|
I'll be right behind you guys (along with quite a few of my three groups) as soon as the new organized play document is updated to include gunslingers. The rules were fine the way they were when we all started; tinkering with them is just frustrating and infuriating the populace.
I apologize. I really do get the frustration over the druid change, and while I agree with the decision, I can at least empathize with players who are upset that their current characters are different than they initially imagined. Changing a feature that already was can be frustrating, but adding a feature that does not yet exist is something that will continuously happen in PFS. I really don't understand this kind of attitude of "I don't like new X so I quit". Paizo is going to have to grow and evolve to survive. New products are going to be put out all the time, some of which will have dissenters (such as the gunslinger). It's not like this was a surprise though; Paizo has acknowledged how firearms exist in their world, and we've known about the Mana Wastes for an awful long time - firearms aren't exactly new ground.
If I threatened to get up and walk every time Paizo put out a new prestige class, or new class option that frustrated me I would have been gone after the first new book and certainly would have left after Heirloom Weapon. I understand that you may not like them much, but you've always known that PFS was an amalgamation of all things Golarion, and I have a hard time understanding this attitude.
I mean no offense and I am not trying to be snarky or insulting, I really honestly want to understand this method of thinking, because I honestly don't understand it at all.
|
I apologize. I really do get the frustration over the druid change, and while I agree with the decision, I can at least empathize with players who are upset that their current characters are different than they initially imagined. Changing a feature that already was can be frustrating, but adding a feature that does not yet exist is something that will continuously happen in PFS. I really don't understand this kind of attitude of "I don't like new X so I quit". Paizo is going to have to grow and evolve to survive. New products are going to be put out all the time, some of which will have dissenters (such as the gunslinger). It's not like this was a surprise though; Paizo has acknowledged how firearms exist in their world, and we've known about the Mana Wastes for an awful long time - firearms aren't exactly new ground.
If I threatened to get up and walk every time Paizo put out a new prestige class, or new class option that frustrated me I would have been gone after the first new book and certainly would have left after Heirloom Weapon. I understand that you may not like them much, but you've always known that PFS was an amalgamation of all things Golarion, and I have a hard time understanding this attitude.
I mean no offense and I am not trying to be snarky or insulting, I really honestly want to understand this method of thinking, because I honestly don't understand it at all.
I have to agree. I mean I know firearms are polarizing, but they've been around since the Gazetteer IIRC; probably before.
|
|
*shakes head at all the people stomping their feet, taking their toys, and going home.Awwww ... Ima just take my dice and go home ... people don't like playing fair and they're making up new rules that I just don't like!!!!!!
Once again, unhelpful. Although you may find glib caricatures amusing, they're unlikely to solve anything.
Most of the complaints seems to be about rules elements central to a character's build being changed, making many of the characters choices illogical. As for "fair": I don't think the rules changing mid-stream is what most people would generally consider fair -- though I don't recall anyone actually making claims of unfairness.
|
I mean no offense and I am not trying to be snarky or insulting, I really honestly want to understand this method of thinking, because I honestly don't understand it at all.
I've been examining my feeling about the campaign recently as well.
And I also can understand the frustration felt by the OP and others in this forum.
When I really boil it down, I feel that, as a player, I have no control or input into this campaign and feel like I'm at the whim of a pair of admittedly overworked and stressed Paizo employees who have only a portion of their many duties focused on the management of this campaign.
There is a sense of helplessness when you think about it.
And while the VCs may or may not have input (I doubt it), any evidence of it is lost because it has never been shared.
And while I know the meme is "Paizo listens to its customers", I see entirely too many threads in this forum that show the exact opposite.
For me, though, I try to turn my frustrations to something positive (like the Community Update to the PFS Guide) rather than getting too negative.
However, I believe many problems like the one on this thread would be minimized by more active leadership in the campaign and perhaps releasing regular drafts of PFS Guide updates with rules to be discussed before they are implemented.
At least that way, the Community wouldn't feel as helpless or powerless when their character choices are changed or marginalized in some random thread.
This is an issue of communication and working with the Community, imho.
The changes themselves probably aren't the issue...but our lack of voices being heard and our own inability to change or talk about things before they happen *is* the issue.
My 2 coppers.
-Pain
Could always find a non-PFS game?
|
*shakes head at all the people stomping their feet, taking their toys, and going home.Awwww ... Ima just take my dice and go home ... people don't like playing fair and they're making up new rules that I just don't like!!!!!!Once again, unhelpful. Although you may find glib caricatures amusing, they're unlikely to solve anything.
Most of the complaints seems to be about rules elements central to a character's build being changed, making many of the characters choices illogical. As for "fair": I don't think the rules changing mid-stream is what most people would generally consider fair -- though I don't recall anyone actually making claims of unfairness.
I think what bothers most of us is that people say they are going to quit and go into a lecture why. If you intend to do so, don't do it by complaining on a public forum where none of us can do anything about it. Go cancel your subscriptions and send an email to the powers the be. On a side note, I checked and none of those saying they are going to quit and talk with their dollars have canceled their subscriptions. Until that is done, it just sounds like constant whining.
|
|
I think what bothers most of us is that people say they are going to quit and go into a lecture why. If you intend to do so, don't do it by complaining on a public forum where none of us can do anything about it. Go cancel your subscriptions and send an email to the powers the be. On a side note, I checked and none of those saying they are going to quit and talk with their dollars have canceled their subscriptions. Until that is done, it just sounds like constant whining.*shakes head at all the people stomping their feet, taking their toys, and going home.Awwww ... Ima just take my dice and go home ... people don't like playing fair and they're making up new rules that I just don't like!!!!!!Once again, unhelpful. Although you may find glib caricatures amusing, they're unlikely to solve anything.
Most of the complaints seems to be about rules elements central to a character's build being changed, making many of the characters choices illogical. As for "fair": I don't think the rules changing mid-stream is what most people would generally consider fair -- though I don't recall anyone actually making claims of unfairness.
This....
|
I'll be right behind you guys (along with quite a few of my three groups) as soon as the new organized play document is updated to include gunslingers. The rules were fine the way they were when we all started; tinkering with them is just frustrating and infuriating the populace.
This. I quit LFR for exactly the same reason and stopped buying WotC products as a result.
By populace do you mean yourself and a few people from your three groups :P
I believe Mark had posted that there are tens of thousands of players active in PFS. The people that number themselves as opposed to rules changes at any given update are a few tenths of a percent of the total. Even if you include people that actually post on these forums, your 'populace' is still just the vocal minority.
Plz be more accurate with your opinions. I grow weary of correcting you.
I think what bothers most of us is that people say they are going to quit and go into a lecture why. If you intend to do so, don't do it by complaining on a public forum where none of us can do anything about it. Go cancel your subscriptions and send an email to the powers the be. On a side note, I checked and none of those saying they are going to quit and talk with their dollars have canceled their subscriptions. Until that is done, it just sounds like constant whining.*shakes head at all the people stomping their feet, taking their toys, and going home.Awwww ... Ima just take my dice and go home ... people don't like playing fair and they're making up new rules that I just don't like!!!!!!Once again, unhelpful. Although you may find glib caricatures amusing, they're unlikely to solve anything.
Most of the complaints seems to be about rules elements central to a character's build being changed, making many of the characters choices illogical. As for "fair": I don't think the rules changing mid-stream is what most people would generally consider fair -- though I don't recall anyone actually making claims of unfairness.
Or to quote Vince Niel
Don't go away mad, just go away.
|
|
Hey Pain:
In "Aaron World," where I run the campaign, here's what I'd do with the Guide to Organized Play (GtOP). Bear in mind I have zero experience running an organized play campaign, but a good amount doing IT-related change management, an area I believe Paizo could learn a thing or two from...
1. The GtOP would be formatted in such a way that it could easily be updated. The shiny is nice, but form follows function.
2. The GtOP would be updated once a month, on the same day every month (though many updates would serve only to expand the material legal for use in the campaign). Versions would be numbered by month (for example, ver 2011.3 for this month).
3. Each new season would continue to see a major annual revision.
4. The GtOP would include a comprehensive change log that stretches back to the last major annual revision.
5. Changes would not be legal until they appeared in the GtOP. Ever.
6. I'd also give the Society a blog. One of the regular updates would be all changes in the monthly release of the GtOP.
7. The GtOP would remain comprehensive. Splitting it into player and GM documents simply serves to underscore a distinction that the Society should be trying to downplay.
Mark and I read just about every PFS related post on this site and talk about what's going on a lot. Just because we might stay silent on something, or make a decision that's different from what you'd like us to make doesn't mean we don't listen. We're doing what we think is best for the campaign as a whole, all 14,000 players, the vast majority of whom never post on the site at all.
I'm sad to see Brother Elias walk away. I wish he had waited to talk to me. I'll still talk to him if he wants to, just like I'll talk to anyone who wants to chat.
Hyrum.
|
|
Hey Pain:
In "Aaron World," where I run the campaign, here's what I'd do with the Guide to Organized Play (GtOP). Bear in mind I have zero experience running an organized play campaign, but a good amount doing IT-related change management, an area I believe Paizo could learn a thing or two from...
1. The GtOP would be formatted in such a way that it could easily be updated. The shiny is nice, but form follows function.
2. The GtOP would be updated once a month, on the same day every month (though many updates would serve only to expand the material legal for use in the campaign).
3. Each new season would continue to see a major annual revision.
4. The GtOP would include a comprehensive change log that stretches back to the last major annual revision.
5. Changes would not be legal until they appeared in the GtOP. Ever.
6. I'd also give the Society a blog. One of the regular updates would be all changes in the monthly release of the GtOP.
7. The GtOP would remain comprehensive. Splitting it into player and GM documents simply serves to underscore a distinction that the Society should be trying to downplay.
How many man-hours would you guess-timate all of this would take?
|
|
How many man-hours would you guess-timate all of this would take?Hey Pain:
In "Aaron World," where I run the campaign, here's what I'd do with the Guide to Organized Play (GtOP). Bear in mind I have zero experience running an organized play campaign, but a good amount doing IT-related change management, an area I believe Paizo could learn a thing or two from...
1. The GtOP would be formatted in such a way that it could easily be updated. The shiny is nice, but form follows function.
2. The GtOP would be updated once a month, on the same day every month (though many updates would serve only to expand the material legal for use in the campaign).
3. Each new season would continue to see a major annual revision.
4. The GtOP would include a comprehensive change log that stretches back to the last major annual revision.
5. Changes would not be legal until they appeared in the GtOP. Ever.
6. I'd also give the Society a blog. One of the regular updates would be all changes in the monthly release of the GtOP.
7. The GtOP would remain comprehensive. Splitting it into player and GM documents simply serves to underscore a distinction that the Society should be trying to downplay.
Very, very few. It may actually save time. The most time consuming part, actual rules adjudication, would remain unchanged. There would also be less need to post the same messages over and over (and over) again. Finally, you'll note that I said I would re-format the GtOP that eliminates the oft-mentioned layout burden.
I have to ask, though: Given how quickly you responded, did you even read most of what I wrote?
|
|
Mark and I read just about every PFS related post on this site and talk about what's going on a lot. Just because we might stay silent on something, or make a decision that's different from what you'd like us to make doesn't mean we don't listen. We're doing what we think is best for the campaign as a whole, all 14,000 players, the vast majority of whom never post on the site at all.
I'm sad to see Brother Elias walk away. I wish he had waited to talk to me. I'll still talk to him if he wants to, just like I'll talk to anyone who wants to chat.
Hyrum.
Hyrum, that remains my intial confusion; if someone offers to talk with you and explaine cooperate decisions and work you with; why then would you dismiss that out of hand and not do it. That honestly is my biggest issue with all of this and him walking away.
We know you're busy -- and I (we?_ appreciate all the hous you guys put in to make the game what it has become; and to take the time out of your day to talk with one player that has concerns is why I stay.
|
|
Mark and I read just about every PFS related post on this site and talk about what's going on a lot. Just because we might stay silent on something, or make a decision that's different from what you'd like us to make doesn't mean we don't listen. We're doing what we think is best for the campaign as a whole, all 14,000 players, the vast majority of whom never post on the site at all.
Hyrum, I think you're missing the bigger picture.
If you're trying to build a cohesive Community, you need to allow for a good faith review (and commentary) of changes before they go live.
Randomly implementing small changes (though some are obviously very impacting) in blog posts and threads rather than having a cohesive draft and review before implementation process is going to continue to breed these kind of problems.
You'd be amazed how much good feedback and cohesion would come about from talking through your proposed changes with the Community before implementing them. That way you can actually receive feedback and make changes before going live with something.
We call it "getting buy-in".
While I'm tickled to hear that you and Mark talk about things....but your Community can't hear you and it seems like they don't have a voice because all they can do is complain after things go live.
-Pain
p.s. Bugleyman, would you email me? My address in my profile.
|
|
How many man-hours would you guess-timate all of this would take?Hey Pain:
In "Aaron World," where I run the campaign, here's what I'd do with the Guide to Organized Play (GtOP). Bear in mind I have zero experience running an organized play campaign, but a good amount doing IT-related change management, an area I believe Paizo could learn a thing or two from...
1. The GtOP would be formatted in such a way that it could easily be updated. The shiny is nice, but form follows function.
2. The GtOP would be updated once a month, on the same day every month (though many updates would serve only to expand the material legal for use in the campaign).
3. Each new season would continue to see a major annual revision.
4. The GtOP would include a comprehensive change log that stretches back to the last major annual revision.
5. Changes would not be legal until they appeared in the GtOP. Ever.
6. I'd also give the Society a blog. One of the regular updates would be all changes in the monthly release of the GtOP.
7. The GtOP would remain comprehensive. Splitting it into player and GM documents simply serves to underscore a distinction that the Society should be trying to downplay.Short answer? Very, very few. It may actually save time. Remember, the most time consuming part, actual rules adjudication, would remain unchanged. Also, there would be less need to post the same messages over and over (and over) again. You'll also note that I mentioned re-formatting the Guide in a way that removes the oft-mentioned formatting burden.
I have to ask, though: Given how quickly you responded, did you even read most of what I wrote?
Yes I read it, I just wanted you to think about that list you wrote and how much time it would take to create a brand-new guide, vette it, then create the updated document each month, vette it, add stuff to a blog, etc.
Basically, it's easy to come up with the IDEAS but look at it realistically. Neither Mark nor Hyrum are ONLY working on PFS. They both have full time Paizo jobs IN ADDITION to PFS.
Now maybe the solution is the hire a temp to do it the way you outlined, because I definitely agree with you on all points. In an ideal world, I think this is something they would be interested in.
Mark and I read just about every PFS related post on this site and talk about what's going on a lot. Just because we might stay silent on something, or make a decision that's different from what you'd like us to make doesn't mean we don't listen. We're doing what we think is best for the campaign as a whole, all 14,000 players, the vast majority of whom never post on the site at all.Hyrum, I think you're missing the bigger picture.
If you're trying to build a cohesive Community, you need to allow for a good faith review (and commentary) of changes before they go live.
Randomly implementing small changes (though some are obviously very impacting) in blog posts and threads rather than having a cohesive draft and review before implementation process is going to continue to breed these kind of problems.
You'd be amazed how much good feedback and cohesion would come about from talking through your proposed changes with the Community before implementing them. That way you can actually receive feedback and make changes before going live with something.
We call it "getting buy-in".
While I'm tickled to hear that you and Mark talk about things....but your Community can't hear you and it seems like they don't have a voice because all they can do is complain after things go live.
-Pain
p.s. Bugleyman, would you email me? My address in my profile.
Offering up change in an official capacity lets them mete out change evenly to everyone without giving the impression they were swayed by an over-vocal pretended majority. As he said few PFS players frequesnt the boards out of 14k people. So is getting 20 peoples "buy-in" for 14k people a good idea? Why bother adding the extra step?
Not to mention if no one could agree on what the propsed changes should be...have you seen some of the open playtest threads?This idea would only casue further division while stroking a few egos.
Lose/lose, imho.
|
|
Yes I read it, I just wanted you to think about that list you wrote and how much time it would take to create a brand-new guide, vette it, then create the updated document each month, vette it, add stuff to a blog, etc.
Basically, it's easy to come up with the IDEAS but look at it realistically. Neither Mark nor Hyrum are ONLY working on PFS. They both have full time Paizo jobs IN ADDITION to PFS.
Now maybe the solution is the hire a temp to do it the way you outlined, because I definitely agree with you on all points. In an ideal world, I think this is something they would be interested in.
I understand what you're saying, Todd, it's just that ultimately, I truly believe that doing these things would be a time saver. In my (non-gaming) experience, unclear communication breeds confusion, which in turn requires more communication to clear up.
One of the venture-captains may agree to take on the work for free. If not, a contractor might do it. I suggest you. ;-)
Yes I read it, I just wanted you to think about that list you wrote and how much time it would take to create a brand-new guide, vette it, then create the updated document each month, vette it, add stuff to a blog, etc.
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any changes at all for most months, and the rest of the time it would be a simple update like "The Goblin Pickletosser archetype is legal for PFS play."
A man can dream...
|
Hyrum, I think you're missing the bigger picture.If you're trying to build a cohesive Community, you need to allow for a good faith review (and commentary) of changes before they go live.
Randomly implementing small changes (though some are obviously very impacting) in blog posts and threads rather than having a cohesive draft and review before implementation process is going to continue to breed these kind of problems.
You'd be amazed how much good feedback and cohesion would come about from talking through your proposed changes with the Community before implementing them. That way you can actually receive feedback and make changes before going live with something.
We call it "getting buy-in".
While I'm tickled to hear that you and Mark talk about things....but your Community can't hear you and it seems like they don't have a voice because all they can do is complain after things go live.
+1
Change is fine and dandy and I expect it. The one thing that frustrates me is when change is not warned about it coming, people don't have time to prepare or get questions answered.
Example: I used to go to Cici's Pizza every Saturday with my wife and anyone that wanted to tag along and we had a great time hanging out there. One friday we went there, it was closed, and we're like WTF. The owner decided he didn't like running Cici's and had without warning canned all his employees and alienated his clientelle in about an hour. Now, the owner probably discussed this with his wife, but never posted any signs and never warned the people who made their living there. I was essentially pissed because I took a 30 minute drive to get IMO some damn good pizza for nothing.
Hopefully this anecdote explains despite understanding the reasoning now, why people need to know well before a change is implemented. People need time to figure stuff out and come to terms with change.
PS. I agree with this change. Intelligent animals strike me as weird, but that's my opinion.
|
|
While most PFS players may not read the forums, how many PFS *GMs* do? I bet it's a lot higher percentage, and frankly, these are the people who have to implement all the rules at the table, so their opinion is from an important perspective. Not that players aren't important, of course they are... but of those 14K players, how many are one-timers at a con or a game store, and never report again? How many played a pre-gen and don't even own the rulebooks? GMs are, in general, here for the long haul, are willing and able to contribute, and in fact are picking up the duties when they just have to get done (thanks Painlord et al. for the community guide - the best PFS document all season).
|
It;s an Organized Play campaign.
These things happen all the time.
It's part of the buy-in when you decide to play that a lot of choices are out of your hands. Some of these will benefit you, some will be a detriment. Either way each of us must decided where our lines in the sand are.
To me, the only big change I find worthy of note has been the replay rules. The rest has been minor. All the druid debate has done was to clarify rules in my mind.
To some people that is their line in the sand.
Noone is forced to play or run a game that they are not happy with. One of the reasons the club I'm in dropped LFR.
If you can't accept the changes, move on. You will be missed. But in the end this is still a small amount of people. I wish them well.
To the rest of you, I look forward to sharing your tables from time to time.
Control of the campaign has always been in Paizo's hands. We all knew this when we signed on. I've had the impression over the last 6 months or so that Paizo wasn't happy with former management and moved to the new management to apply the view that they had for the campaign. Any time management changes, lots of other changes to game happen. I think this is in an attempt to bring us more in line with the overall plan for PFS. I'm interested to see where this is going.
|
My 2 coppers.-Pain
+1
The other major issue, especially with this change, is that people were not attempting to "abuse" the rules. All of the now illegal animal companions (eg those with high intelligence and skill points in linguistics, those with weapons, or those using more complex tactics due to their ability to understand the PC directly) were based on rulings, suggestions, and clarifications from Joshua Frost or James Jacobs.
If there were previously no rules in place and each GM was making their own decisions, making a campaign-wide clarification would not meet with this kind of response. Because this is a change to the campaign-wide rules, people are unhappy.
|
|
These are leading questions...ignore them as you see fit.
1) Would the OP have been happy if this has been discussed for two months, and he discovered that most people felt his character build was made of cheese?
2) Is the Pathfinder d20 system so rich in combinatorial options that attempting to do game balance by mechanics for an OrgPlay environment is impossible?
|
|
These are leading questions...ignore them as you see fit.
1) Would the OP have been happy if this has been discussed for two months, and he discovered that most people felt his character build was made of cheese?
2) Is the Pathfinder d20 system so rich in combinatorial options that attempting to do game balance by mechanics for an OrgPlay environment is impossible?
1) The OP specifically asked campaign leadership if his animal was legal, and they said YES. If he had been told "its cheesy, and we'll allow it for now, but revisit it later" then this would be a totally different matter. Instead, the official PFS guide says that animals with weapons are allowed!
Additionally, if the OP had two months notice that his character might become illegal soon, this would most likely be very different.
2) It is totally acceptable to clarify or change rules in an organized play environment. However, reversing rulings from previous campaign leadership should require more scrutiny.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Yes I read it, I just wanted you to think about that list you wrote and how much time it would take to create a brand-new guide, vette it, then create the updated document each month, vette it, add stuff to a blog, etc.In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any changes at all for most months, and the rest of the time it would be a simple update like "The Goblin Pickletosser archetype is legal for PFS play."
A man can dream...
This is our dream as well. Check the blog on Monday for a glimpse at the wheels we have turning for campaign rules documentation in the coming season (and maybe even sooner).
|
|
1) The OP specifically asked campaign leadership if his animal was legal, and they said YES. If he had been told "its cheesy, and we'll allow it for now, but revisit it later" then this would be a totally different matter. Instead, the official PFS guide says that animals with weapons are allowed!
Additionally, if the OP had two months notice that his character might become illegal soon, this would most likely be very different.
In this kind of game, EVERYTHING is constantly under review. It would be nice to have notice to changes, but frankly, with some posters, it would only just drag out the whining. Imagine some of the hot topics that just would not die. If they had been known ahead of time it would have been worse, and more people would have felt betrayed when 'they weren't listend to. I really fell this would just make matters worse.
2) It is totally acceptable to clarify or change rules in an organized play environment. However, reversing rulings from previous campaign leadership should require more scrutiny.
Agreed. In this case, Hyrum and Mark didn't seem aware of that ruling. It's going to happen, and I gaurantee it will again. Same reason get frustrated with buried rules changes, too much information to sort through.
|
|
Anyone want to just go throw some dice and have a little fun?
edit: Fun does not include being swallowed by an advanced giant purple worm.
I'm pretty flexible, eat me with your worm. I'll cut my way out, or cut my way to it's heart(s) and coup de grace it from the inside! So, yes, let the dice roll!
|
|
I'm pretty flexible, eat me with your worm. I'll cut my way out, or cut my way to it's heart(s) and coup de grace it from the inside! So, yes, let the dice roll!Anyone want to just go throw some dice and have a little fun?
edit: Fun does not include being swallowed by an advanced giant purple worm.
1) The stomach lining isn't "helpless."
2) Let's pretend you forgot to carry a light or one-handed slashing weapon. ;-)
|
|
7. The GtOP would remain comprehensive. Splitting it into player and GM documents simply serves to underscore a distinction that the Society should be trying to downplay.
I agree with most of your list, Bugleyman, except this one.
Splitting up the Guide into multiple documents accomplishes a few things.
It actually makes things easier to update, as you are likely to see most updates in the Resources, then a few in the GM rulings, and less in the Players' guide.
It seriously cuts down on the daunting material you give to new players.
It moves a lot of corner-case material (conversion, resources) into web documents.
Beyond that, it appears that the orgs agree with much of your list. Maybe that is part of the reason for the delay in implementation.
|
|
In this kind of game, EVERYTHING is constantly under review. It would be nice to have notice to changes, but frankly, with some posters, it would only just drag out the whining. Imagine some of the hot topics that just would not die. If they had been known ahead of time it would have been worse, and more people would have felt betrayed when 'they weren't listend to. I really fell this would just make matters worse.
+ 1,000,000.
|
|
I felt like throwing in the towel the other day. I've just been so unbelievably frustrated by Moreland's statements/responses. I think I did a pretty good job of expressing my frustration without going RAHR I HATE YOU ALL DIE DIE DIE but my lack of further posts on the topic was not representative of me being satisfied by the answers, it's representative of me feeling as though my opinion is irrelevant.
To Moreland's credit I thought he was very polite, patient, and attempted to answer my questions multiple times.
I would love to chat with you about this particular issue Hyrum, please email me axey@shadowsofcommand.com (I fear not the spam bots)
|
|
Just FYI, it was me that brought the advanced purple worm against Kyle and party. He had given up at one point but then got back into the game when he remembered a certain scroll his character had in her possession.
I think it was a pretty good time.
Also, everyone's opinion is irrelevant except mine :P
+ 1,000,000.In this kind of game, EVERYTHING is constantly under review. It would be nice to have notice to changes, but frankly, with some posters, it would only just drag out the whining. Imagine some of the hot topics that just would not die. If they had been known ahead of time it would have been worse, and more people would have felt betrayed when 'they weren't listend to. I really fell this would just make matters worse.
Agreed 100%.
|
|
Yes I read it, I just wanted you to think about that list you wrote and how much time it would take to create a brand-new guide, vette it, then create the updated document each month, vette it, add stuff to a blog, etc.
Basically, it's easy to come up with the IDEAS but look at it realistically. Neither Mark nor Hyrum are ONLY working on PFS. They both have full time Paizo jobs IN ADDITION to PFS.
Now maybe the solution is the hire a temp to do it the way you outlined, because I definitely agree with you on all points. In an ideal world, I think this is something they would be interested in.
I understand what you're saying, Todd, it's just that ultimately, I truly believe that doing these things would be a time saver. In my (non-gaming) experience, unclear communication breeds confusion, which in turn requires more communication to clear up.
One of the venture-captains may agree to take on the work for free. If not, a contractor might do it. I suggest you. ;-)
Thanks but I wasn't volunteering. I have to ask, did you even read what I wrote? I never even offered :P
|
|
I have two, somewhat conflicting, viewpoints on all this.
1) Wearing my developer/coordinator hat, as I did for 3 years with Living Dragonstar, initially, I wanted to have email discussions regarding all changes and such with the community (albeit, LDS was MUCH, MUCH smaller at about 600 to 800 regularly active members). My co-coordinator did not think this a good idea, based on his huge amount of experience with Living Greyhawk and earlier games. I deferred to his experience and actually ended up feeling it worked out for the better. The latest series of discussions is exactly why it is a better idea to just let the coordinators coordinate and the players play. Sometimes decisions need to be made or changes need to happen quickly, and going through a rousing debate wastes too much time to make it efficient. Making a very small minority mad because of the changes isn’t something generally to be worried about. Mainly because 90% of people who get all huffy and mad and vent and threaten to walk away, simply won’t walk away. Especially since this is pretty much the only OP available for d20 stuff.
2) Wearing my player hat, I’d love to have my opinion matter for rules issues like this. If I was directly affected by what appeared to be an “all-of-a-sudden” change and my character was drastically affected, I’d probably, initially, be mad. At least I know I would have been several years ago. The older I get and the more my mind-set turns developer instead of player, the less mad I think I’d get currently. What I’m actually more concerned about as a player, is that potential actions I take in a scenario may have lasting effects for the campaign as a whole. I know as coordinator for LDS, my partner and I tried to write our modules so that significant decisions made would seriously affect the next year’s story arc. Unfortunately Fantasy Flight canceled Dragonstar and canceled their support of LDS too soon for most of these things to be realized.
So, all that being said, I think a mountain is being made out of a mole-hill here, and that many people are just simply venting. PFS and Paizo may lose a couple players and/or paying customers, but by and large, I don’t think this will seriously impact the player base or the number of players.
Additionally, Mark and Hyrum have asked us to hold on and be patient, that they have some big plans to make things more streamlined, transparent, and coherent.
I am going to trust them.