I was thinking about something.
There's been a lot of nerdrage over UM (mostly) and UC (less, but still). Much of that was envitable (OMG GUNS BROKE MY FANTASY DIE PAIZO), but I'm wondering, could that be somewhat avoided?
No it can't be. Babylon 5 for instance had one main author or creator, but there was plenty of nerdrage there as well.
There's only one way to avoid the nerdrage.... DESTROY ALL NERDS.
I think the qlippoth would not be agianst that as they want to destroy all mortal life.
Instead you have several dozen of us here pointing out errors and no fast answers after a release. A lot of us have games to run and we can't have them come to a screeching halt waiting on a correction for weeks or months.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why does your game have to come to a halt? As the GM and players of the game, you have the ability and right to make a call on the issue. If/when the folks here make a call you can check it out; in the meantime, your game goes on and everyone is happy.
edited to add: I might just be naive, but this is what we did when there wasn't the internet and boards like this. You make a decision and move on.
|
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why does your game have to come to a halt? As the GM and players of the game, you have the ability and right to make a call on the issue. If/when the folks here make a call you can check it out; in the meantime, your game goes on and everyone is happy.
Instead you have several dozen of us here pointing out errors and no fast answers after a release. A lot of us have games to run and we can't have them come to a screeching halt waiting on a correction for weeks or months.
That's just Razz fighting his one-man crusade for Paizo to disappear and WotC go back to writing 3.5e. Don't pay attention. :)
Oh totally, let's have a review committee of Ravingdork, LilithsThrall, TOZ, Cirno, MiB, Cartigan, Hogarth, Treantmonk and 3.5 Loyalist try to sit down and agree on something.Someone offered a perfect solution to this...why won't Paizo go through with it...?
Take a couple dozen of hardcore rules lawyers, make them sign an NDA, have them point out the errors. I am sure many folks here will do it as volunteer work if money is an issue.
Instead you have several dozen of us here pointing out errors and no fast answers after a release. A lot of us have games to run and we can't have them come to a screeching halt waiting on a correction for weeks or months.
Not necessarily agree on anything. Pointing out errata. For things like Antagonize from UM, the two rogue talents that do the same exact thing but are named different and one is a normal talent and one is advanced, etc. That's what I meant. They would have no responsibility in what or how the content should be, just to point out the error that's in the content already decided on to be published. Then Paizo fixes them before printing the books.
I'm sure they'd have a lot less errors if they did that.
Instead you have several dozen of us here pointing out errors and no fast answers after a release. A lot of us have games to run and we can't have them come to a screeching halt waiting on a correction for weeks or months.Not to put too fine a point on it, but why does your game have to come to a halt? As the GM and players of the game, you have the ability and right to make a call on the issue. If/when the folks here make a call you can check it out; in the meantime, your game goes on and everyone is happy.
edited to add: I might just be naive, but this is what we did when there wasn't the internet and boards like this. You make a decision and move on.
It comes to a halt when something is missing from a feat or spell or archetype feature and have nothing to work on to help us fill in the blank and move on. Just look at the UM and UC errata threads, I can point out dozens that can cause a game to halt.
Stuff like Antagonize, yeah, we have no choice but to make a call. Stuff like the two Rogue talents that do the same thing, yeah, we'd probably ignore the UC one and keep the PF Corebook one in such a case, until they fix the UC one sometime this century.
Just look at the UM and UC errata threads, I can point out dozens that can cause a game to halt.
I haven't seen them. Maybe you can point out the twenty four (at least from your description) errors in Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat that stop a game from proceeding until Paizo corrects them?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, first 10 posts or so were somewhat enlightening, now it will be nerdrage festival :)
Also, Antagonize doesn't need anymore errata. It's a great feat. Anybody who says otherwise is a LULZ CASTER FANBOI. ;-)
See? That's why "errata by committee" doesn't work. What you think needs errata, I find perfectly fine. Ready to argue about that? I can invite a few others and we will have a hardcore optimization flamewar which will get us exactly nowhere.
I was thinking about something.
Well, first 10 posts or so were somewhat enlightening, now it will be nerdrage festival
See, that's what happens when you think. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It comes to a halt when something is missing from a feat or spell or archetype feature and have nothing to work on to help us fill in the blank and move on. Just look at the UM and UC errata threads, I can point out dozens that can cause a game to halt.Stuff like Antagonize, yeah, we have no choice but to make a call. Stuff like the two Rogue talents that do the same thing, yeah, we'd probably ignore the UC one and keep the PF Corebook one in such a case, until they fix the UC one sometime this century.
See, this is where we differ. I don't see any problems that just cause the game to come to a grinding halt until the Powers That Be come in and tell us which way to go. If you (or I, or they) dislike, disagree, or don't understand a rule, power, or whatever, then the group makes a call and lives with it, perhaps tabling it till we can all sit around and discuss it at more detail. Could just be different strokes for different folks, but I've never found myself waiting for Paizo, or Wizards, or any other game company to give me errata or a FAQ or whatever. If/when they come out, they can be useful and/or replace what we've already decided.
Then again, you get stuff like the argument over what Sean K. Reynold mentioned on the Adventure's Armory thread and how people dislike the ruling that came down. Sometimes, it appears, that the rulings/errata/FAQ that comes down isn't quite the fix that people seem to want.
Long story short: the game only comes to a screeching halt if you let it.
10 serious posts? Well, beats your threads every time :)
Unfortunately that's true. But I guess that's what you get when you use the board to report Paizo's quality problems to customer service. Probably the sniping fanboys get brownie points, or something.
Also, Antagonize doesn't need anymore errata. It's a great feat. Anybody who says otherwise is a LULZ CASTER FANBOI. ;-)
Oh man Gorby please tell me you're trolling.
On a side note -- any cooks spoiling soup are too many cooks spoiling the soup -- it has nothing to do with the number of cooks and everything to do with the spoiled soup.
I too am surprised by how people can conjure up energy to post 1-star bash reviews while praising, say, APG which they never bothered to review in the first place.
Agreed. I'm a fan of neither book, but if I took the time to more thoroughly and review them, I suspect they'd both be around 3 star books (for me) -- I've certainly seen nothing to suggest they warrant being labeled 1-star books. Rating them as such out of anger is petty, and damages the usefulness of reviews for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I too am surprised by how people can conjure up energy to post 1-star bash reviews while praising, say, APG which they never bothered to review in the first place.Agreed. I'm a fan of neither book, but if I took the time to more thoroughly and review them, I suspect they'd both be around 3 star books (for me) -- I've certainly seen nothing to suggest they warrant being labeled 1-star books. Rating them as such out of anger is petty, and damages the usefulness of reviews for everyone.
That's why aggregate reviews aren't that good. If you really want a critical view of a product, you should always read at least 3 reviews, one that rates high, one low, and one in the middle.
The 1-star reviews are fairly clear about what they dislike about the product. Reading the description of why they gave it a low star can be fairly informative to the skeptical buyer.
That's why aggregate reviews aren't that good. If you really want a critical view of a product, you should always read at least 3 reviews, one that rates high, one low, and one in the middle.
The 1-star reviews are fairly clear about what they dislike about the product. Reading the description of why they gave it a low star can be fairly informative to the skeptical buyer.
Perhaps a simple solution would be to display the median score, rather than the mean score?
Perhaps a simple solution would be to display the median score, rather than the mean score?
I don't think there is a simple solution. Besides, the several low star reviews hasn't stopped Ultimate Combat from being the top selling book at Paizo for the last month.
I don't think there is a simple solution. Besides, the several low star reviews hasn't stopped Ultimate Combat from being the top selling book at Paizo for the last month.
Forgive me, that seems to imply that the rating system is only useful as a sales tool. I do not believe that to be the case.
I don't think there is a simple solution. Besides, the several low star reviews hasn't stopped Ultimate Combat from being the top selling book at Paizo for the last month.Forgive me, that seems to imply that the rating system is only useful as a sales tool. I do not believe that to be the case.
What other use could it possibly have?
I don't think there is a simple solution. Besides, the several low star reviews hasn't stopped Ultimate Combat from being the top selling book at Paizo for the last month.Forgive me, that seems to imply that the rating system is only useful as a sales tool. I do not believe that to be the case.
As I said in my first post on the topic, I don't think the aggregate score (whether it is mean, median, weighted, whatever) has much value. Reading the individual reviews that make up the score can help a potential buyer make an informed decision. So the rating and review system does have value beyond a mere sales tool, the average score not so much.
The way I see it, there are items in UC which weren't subjected to sufficient quality assurance (like that teamwork feat which allows several archers exhaust ENTIRE supply of arrows in a single round as long as at least one of them hits a target - if I remember correctly, it is called Deadly Barrage).
My recommendation would be for Paizo to form a closer bond with several local FLGS, hand pick a few volunteers, make them sign NDAs and then give them a chance to read previews. Trust me, there is nothing more thorough than a basement nerd poring over unpublished content. Just chain him with NDA and you have a rabid QAcer at your disposal.
Regards,
Ruemere
Or, just releasing playtest sets of rules for things like items before they're released. Playtest is the most important part of Paizo.
I hope they don't decide to up book count, because obviously 2 books in 2 months made 2 rushed products. As evidenced by the number of FAQs generated by these boards.
Think #1 sales number includes the subscriptions otherwise there would be no way for it to be number one so quickly.
ICV2 numbers include only the hobby channel, not subscriptions, online sales, or book channel (i.e., Amazon and B&N), IIRC.
What other use could it possibly have?
Many. Among the obvious ones would be allowing customers to pick and choose the products they would most enjoy.
Of course, I suppose one could argue that everything Paizo (being a business -- shocker!) does is intended to increase sales, and is therefore a "sales tool." But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being deliberately pedantic.
Don't disappoint me.
What other use could it possibly have?Many. Among the obvious ones would be allowing customers to pick and choose the products they would most enjoy.
Of course, I suppose one could argue that everything Paizo (being a business -- shocker!) does is intended to increase sales, and is therefore a "sales tool." But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being deliberately pedantic.
Don't disappoint me.
Well considering all it's doing is being a buyer's tool in that case I guess you might be technically right, since that doesn't make it a sale's tool...
but even then by very definition it's a tool used to help promote sales.
That's the only actual use there is for it. Yes it tells you about the product and the fact you might enjoy it -- so does a commercial -- the only reason to do this is to sell you something.
I'm sorry but this isn't pedantic -- it's you making statements that are logically incorrect and then blaming me for pointing out your error.
I didn't make the mistake here.
On a side note -- any cooks spoiling soup are too many cooks spoiling the soup -- it has nothing to do with the number of cooks and everything to do with the spoiled soup.
Spoiled soup is like unto a tiny, brothy war crime.
Here's my take on the original subject: Earlier remarks have variously noted that the Campaign Setting publications seem to have a higher standard of unity than the Rules Books (with which I agree), and also that there is a point beyond which the publication of rules books is appealing only to customers interested in a particular niche, which makes the later books harder to sell.
I don't think this is a coincidence. Not that I'm advancing the theory that these developments are part of an orchestrated 5-year, 12-step plan by Paizo, but I do think that, in general, they are fairly canny folks. They've always focused the bulk of their efforts on the APs and campaign setting elements and made no secret about it. It should come as no surprise, then, that the campaign setting elements are crafted in a more coherent, cohesive fashion. It is also unsurprising to me that Rules-only books would not only have less unity of purpose, but would also perhaps engender less zest in the designers - plain mechanics are nice to a point, but beyond that point they ache for fluffy gooey substance to be draped about them, the better to fully flesh out their meaning and application. The mechanics that are introduced in the Campaign-setting-specific content can do this much more easily than the rules-only books. Additionally, the rules-only books seem to be developed from a perspective of uniform applicability - they're supposed to be able to be used equally well (and therefore also equally poorly) in *any* game that uses the Pathfinder rules. The Golarion-specific publications, on the other hand, have a narrower scope in that they are designed specifically for Golarion.
(This is very similar to the business plans of various Linux OS developers - they'll happily give away the bare bones of their OS for free, and will happily let you give bare-bones copies away by the truckload, but they offer a tidy starter package for a modest price and sell a whole host of applications and support for their system for a whopping profit.)
Essentially, in the long run, there's more money to be made in the Campaign Setting materials than in the Rules-only expansion books, so it's natural that more time and effort will be invested in the former over the latter. Asking for efforts to be pulled from more profitable projects and directed towards less profitable ones is, frankly, unrealistic, regardless of how nice it would be. ^_^
Well considering all it's doing is being a buyer's tool in that case I guess you might be technically right, since that doesn't make it a sale's tool...
but even then by very definition it's a tool used to help promote sales.
That's the only actual use there is for it. Yes it tells you about the product and the fact you might enjoy it -- so does a commercial -- the only reason to do this is to sell you something.
I'm sorry but this isn't pedantic -- it's you making statements that are logically incorrect and then blaming me for pointing out your error.
I didn't make the mistake here.
...and you disappointed me, even after I asked you not to so politely. Better luck next time. :)
but even then by very definition it's a tool used to help promote sales.
That's the only actual use there is for it. Yes it tells you about the product and the fact you might enjoy it -- so does a commercial -- the only reason to do this is to sell you something.
It may be unimportant to Paizo or the reviewers - perhaps their goal in soliciting or writing them is purely to drive or to deter sales. Nonetheless, I thought I'd mention that I read the reviews even though I've already bought the books, so there must be some utility beyond providing more informed sales choices (whether unintended or not).
I find that (in some instances, anyhow) people's comments will draw my attention to potential problems or opportunities which I would otherwise remain oblivious to. I find the generally structured style of the regular reviewers to be more succinct than wading through discussion threads. There have also been times when someone has made a comment I suddenly realise I agree with totally - despite being unable to articulate the thought myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember also that there are people on the boards who dissect stat blocks or combos to point out errors, but actually are *wrong*--they point out things they think are errors, but aren't (you forgot he had X feat, or the buckler has Y property, or Z gives a size modifier that you didn't include, etc.). Every not-an-error reported as an error must be evaluated by the design staff, and that takes just as much time as evaluating and correcting the things that are errors. And how do you determine who is qualified to give this sort of playtesting evaluation?
I don't think this is a coincidence. Not that I'm advancing the theory that these developments are part of an orchestrated 5-year, 12-step plan by Paizo, but I do think that, in general, they are fairly canny folks. They've always focused the bulk of their efforts on the APs and campaign setting elements and made no secret about it. It should come as no surprise, then, that the campaign setting elements are crafted in a more coherent, cohesive fashion. It is also unsurprising to me that Rules-only books would not only have less unity of purpose, but would also perhaps engender less zest in the designers - plain mechanics are nice to a point, but beyond that point they ache for fluffy gooey substance to be draped about them, the better to fully flesh out their meaning and application. The mechanics that are introduced in the Campaign-setting-specific content can do this much more easily than the rules-only books. Additionally, the rules-only books seem to be developed from a perspective of uniform applicability - they're supposed to be able to be used equally well (and therefore also equally poorly) in *any* game that uses the Pathfinder rules. The Golarion-specific publications, on the other hand, have a narrower scope in that they are designed specifically for Golarion.
I have to say this is bad practice. For every one adventure path sold, there are going to be at least 4 people looking at the game's rule and mechanics, if not buying a rule book. If they see sloppy, confusing, and otherwise incoherent stuff all over the books, they are going to be turned off to the system. The player is not going to see the pretty, well-designed adventure paths - those are for DMs. The players are going to see sloppy, confusing rules.
For every one adventure path sold, there are going to be at least 4 people looking at the game's rule and mechanics, if not buying a rule book.Where from have you got these numbers?
Fuzzy math based on the average player to DM ratio. Granted, this is all going to overlap some. Well, more than some depending how you combine things, but regardless, there will ALWAYS be more people looking at the rulebooks than at the adventure paths by at least 2 to 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember also that there are people on the boards who dissect stat blocks or combos to point out errors, but actually are *wrong*--they point out things they think are errors, but aren't (you forgot he had X feat, or the buckler has Y property, or Z gives a size modifier that you didn't include, etc.). Every not-an-error reported as an error must be evaluated by the design staff, and that takes just as much time as evaluating and correcting the things that are errors. And how do you determine who is qualified to give this sort of playtesting evaluation?
This, to me, is where the real issue is. You can look over any number of threads here and find "broken" powers/classes/combinations/etc that aren't necessarily broken but rather not what someone likes. The infamous Vows come to mind immediately. So you've got to have people picking through these threads looking for actual issues compared to "X didn't like Y", which seems to generate a far greater volume of posts and stomping of feet/gnashing of teeth.
|
Remember also that there are people on the boards who dissect stat blocks or combos to point out errors, but actually are *wrong*--they point out things they think are errors, but aren't (you forgot he had X feat, or the buckler has Y property, or Z gives a size modifier that you didn't include, etc.). Every not-an-error reported as an error must be evaluated by the design staff, and that takes just as much time as evaluating and correcting the things that are errors. And how do you determine who is qualified to give this sort of playtesting evaluation?
This is for fact checking - statblocks, etc.
Chunk the text to be checked. Give some chunks to each of your reviewers. Make sure that no reviewer gets the same set of chunks as another. Make sure that each chunk goes to a few reviewers.
Get your results back. Start with the paragraphs that got flagged by the most reviewers. Work down the list by the number of flags, correcting things if needed, and stop once you have run out of time, leaving things that were flagged by only one person and passed by the rest as probably correct.
Every few reviews, look at the set of people who tend to be responsible for single flags. It should be immediately obvious if they are in the gold-dust or waste-of-space set. Kick the wastes of space off the review team and refill with fresh blood.
Same process as reviewing the design documents for a telephone exchange.
This is for fact checking - statblocks, etc.
Chunk the text to be checked. Give some chunks to each of your reviewers. Make sure that no reviewer gets the same set of chunks as another. Make sure that each chunk goes to a few reviewers.
This is still ignoring the fact that they can't delay a book another 3 months for this process. Even if all the labor was free.
And how do you determine who is qualified to give this sort of playtesting evaluation?Presumably, the same way you determine who is qualified to write the book in the first place.
So, by starting them on small writing projects, then graduating them to larger ones once they've proven they have the necessary skills to manage a large project on time and do it well? Clearly I have time to train an entire team of playtesters in addition to everything else I do....
A much better question is, when can we expect the Advanced Races Guide playtest to begin? ;)
This is still ignoring the fact that they can't delay a book another 3 months for this process. Even if all the labor was free.This is for fact checking - statblocks, etc.
Chunk the text to be checked. Give some chunks to each of your reviewers. Make sure that no reviewer gets the same set of chunks as another. Make sure that each chunk goes to a few reviewers.
This was hinted at up above, but trying to run a business and a volunteer group is a huge timesink and fraught with all sorts of issues. Try it some time, you will see what I mean :)
|
|
This is still ignoring the fact that they can't delay a book another 3 months for this process. Even if all the labor was free.This is for fact checking - statblocks, etc.
Chunk the text to be checked. Give some chunks to each of your reviewers. Make sure that no reviewer gets the same set of chunks as another. Make sure that each chunk goes to a few reviewers.
You don't delay the process. You use volunteer talent under NDA. Once you get the results back in, you review as many of them as you have time for. If that means you just bin all of them, so be it - you are not any worse off. If you correct 20 minor defects, so much the better.
|
|
You don't delay the process. You use volunteer talent under NDA. Once you get the results back in, you review as many of them as you have time for. If that means you just bin all of them, so be it - you are not any worse off. If you correct 20 minor defects, so much the better.This is still ignoring the fact that they can't delay a book another 3 months for this process. Even if all the labor was free.This is for fact checking - statblocks, etc.
Chunk the text to be checked. Give some chunks to each of your reviewers. Make sure that no reviewer gets the same set of chunks as another. Make sure that each chunk goes to a few reviewers.
"Volunteer" and "NDA" shouldn't be used in one sentence, really. :)
This is still ignoring the fact that they can't delay a book another 3 months for this process. Even if all the labor was free.You don't delay the process. You use volunteer talent under NDA. Once you get the results back in, you review as many of them as you have time for. If that means you just bin all of them, so be it - you are not any worse off. If you correct 20 minor defects, so much the better.
Except you have to send it out to your playtesters and give them a chance to respond. Then spend time adjusting based on the feedback gathered. So that's time added to the schedule. So when the layout people would normally start their part of the work, they have to wait X amount of time for the review process. Which means the book takes 11-12 months instead of 8-9. And Paizo can't afford not to pay their freelancers and artists for that long.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And how do you determine who is qualified to give this sort of playtesting evaluation?Presumably, the same way you determine who is qualified to write the book in the first place.So, by starting them on small writing projects, then graduating them to larger ones once they've proven they have the necessary skills to manage a large project on time and do it well? Clearly I have time to train an entire team of playtesters in addition to everything else I do....
Alternatively, we could go through the same rigorous type of interview, resume solicitation/examination, and writing sample/edit test process we used to find and hire our latest developer.
Note that that process took us about half a year to complete...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be a charter subscriber. I miss that tag.
Yeah, been tough this last year keeping it up; I'm always glad to get that August breather.
And how do you determine who is qualified to give this sort of playtesting evaluation?Presumably, the same way you determine who is qualified to write the book in the first place.So, by starting them on small writing projects, then graduating them to larger ones once they've proven they have the necessary skills to manage a large project on time and do it well? Clearly I have time to train an entire team of playtesters in addition to everything else I do....
Alternatively, we could go through the same rigorous type of interview, resume solicitation/examination, and writing sample/edit test process we used to find and hire our latest developer.
Note that that process took us about half a year to complete...
Good.
I think things have been working just grand the way they are, and I'd much rather see new material at the existing level of quality over half as much material at a small percentage better quality.
While I'd love to see Paizo hire another half-dozen developers, what I definitely don't want is for them to outgrow the market. As I see it, they've been doing a great job so far - let's hope it stays that way.
Remember also that there are people on the boards who dissect stat blocks or combos to point out errors, but actually are *wrong*--they point out things they think are errors, but aren't (you forgot he had X feat, or the buckler has Y property, or Z gives a size modifier that you didn't include, etc.). Every not-an-error reported as an error must be evaluated by the design staff, and that takes just as much time as evaluating and correcting the things that are errors. And how do you determine who is qualified to give this sort of playtesting evaluation?
Why not Cluster Source this. There are plenty of people on the Rules forum reading and rereading Rules books (myself included). I would be more than happy to check stat blocks, especially if I get my name into a book. Give each possible monster to 10 people, 6 should respond, if 5 agree you should be good.