Hello,
I've finally ordered the game and hope to get a lot of fun out of it. That said, I've also read and seen enough of the game to be bothered by a few bits.
What can we expect of the feedback loop on this game? It sounds like the whole AP is already planned... possibly even already made. Is it locked down already or is there wiggle room for errata and suggestions?
As a quick example, I thought naming characters' abilities would help get a sense of what they are in-story. I'm guessing this isn't something "fixable" now since all the characters have already been released (well, except through errata maybe). But what about bits more related to scenarios and future adventures? Is it worth dropping feedback about it or are changes only to be expected for the elusive next AP?
I'm pretty sure the first year's product has already been finalised and even printed.
Feedback is likely to be useful in framing whatever might come next (whether it be another Adventure Path or further expansion addons), but I think the playtest was the limit of any comments we might have wanted to make regarding the first Adventure Path.
If true, that's a bit sad, if understandable on a design standpoint. Even so, I guess it may still be worth mentioning things. It may get some errata where possible, it could help design the next AP and then there's also fan-made modifications :)
To be fair, I'm a bit disappointed at the number of issues with misprints/consistancy on the wording of the cards in the base set. Maybe I'm a little harsh, but I have fairly high expectations of accuracy and consistancy on the cards of an "Adventure Card Game"
Hopefully it gets better as the Adventure Path progresses not worse. Unfortunately none of those are going to get correcting in print since they are already sitting in a warehouse at Paizo. It's all going to be errata'd in the FAQ's.
Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I do understand the benefits of large print runs, but I think that this game is going to be particularly heavy on the FAQ side of things in this first AP at least. I'm wondering whether it would have been in their best interest to send the Core Set to the printers first with a bunch more intro adventures and wait to send the first AP to the printers; pushing back Burnt Offerings three months or thereabouts. They would have had to flesh out the Base Game though, that 3 month wait could kill the game community (it took a bit of a toll with LOTR LCG for sure)
On the bright side- being a co-op game it's probably less important, since the players aren't out to screw each other. There is always that element of house rule/play how you want.
On the bright side- being a co-op game it's probably less important, since the players aren't out to screw each other. There is always that element of house rule/play how you want.
In my view, this is a very salient point. The ambiguity stakes are much lower when no individual in the group loses.
Hopefully, the second iteration will benefit from feedback. Overall though, I think the rules are pretty clear - there are some finer details which are arguable, but not terribly important ones, in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my view, this is a very salient point. The ambiguity stakes are much lower when no individual in the group loses.
Not devaluing your opinion at all; especially since it is a view that I agree with, however it is worth pointing out that there are certain personality/gamer archetypes that this will not sit well with.
Rules Lawyers/Play-to-win and Puzzle Player (dunno if this is the correct term- the guys who views the game like a puzzle to solve) will always find any sort of ambiguity in rules or cards types a major frustration as it takes away from the experience for them.
Things like the location cards being printed differently and missed keywords are almost unforgivable in a card game. As I said previously, it concerns me about how many errors are going to be in the upcoming, already printed scenarios :(
Don't get me wrong, it would be better if there were no such inconsistencies. I'd just expect that there wont be too much griping, given the cooperative nature of the game. Also, I dont find the rules themselves hard to work out. There's one or two irregularities in card layout, wording and so forth - but that's not something which comes up a lot.
Although, admittedly we dont have anyone in our group who particularly fusses over the 'correct' ruling. Rules Lawyers or Puzzle Players may well get frustrated by such glitches.
How many misprints are there? I've heard of 3.
Loot card is listed as B.
Warhammer +1 is missing Magic trait.
And one location swapped Monster and Barrier lines.
Are there significantly more than that?
To partially answer my own question, I have seen an interview of Mike Selinker confirming that the first AP is entirely "done", so we shouldn't expect any fixes or design changes until the next AP, and barring official FAQ/Errata.
We are constantly looking for feedback. We are actively compiling errata.
On a philosophical note: Every large card game I've ever worked on has had errata. This game has 1,155 cards. I'm not excusing it, and I wish it wasn't necessary. But these things happen, and I hope you'll bear with us as we address the issues.
Mike
On errata: I hope to see a PDF that we can print and cut out to place before the actual cards in their sleeves, so that we do not need to write on the actual cards.
