I wish to complain about all the complaints made about the complaints.
I wish to complain about the people complaining about the complaints that the complaintants have entered into the record. All this complaining about complaining about complaints is giving me gas.
|
I just wish people who had complaints could voice them respectfully, which I know some do, but the ragers garner more attention. Just think of how much you'd appreciate a section in your work area that you went to daily where everyone came in and critiqued your job. People need to think about what it feels like on the other side of the screen sometimes.
That's my 2cp
By that same token, I wish some people would stop making assumptions about why people are complaining, including those doing so civily, and putting them forth as fact.
Sucks to be dismissed out of hand.
I just want to complain about mdt. He's clearly broken and completely underpowered. Unless you are on an all simian adventure in which case he's utterly broken due to the racial bonus on diplomacy checks.
Hey! I resent that!
I'll have you know I am broken at all times, and WAY overpowered at all times!
:)
EDIT : Oh, and my players are all willing to sign affidavits to that effect.
|
I just wish people who had complaints could voice them respectfully, which I know some do, but the ragers garner more attention. Just think of how much you'd appreciate a section in your work area that you went to daily where everyone came in and critiqued your job. People need to think about what it feels like on the other side of the screen sometimes.
That's my 2cp
By that same token, I wish some people would stop making assumptions about why people are complaining, including those doing so civily, and putting them forth as fact.
Sucks to be dismissed out of hand.
A lot of comments pointed out why the original feat was incompatible with the way many GMs run their games. The developers popped in and explained many of the problems with it.
The fact that you don't agree with those comments or explanations doesn't mean you have been dismissed out of hand, it just means people don't agree with you.
|
|
I just want to complain about mdt. He's clearly broken and completely underpowered. Unless you are on an all simian adventure in which case he's utterly broken due to the racial bonus on diplomacy checks.Hey! I resent that!
I'll have you know I am broken at all times, and WAY overpowered at all times!
:)
Yeah, I've been wondering when the hygiene committee was going to talk to you about showering and proper use of deodorant. It's not con-funk when there is no con ;)
|
|
I just wish people who had complaints could voice them respectfully, which I know some do, but the ragers garner more attention. Just think of how much you'd appreciate a section in your work area that you went to daily where everyone came in and critiqued your job. People need to think about what it feels like on the other side of the screen sometimes.
That's my 2cp
By that same token, I wish some people would stop making assumptions about why people are complaining, including those doing so civily, and putting them forth as fact.
Sucks to be dismissed out of hand.
A lot of comments pointed out why the original feat was incompatible with the way many GMs run their games. The developers popped in and explained many of the problems with it.
The fact that you don't agree with those comments or explanations doesn't mean you have been dismissed out of hand, it just means people don't agree with you.
Actually, I'm referring to those that keep insisting that those unhappy with the new VoP are only so because they want to optimize/powergame/win-the-game/game-the-system and that they don't care about roleplaying or flavor. My complaints have been about the new VoP breaking theme and not being able to reasonably keep up, not that it isn't "uber".
I'm not asking people to agree with me. I'm asking that they not make false assumptions about why I'm unhappy with the VoP.
I can't recall any developers pointing out exactly what was wrong with the original VoP. All I've gotten at most is one saying that the concept of a VoP monk getting inherent bonuses doesn't make sense in a game where clerics get spells from worshipping concepts and you're now able to make someone abandon his dying loved ones to come fight you by insulting him with a mundane ability with no saving throw.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
As far as I can tell, most of the complaints have been about a few things that are less powerful options. I would much rather have to houserule things to make them better than houserule things to make them less powerful.
So I think Paizo did an excellent job of expanding game options without introducing power creep to the game.
If 1% of the book is a little weak, it means the other 99% is spot on. That's an A+ in my book.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Nice one. Valid for everybody, not exceptions :)
|
|
Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.I will remember this when you will complain about something.
People have seen odd stuff and pointed out. And disscused about it because, you know, message board.
IMHO, paizo should not dismiss preemtpively complaints - most times are about misunderstandings or similar things, but several times really bad stuff has been pointed out.
People reading the messageboard should consider that gamers tend to exaggerate, but blindly dismiss every criticism in never, ever a good thing. In gaming, when at work, in personal relationships, in life in general.
never.
I'm a fanboy. We don't complain. Unless it's about blind math-challenged people who should be better off playing Amber diceless with their "anything, anywhere" approach to rules.
I just wish people who had complaints could voice them respectfully, which I know some do, but the ragers garner more attention. Just think of how much you'd appreciate a section in your work area that you went to daily where everyone came in and critiqued your job. People need to think about what it feels like on the other side of the screen sometimes.
That's my 2cp
By that same token, I wish some people would stop making assumptions about why people are complaining, including those doing so civily, and putting them forth as fact.
Sucks to be dismissed out of hand.
Agreed and agreed. There is critical engagement, and then there is unnecessary quibbling.
|
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
I know, right. Like there was this idiot the other day who would just not get off my front bumper the whole way to work.
On topic, however, I appreciate everyone who has sent in a complaint about the UM and drawn my attention to potential problems. It allows me to consider whether to use, alter, or ban problematic rules in the book. Also, the "forum editors" who catch errata issues are invaluable both to me and -I suspect- the Paizo staff, who really don't have time to go back and re-edit the book themselves (until the next printing at least.)
CEO
|
They can't take 10.
First off, they are rushed.
Second, they are distracted (By Lisa breathing down their neck asking if it's done yet). :)
Third, they are in a dangerous situation, cause if they mess it up, they are going to be roasted alive on the forums (plus Lisa will pour salt on the burns). :)
So in other words, they are now getting roasted on the forums for their bad rolls, and Lisa is ordering in a 40lb bag of sea salt. :)
Exactly! Working in the editorial side of a game company is ALWAYS treated as a combat situation for the purposes of die rolls. A "20" always succeeds and a "1" always fails. When you make as many rolls as our editors make on a daily basis, the chance for a "1" to come up is pretty high. Which is why good dice are so important to any game company's editors.
A little peak behind the scenes...
-Lisa
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(It would be rude of anyone to correct the CEO's spelling of "peek".)
Lisa,
There are indeed a lot of complaints bouncing around about this product, moreso by far than the Guide to the Inner Sea or the Advanced Players' Guide, probably on the same level as the Adventurer's Armory.
Did something happen to make this product particulerly rushed, or was there some other reason that more than the usual number of odd bits fell through the cracks?
Failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Oh wait...have some alkeseltzer.
Everything else, dismissed.
Shouldn't that be Alkenseltzer? No, wait, that might have, er, explosive results.
Edit:
There are indeed a lot of complaints bouncing around about this product, moreso by far than the Guide to the Inner Sea or the Advanced Players' Guide, probably on the same level as the Adventurer's Armory.
Did something happen to make this product particulerly rushed, or was there some other reason that more than the usual number of odd bits fell through the cracks?
My guess is that they were really trying to fit as much in as possible - a lot of the issues seem to be non-removed cross-references.
Doesn't explain Antagonize though :)
|
|
(It would be rude of anyone to correct the CEO's spelling of "peek".)
Lisa,
There are indeed a lot of complaints bouncing around about this product, moreso by far than the Guide to the Inner Sea or the Advanced Players' Guide, probably on the same level as the Adventurer's Armory.
Did something happen to make this product particulerly rushed, or was there some other reason that more than the usual number of odd bits fell through the cracks?
Is it rude to correct your spelling of "particulerly"? :)
Now that I'm done with being a smartass about you being a smartass, I'm not sure where are you seeing the "a lot of complaints". APG also had a few wonky areas (Inquisitor judgements referring to playtest mechanics, Selective Spell). Heck, the APG errata took 4 pages, and there's still at least one thing of concern (Savage Barbarian AC bonus scaling).
My only serious concern are Monk vows, because somebody green-lighted them, and that shouldn't happen). Everything else is typical D&D splatbook level of editing/development "ooops".
|
CEO
|
There are indeed a lot of complaints bouncing around about this product, moreso by far than the Guide to the Inner Sea or the Advanced Players' Guide, probably on the same level as the Adventurer's Armory.
Did something happen to make this product particulerly rushed, or was there some other reason that more than the usual number of odd bits fell through the cracks?
Nothing different was done with this book than any other book. It got the same amount of tender loving care we give all our books. Which is why I made my smart-ass remark about bad die rolls. But that comes close to the answer.
When you are editing a book, you are reading through it to catch errors. You would be surprised how many people can read through a page of a book and not catch an error that somebody else catches on the tenth pass through. Of course, when you release it to the world, it gets thousands upon thousands of passes, and if there is an error, somebody is bound to find it. Now, you try to hire people who are really good at catching errors, because not every reader has the same competency in that regard. But no matter how many times we proof read something, errors will slip through. Sometimes there are a bunch. Other times, relatively few.
We take errors in our products very seriously. When a book comes out with more errors than we feel comfortable with, we review the process and make changes to increase our chances of putting out the "perfect book."
I think that fans of our books are always assuming that a more error-filled book means that things were rushed. But that simply isn't true. All books get the same amount of editing based on their size. So if there are more errors than normal, it was just that the editorial department had a worse day than normal. Thus my dice rolling crack. They aren't entirely analogous, but close.
-Lisa
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You would be surprised how many people can read through a page of a book and not catch an error that somebody else catches on the tenth pass through.
Oh, no I wouldn't. I do this kind of thing for a living (developing and editing math problems for national tests that students take to demonstrate course mastery or college readiness).
When you are editing a book, you are reading through it to catch errors. You would be surprised how many people can read through a page of a book and not catch an error that somebody else catches on the tenth pass through. Of course, when you release it to the world, it gets thousands upon thousands of passes, and if there is an error, somebody is bound to find it. Now, you try to hire people who are really good at catching errors, because not every reader has the same competency in that regard. But no matter how many times we proof read something, errors will slip through. Sometimes there are a bunch. Other times, relatively few.-Lisa
Of course, to increase the passes you could always just find a bunch of people like me who would work on the cheap. I'd happily settle for a hardcover of the book, a few cases of Dr. Pepper, and an epic new set of dice :) (This of course, is open to negotiations) Oh, and I live in Wisconsin, so I'd need to be able to work from home, but technology these days might help in that. :P
I'm a fanboy. We don't complain. Unless it's about blind math-challenged people who should be better off playing Amber diceless with their "anything, anywhere" approach to rules.Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.I will remember this when you will complain about something.
People have seen odd stuff and pointed out. And disscused about it because, you know, message board.
IMHO, paizo should not dismiss preemtpively complaints - most times are about misunderstandings or similar things, but several times really bad stuff has been pointed out.
People reading the messageboard should consider that gamers tend to exaggerate, but blindly dismiss every criticism in never, ever a good thing. In gaming, when at work, in personal relationships, in life in general.
never.
I used to take you seriously.
I guess books are like rolling dice. You want them all to be 20's, but there's gotta be a 1 sometimes. This book was a 1 to me. Guess I'm spoiled, because you guys seem to usually use cheater dice, and roll consistantly high. I mean, how many publications has Paizo made? Keep cheating, Paizo! :)
I will add the same sentiment I did when the APG came out. Typos in rules heavy books are always more obvious then other books. If the miss the a word in descriptive text in a campaign setting book, slightly annoying but not a real big deal. However if they miss a word in rules text, it can completely change how a feat, spell, etc actually works.
Have there really been that many typos? Almost all of the complaints I have seen are about (a very few) underpowered design decisions.
Myself personally, I would rather that they undershot occasionally than overshot occasionally and introduced wild power creep. I am very happy with Ultimate Magic, even though it won't have a lot of impact on my game immediately. (Only one of my players is playing a real caster, and he has to learn his spells the hard way.)
I like the Word spells, it was the major reason I got the pdf. I like a lot of the other stuff I have found therein.
Have there really been that many typos? Almost all of the complaints I have seen are about (a very few) underpowered design decisions.
Myself personally, I would rather that they undershot occasionally than overshot occasionally and introduced wild power creep. I am very happy with Ultimate Magic, even though it won't have a lot of impact on my game immediately. (Only one of my players is playing a real caster, and he has to learn his spells the hard way.)
I've found a couple...
I like the book a lot, I find about 85% to 90% of it to be useful to me personally. I think the artwork and layout is top notch, and vastly superior to the old WoTC material (not a flame war, just my opinion).
I really don't mind the occasional misspelled word, or word left out. I can fill in those types of blanks.
The only issue I have with Paizo over this book are a handful of what I consider egregious editing failures.
Spells referenced that were later cut from the book
Spells missing vital requirements (components entry)
These are the only two things that bother me about the book. The first one is just really not explainable. If you cut a spell from the book, you do a search on the book for that spell name. It's a relatively simple edit.
The missing vital requirements on the spells I also set as a very odd thing to miss, especially on such a big (to me) number.
Now, I'm certain that Lisa and Co. are going over this with a fine tooth comb, and putting some 'Steps which will be done on pain of booting your bum down the stairs if you don't' steps that are required prior to releasing a book. Specifically, check all spell lists to ensure the spells are valid, and check all spell blocks to make sure the parts that need to be there are.
Have there really been that many typos?I've found a couple...
A few are to be expected. Even at 99.999% accuracy, there will be a typo every other page. Any that make a rule unusable or terribly unclear? Any that you couldn't figure out what the sentence meant through context? As in, any that actually have an impact on the game?
Edit: Ninja'd by mdt.
Have there really been that many typos? Almost all of the complaints I have seen are about (a very few) underpowered design decisions.
Myself personally, I would rather that they undershot occasionally than overshot occasionally and introduced wild power creep. I am very happy with Ultimate Magic, even though it won't have a lot of impact on my game immediately. (Only one of my players is playing a real caster, and he has to learn his spells the hard way.)
Check the errata thread. The big ones are spells that were cut from the spell list, but left on class spell lists. The other big one is there's a dozen or so spells with missing component lines.
A few are to be expected. Even at 99.999% accuracy, there will be a typo every other page. Any that make a rule unusable or terribly unclear? Any that you couldn't figure out what the sentence meant through context? As in, any that actually have an impact on the game?Have there really been that many typos?I've found a couple...
Domains and Mysteries with spells that don't exist.
Missing component lines for spells.
Domains and Mysteries with spells that don't exist.Missing component lines for spells.
I certainly understand how the references to things that have been cut are the hardest to catch, because the proofer may only be going over a particular section. If the spelling and formatting looks right, they'll assume it is correct and keep moving.
The spell references in the spellbook section aren't a big deal, but domains and mysteries I'm sure will get a correction soon enough.
Missing components are only a major problem if there should be high price tag components.
Domains and Mysteries with spells that don't exist.Missing component lines for spells.
I certainly understand how the references to things that have been cut are the hardest to catch, because the proofer may only be going over a particular section. If the spelling and formatting looks right, they'll assume it is correct and keep moving.
The spell references in the spellbook section aren't a big deal, but domains and mysteries I'm sure will get a correction soon enough.
Missing components are only a major problem if there should be high price tag components.
Knowing whether a spell has somatic, verbal, or focus requirements is just as important. Especially for a wizard who has to deal with arcane spell failure.
Knowing whether a spell has somatic, verbal, or focus requirements is just as important. Especially for a wizard who has to deal with arcane spell failure.
Fair enough. I just always assume a spell has Components V, S. The list of spells that don't is probably very short.
Knowing whether a spell has somatic, verbal, or focus requirements is just as important. Especially for a wizard who has to deal with arcane spell failure.Fair enough. I just always assume a spell has Components V, S. The list of spells that don't is probably very short.
Fun facts: Out of 967 spells indexed at d20pfsrd.com, only 16 lack a verbal component. Only 81 lack somatic components.
Material components and focuses are much more mixed of course. 416 spells have a material component, but only 111 are costly. 71 require a focus, and 276 require a divine focus.
I was curious, so I had to look it up.
Fun facts: Out of 967 spells indexed at d20pfsrd.com, only 16 lack a verbal component. Only 81 lack somatic components.Knowing whether a spell has somatic, verbal, or focus requirements is just as important. Especially for a wizard who has to deal with arcane spell failure.Fair enough. I just always assume a spell has Components V, S. The list of spells that don't is probably very short.
Bratislava. Hmm. Capital of Slovakia. Oh, here's a fun fact: YOU MADE OUT WITH YOUR SISTER, MAN!
By the way, I've glanced over both the PDF and the hardcover and haven't found the errors to be egregious. Sure, the missing spells are annoying, but overall I find the book outstanding.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
+1 for George Carlin reference
RIP George!
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?I know, right. Like there was this idiot the other day who would just not get off my front bumper the whole way to work.
On topic...
You misunderstand - I am on topic.
To put it another way:
You ever notice how people who have more problems with certain game materials then you do are always nerd raging, and those that have less problem with certain game materials then you do are blind to the issues?
|
|
I used to take you seriously.I'm a fanboy. We don't complain. Unless it's about blind math-challenged people who should be better off playing Amber diceless with their "anything, anywhere" approach to rules.Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.I will remember this when you will complain about something.
People have seen odd stuff and pointed out. And disscused about it because, you know, message board.
IMHO, paizo should not dismiss preemtpively complaints - most times are about misunderstandings or similar things, but several times really bad stuff has been pointed out.
People reading the messageboard should consider that gamers tend to exaggerate, but blindly dismiss every criticism in never, ever a good thing. In gaming, when at work, in personal relationships, in life in general.
never.
I used to think that you would develop a sarcasm detector by now :) Alas, I still need to put emoticons to have people treat my posts correctly, read: not entirely serious.
Sometimes.
|
|
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?I know, right. Like there was this idiot the other day who would just not get off my front bumper the whole way to work.
On topic...
You misunderstand - I am on topic.
To put it another way:
You ever notice how people who have more problems with certain game materials then you do are always nerd raging, and those that have less problem with certain game materials then you do are blind to the issues?
Yeah, sorry, the "on topic" was a segue, not a response to your post. My first paragraph was off topic, and a joke to boot. (I bolded the part that makes it a joke.)
Meh, it's just nerds raging at each other over three lines of text in a 256 page book. Same as always.1d20
1d20 =/= 10
1d20 = 10.5