating and less time cranking out the awesome.
For that reason alone, I can see open playtest going away entirely as they become an increasingly bigger hassle.
-Skeld
Perhaps they could collect some posters that have shown themselves to have good attitudes, good data, and a dedication to the playtest and elevate them to moderation status for the playtest forums?
|
|
Which is terrible because if the "play tests" show anything it's that they need more 'play testing'.
While the playtests generate some useful data (so long as the signal-to-noise ratio remains high enough), I suspect the driving force behind playtests (beyond the alpha/beta for the core rules) is to get the user base personally invested in the product and generate excitement about it because that translates directly into sales.
If Paizo's only concern was generating the kind of feedback they want and find useful, they'd playtest internally or they would close it and hand-pick their playtesters, give them a playtest and reporting process, and ask them to adhere to it. Deviate too far gets you booted (and you can't really talk about it thanks to that NDA you had to sign).
-Skeld
If Paizo's only concern was generating the kind of feedback they want and find useful, they'd playtest internally
Which I am pretty sure they do before release because the classes for APG changed between final play test and release without any further public play testing. Which pretty much shows why we need the public play tests.
|
The playtest forums have gotten worse at each successive iteration. Personally, I just don't want to deal with that kind of garbage in what is a recreational activity for me. Ultimately the level of discussion in the playtest forums makes me think less of the hobby as a whole.
On a brighter note, the rest of the forums are noticeably more enjoyable right now since all the people who thrive on that kind of crap have congregated on that forum.
There are some good ideas here.
I am against a "zero tolerance" policy. Even though I dislike inflammatory posters, some of them know the game better than I do and they are capable of more rigorous playtesting. What bothers me is when those people don't actually do it, they just bicker with the other posters.
Thought experiments should be okay, if they are presented as data instead of peckerdueling.
Part of the problem is that it is just another forum, so people expect it to play by standard forum rules. If the input methods somehow made it clear that playtest data is expected from each contributor in the playtest, and there was some way to clearly delineate data from peckerdueling, I think we'd have better results — or at least a few places where real data would congregate.
Perhaps there could be a special form for an actual playtest data, which would be at the top if its own thread. Discussion would be allowed on the data (which I think is something that can be really constructive), and all of the playtest data threads would be in their own forum. It would, therefore, be impossible to start a new thread in that forum without having real or fabricated playtest data to start off the thread.
Discussions on data threads could remain open for Developers or other forumites to ask questions about how the playtest was conducted. Developers could then close the discussion as soon as they got the data they were after.
Even with all this, we're going to have free-for-all peckerdueling somewehere on the forums no matter how hard we try to kill it, so it may as well have its own section. But requiring a real or fabricated datapoint in a data-driven forum would be cool.
Two forums.
One is the playtesting itself. This does include theorycrafting.
The second is for discussions about the playtesting and classes.
Thus, in forum one, you would ideally have little to no responses to each post, as each post would (hopefully) be self contained in either what they experienced or what their crunching has shown.
In forum two, people talk about the forum one osts or about other bits regarding the class.
I really hope Paizo don't choose to abandon the play-test format they have been using for their core products. One of the great appeals of Pathfinder for me has been the chance to be part of the design system (no matter how small a part),but at least a chance to offer an opinion on a product I hopefully will be spending a lot of money and time on.
I think a standardized form for play-testing would be good though. Separate forums could be made for actual play-testing and discussion/theory-crafting as mentioned by other posters. If Paizo were to abandon the play-test format they have been using so far it would be a step backwards IMO, as this is one of the things that steered me towards Pathfinder in the first place.
I agree with the OP that something should be done, but perhaps a simpler solution can be found.
Find a way to limit responses on threads in the playtest to one reply per day per account, same for creating a thread.
The thing that was most frustrating about the playtest forum-wise is that people get into arguments or discussions and a single thread balloons into a gazzilion post thread, and because it keeps getting fed posts these types of threads dominate the visibility of the dedicated forum, pushing more interesting topics to the bottom in lieu of the more incendiary ones.
Normally, I don't usually agree with what I am about to say but because game balance for Pathfinder is on the line, I'm going to cave and make this suggestion.
I believe there should be a "zero tolerance" rule for post attitude in the playtest forum. This means that anytime someone breaks these five points
* Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
* Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
* Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
* Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
* Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.they will be banned from the playtest forum and their inflammatory post edited or even deleted. Alot of the posters in the playtest forum really turned my gaming group (about 20-22 people) off of the playtest and Pathfinder in general. It was a real shame for it because alot of us wanted to participate, but we felt that any suggestion we made would be drowned out in a sea of posts ridiculing Paizo and ourselves for so called "incompetence". Too many trolls, flame wars, and nasty attitudes. This is also a shame because some of the people with the bad attitudes really did have good points, but poor social execution.
Anyways, I do hope to see continued playtests with Paizo and maybe a zero tolerance rule is all that is needed to make people think twice before posting.
I don't know one poster who has not said something and regretted it later. I actually like the fact that people care enough for things to get heated. I don't think there are a lot of trolls here, and man of the disputes are because of misunderstandings. Tone of voice does carry well online so a basic comment could be taken differently than the way it was intended.
I agree with the OP that something should be done, but perhaps a simpler solution can be found.
Find a way to limit responses on threads in the playtest to one reply per day per account, same for creating a thread.
The thing that was most frustrating about the playtest forum-wise is that people get into arguments or discussions and a single thread balloons into a gazzilion post thread, and because it keeps getting fed posts these types of threads dominate the visibility of the dedicated forum, pushing more interesting topics to the bottom in lieu of the more incendiary ones.
That is a bad idea. The playtest are too in depth to be handled with one post a day unless Paizo wants to extend it over several years. Bumping is an easy way to move a post you like back to the top, even if you have nothing to add to it.
The best idea mentioned so far seems to be a section for playtesting, and one for theory crafting.
I agree with the OP that something should be done, but perhaps a simpler solution can be found.
Find a way to limit responses on threads in the playtest to one reply per day per account, same for creating a thread.
The thing that was most frustrating about the playtest forum-wise is that people get into arguments or discussions and a single thread balloons into a gazzilion post thread, and because it keeps getting fed posts these types of threads dominate the visibility of the dedicated forum, pushing more interesting topics to the bottom in lieu of the more incendiary ones.That is a bad idea. The playtest are too in depth to be handled with one post a day unless Paizo wants to extend it over several years. Bumping is an easy way to move a post you like back to the top, even if you have nothing to add to it.
The best idea mentioned so far seems to be a section for playtesting, and one for theory crafting.
The only problem I see here is that the aggressiveness spread equally to both playtesting and theory crafting threads.
I still think my idea of one thread for both of those and one thread for discussions (or arguments I suppose) would work best :<
We need a dedicated peckerdueling forum.
A dedicated forum for peckerduels is too boolean. It's just a trap to make anti-intellectual players fail and cry in their beer. When I said goodbye to my pecker and replaced it with an additional spellcaster, my party's efficiency increased 100%.
I still think my idea of one thread for both of those and one thread for discussions (or arguments I suppose) would work best :<
I think this could be the best way.
Maybe future playtests should be conducted at Paizocon.
That kinda penalises those of us that live outside the US....
I am wondering if it would be possible to have people register online for the playtest to be able to comment in the Playtest threads (You can still read them if you haven't registered).
This would eliminate the drive-by trolling....
|
|
The other forum I frequent is a rugby forum and they have a sub-forum where they put threads that have degenerated into name-calling and unpleasantness.
It's hard to find, threads in there don't show up in searches but you can jump to it from your old posts if you really want to scowl at your screen.
The solution is actually quite simple, and was mentioned above. One forum for mathematical analyses for people with an interest in mechanics, and a second one for people recounting tales of their home games with the new classes.
The primary goal of the playtest, the free marketing, would still be attained in the flufftest board, while balance issues and mechanical improvements in the crunchtest board could give the designers additional data on various ways the classes could be improved.
Everyone wins.
The other forum I frequent is a rugby forum and they have a sub-forum where they put threads that have degenerated into name-calling and unpleasantness.
It's hard to find, threads in there don't show up in searches but you can jump to it from your old posts if you really want to scowl at your screen.
By Rugby I am assuming proper Rugby not that abomination League :-)
Where are you located GE? So I can Troll you on your national team (assuming its not NZ (mutter mutter we will take them down soon)). :-)
The solution is actually quite simple, and was mentioned above. One forum for mathematical analyses for people with an interest in mechanics, and a second one for people recounting tales of their home games with the new classes.The primary goal of the playtest, the free marketing, would still be attained in the flufftest board, while balance issues and mechanical improvements in the crunchtest board could give the designers additional data on various ways the classes could be improved.
Everyone wins.
All this does is make people on both sides even more sure that their form of testing is the best and that the other side is flawed if not outright worthless. It would do nothing to lower hostility - if anything it would only make it worse.
|
Personally, I'd rather a class was slightly underpowered on initial release, then ramped up slowly and cautiously so that we avoid options that are TOO good.
I see your point, as it is always easier to give something out than to take something back. I had to tell my Paladin-player that the double-smite was a 1-round-only bonus, and I got earache about it, though he now accepts the reasoning (I think?).
However, if the base class is deemed weak, and is corrected via archetypes, racial favoured class options and feats that aid one specific approach, to the extent that these become the no-brainer default, then doesn't that effectively become the actual base class? With the official, parent text being the 'optional, oddball rarity'?
With the magus, I think you'd have to give a lot to make anyone pick it, like some replacements for the trap arcana abilities that actually make the character weaker. So much so, that it would be a different, barely recognisable class.
And that's what irks me about that playtest. I want to playtest a class that's aaaaalmost right, but not quite. To finetune it and tap out some kinks. What we got is a class that I cannot interest anyone in playing. I offered a player a Beta Paladin (now retconned to Final), and he nearly took my arm off. I threw Summoners at my group, and watched grown men go white with shock. I mailed the text of the magus to the whole group, and I sat and watched tumbleweed waiting for a reply.
So, what I forsee happening is that the class will be rewritten between the end of last week's playtest and the release of the book; this rewrite will be nothing like the class we were presented with, and it will go into the book, unexamined by anyone outside of Paizo staff.
We've seen what happens in these cases, with the Inquisitor's Slayer ability. If that had been previewed on the boards, it would have taken 2 minutes for the error to be pointed out.
Everyone wins.All this does is make people on both sides even more sure that their form of testing is the best and that the other side is flawed if not outright worthless. It would do nothing to lower hostility - if anything it would only make it worse.
But the hostility is here already - what it would do is separate the two groups, so each group can do the test in the form they prefer without having their peace of mind disturbed by postings of people who prefer the other way.
Also, this would make a lot of trolling disappear, because it's clear from the start that mechanics thread should go to the analysis forum and stories from home games into the other, and posts/threads with the wrong approach in the wrong forum can easily be moved or deleted (which it seems the moderators don't feel at ease to do in the current, single playtest forum).
I'm sure just as they've been collecting useful data, they've also been keeping track of the asshats. They might actually have good points, but because of how they've handled themselves, probably will not be taken seriously.
I'm sure just as they've been collecting useful data, they've also been keeping track of the asshats. They might actually have good points, but because of how they've handled themselves, probably will not be taken seriously.
So you support the notion that good data should be ignored just because you don't like the way it's presented?
So you support the notion that good data should be ignored just because you don't like the way it's presented?I'm sure just as they've been collecting useful data, they've also been keeping track of the asshats. They might actually have good points, but because of how they've handled themselves, probably will not be taken seriously.
I support the notion that you reap what you sow. If you come on the boards and act in a spirit contrary to intelligent discourse, and becasue of that behavior no one takes you seriously no matter what you have to say, it's nobody's fault but your own.
What I think about how any information is presented doesn't matter one iota. It's Jason or any of the other Paizo folks that make that determination. How does one pass on good information when their childish behavior causes their posts to be removed from a thread? Are they actually contributing?|
|
I'd like to see a separate message board area that was dedicated to playtesting and not lumped on to the normal board. I think a major problem with this is the fighter/mage class being somewhat of a heated topic. This has lead to many a argument and many personal attacks on the boards.
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 also like the suggestion about splitting it into two threads for theoretical based and for actual game play data. The second could be coupled with a specific formatted way to present the data to make the analysis easier for the devs to sort through and evaluate
I like the idea of the zero tolerance policy. Or at least, one warning, then locking them out. People need to realize that these message boards and the playtest are not rights we have, they are benefits given to us by a company that cares, and we should take the time and effort to treat them with respect and dignity, and anyone who can't do that, should be removed gently from the premises.
|
|
So you support the notion that good data should be ignored just because you don't like the way it's presented?
Hmm, that depends on what you're asking, Mal.
Is your question, do I prefer that good data be ignored because the individual presenting the data can't present their thoughts/findings in a manner that a community finds acceptable?
Or are you asking, do I acknowledge the fact that a presenter with a reputation for buttheaded behavior tends to be ignored relative to someone with a reputation for a more respectful manner?
Because those answers are different. I don't like to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater. However, people will cling to or disregard what someone says based on the way they say it. It's an undeniable fact. History (real history even, not just our insular little niche hobby) is riddled with examples of people who had the right idea, but couldn't convey themselves in an acceptable manner. Humans are emotional creatures and are socially pre-programmed to respond to the emotional demeanor of the speaker.
It doesn't mean that the guy frothing at the mouth isn't right, it just means he's an ineffective communicator.
-Skeld
Ideas so far: (not all supported by me)
Combining some of these ideas, here's what I think it should look like:
You have a Playtest Data forum, and a Playtest Discussion forum. The Discussion forum is basically what we have now, for good or ill. We all agree that we can't really get rid of it (except with a zero tolerance policy, but that is not very Paizo-like). You register for the Data forum, which gives you a place to organize some data (like statblocks and a list of all your playtest data threads). Registration also polices your number of responses per thread (if we choose to limit that).
In the Formatted Playtests forums, each playtest session/encounter has it's own thread. In the first post, the user has certain information that they MUST report in order to create the thread at all. It is valid to fabricate playtest data for theoretical results, but you still have to provide all of the format data so that people can analyze your discussion.
The OP will then be able to present a discussion of the playtest results, what they feel was good/bad, what might fix that, etc.
People can respond in a data thread, but only once (or once per 24 hours). The rule is: comment on the data, not on the responses — comments on responses will be flagged for deletion. We've kept the discussion forum for that stuff.
This is a pretty ambitious system in scope... probably an overreach on my part. What do people think of the concepts though? What would you change and why?
Good stuff
I would be careful not to make it so difficult to post so that it discourages people.
Implement some of the less restrictive ideas first. Just to see what impact they have.
Another section to add would be a FAQ section - Some people aren't as clued up on the rules and knowing if you can Stack A with B when making an attack will both enhance the playtest and show areas where the rule descriptions need to made clearer.
2. Developers, be upfront with the things about your creation that you want to test out. Post direct questions to the playtesters on the forums about aspects of the class/playtest that you want input on and state that the emailed feedback is to remain on topic.
I think this is a really good point. People won't ignore the things that aren't on that list, of course, but some focus would be helpful.
In particular, I think it'd be helpful to know what the measuring stick for a playtest of something is. To use the Magus as an example, are playtesters supposed to evaluate it with an eye to being about on par with the Fighter? With the Wizard? With the Bard? With the Eldritch Knight? It's clear in reading the Magus playtest that different posters were starting with different assumptions in that and other departments, which quickly produces arguments that will never end or go anywhere helpful.