|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People tend to hang out with like-minded people. It's why you get people assuming elections must have been stolen because 'no one I know voted for him'.
Confirmation bias is also a hell of a thing: Written text doesn't convey tone particularly well, so if you start by assuming that Sean is out to get you, it makes you read his posts in a less flattering light. It creates a vicious cycle. If you instead assume that he's a reasonable guy who is trying to clear up points of contention and explain what is and is not possible, then they'll read very differently.
Everything here is very true.
And speaking as someone who actually knows Sean, whatever boogeyman people have decided to hate and build up as their own mythic figures in their own corners of the internet has very little resemblance to the actual man, who is posting here.
I don't know Sean personally so I can't comment on that. What I will say is this, early on in my time on Paizo's boards I really disliked Sean. Sometimes I felt insulted by his posts, often I disagreed with his opinions, etc. I just generally felt that he was not a nice person.
In retrospect, I realize that most of that said more about me than Sean. I was reading personal insult into Sean's posts where there was none.
Sean comes off to me, now, as a person who would rather tell you an unpleasant truth than give the pleasant lie.
Sean could have easily, back when he was still a Paizo employee, simply responded to every bit of feedback with, "We will take it into consideration." Instead he not only told you that more time is not going to happen, he went on to offer you an explanation. Furthermore, now that he is not a Paizo employee, he continues to try to explain reality to you.
You have provided your feedback and he has listened to it and responded with the facts of why it won't work. That is not blowing you off. That is acknowledging feedback.
As far as Sean's posts in the Playtest threads, I will simply say this. Given the attitude of the people in those threads, Sean's posts were kind. I could not do what Sean did. Could he have put more effort into posts that were more honey than vinegar, sure. However, that is time and effort that would not go toward the work on the classes. Frankly I am amazed that he responded in those threads at all given the insulting nature of a lot of the posts.
One of the challenges of professionalism is remaining professional when customers or colleagues get that way. And that sorta ties into a personal complaint, that I feel the design team often throws the baby out with the bathwater by discarding feedback whose tone isn't spot-on.
One of the challenges of professionalism is remaining professional when customers or colleagues get that way. And that sorta ties into a personal complaint, that I feel the design team often throws the baby out with the bathwater by discarding feedback whose tone isn't spot-on.
...Well that was clever. Props on the reference, despite my severe disagreements with the material in the Anger of Angels supplement (nothing to do with you personally, Alignment Wars and all that at root cause of not enjoying book).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Sean (although I doubt I know fifty people who I can ask to see if they agree with me) and I really like his approach to rules and to explaining those rules. I generally get lost in rules debates, but he can usually explain why things are the way they are in a single post. I havent noticed him be anything but genteel and professional when someone asks a question unless their question includes words like careless, poor, sloppy, dumb, stupid, bad-game-design, Paizo-dont-care-about-balance, etceteraOne of the challenges of professionalism is remaining professional when customers or colleagues get that way. And that sorta ties into a personal complaint, that I feel the design team often throws the baby out with the bathwater by discarding feedback whose tone isn't spot-on. Yes, ideally feedback is delivered politely and coherently. Sadly, this does not always, or even usually, happen. It's the designer's job to address this feedback objectively and professionally anyway. I dealt with this as a homebrewer and I continue to deal with this as a freelancer.
And yeah, it's discouraging and hurtful. But it can also contain very helpful data, and sometimes the tone itself says more than the words - it tells you that this customer is dissatisfied, among other things. Novel and comic book writers need thick skins so they can take critique and improve themselves and their work with it; RPG writing is not different in this regard.
Unfortunately, human psychology kicks in. If people are providing feedback that is rude, sloppy, or incoherent. We are, as humans, wired to disregard it. It is not a conscious decision, it happens. Paizo is doing people a favor and giving them a chance to be better received in the future, by pointing out where they need to improve their posts.
Stop expecting them to be paragons of professionalism and recognize that they are human. They go above and beyond in the customer service department and when they fall we pick them apart for it. It is not fair.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Sean (although I doubt I know fifty people who I can ask to see if they agree with me) and I really like his approach to rules and to explaining those rules. I generally get lost in rules debates, but he can usually explain why things are the way they are in a single post. I havent noticed him be anything but genteel and professional when someone asks a question unless their question includes words like careless, poor, sloppy, dumb, stupid, bad-game-design, Paizo-dont-care-about-balance, etceteraOne of the challenges of professionalism is remaining professional when customers or colleagues get that way. And that sorta ties into a personal complaint, that I feel the design team often throws the baby out with the bathwater by discarding feedback whose tone isn't spot-on. Yes, ideally feedback is delivered politely and coherently. Sadly, this does not always, or even usually, happen. It's the designer's job to address this feedback objectively and professionally anyway. I dealt with this as a homebrewer and I continue to deal with this as a freelancer.
And yeah, it's discouraging and hurtful. But it can also contain very helpful data, and sometimes the tone itself says more than the words - it tells you that this customer is dissatisfied, among other things. Novel and comic book writers need thick skins so they can take critique and improve themselves and their work with it; RPG writing is not different in this regard.
Unfortunately, human psychology kicks in. If people are providing feedback that is rude, sloppy, or incoherent. We are, as humans, wired to disregard it. It is not a conscious decision, it happens. Paizo is doing people a favor and giving them a chance to be better received in the future, by pointing out where they need to improve their posts.
Stop expecting them to be paragons of professionalism and recognize that they are human. They go above and beyond in the customer service department and when...
"Dangit guys, when they ask for feedback, they don't really want feedback"
Stephen was spot on on how to interact with the playtesters. Is it so unreasonable to desire that same kind of professionalism from the other designers?
More over should we remain silent over what could be an improvement in the playtest?
I think it's amazing that SKR actually even responded on the feedback issue of one person in regards to the playtest and personally addressed each issue. Paizo literally has thousands of customers, and it wouldn't surprise me if they had hundreds to thousands who gave feedback (and not just on the forums, the forums I'd say are the hardcore and minority amount of players, so surveys and otherwise). That he would take the time to personally respond to one person out of all those...speaks volumes.
And I don't even really care for the guy.
I'd say that response alone in dealing with one person out of thousands shows a great deal of care in regards to the customer, and I don't know why anyone would continue to say bad things in regards to him in this thread, especially after his response in regards to that.
Move on.
As I said, I'm not particularly fond of SKR, but this thread is making me like him a hell of a lot more...if you guys keep it up I'm going to end up being a rock solid fan of his...
I'm interested to see what's going to happen with the bloodrager bloodlines. Are they going to make a bloodrager equivalent for every sorcerer bloodline that's been published?
I'm interested to see what's going to happen with the bloodrager bloodlines. Are they going to make a bloodrager equivalent for every sorcerer bloodline that's been published?
I think it would have been cool (although probably impossible) if we could have gotten a method to convert existing bloodlines as part of class ability. It would have saved space in the book and opened up options that will likely never come to light like an Orc bloodline for bloodrager.
I'm interested to see what's going to happen with the bloodrager bloodlines. Are they going to make a bloodrager equivalent for every sorcerer bloodline that's been published?I think it would have been cool (although probably impossible) if we could have gotten a method to convert existing bloodlines as part of class ability. It would have saved space in the book and opened up options that will likely never come to light like an Orc bloodline for bloodrager.
Paizo would have to be nutty to never release an Orc bloodline for bloodragers.
Blind fanboyism at its finest.
I would rather them not do a playtest than have a playtest that is utterly pointless because they won't take criticism. It defeats the entire purpose of asking for feedback if you're just going to brush off said feedback.
Do it right, or don't do it at all, in other words...
"It defeats the entire purpose of asking for feedback if you're just going to brush off said feedback."
Assumption, of course, being that they're "brushing off said feedback."
Now who's being blind?
Just because they didn't respond to every criticism and immediately implement some kind of "fix" that settled every and all possible problems doesn't equal brushing off feedback.
This isn't an Open Design process. Paizo developers are under no requirement to show us everything under the hood as they go through the implementation of putting out their product. The fact that they did respond as much as they did and make changes along the way should say a lot about how much they were listening and incorporating feedback in the playtest.
"Fanboyism" beats entitlement any day, IMO. YMMV, obviously.
Now I'm going to ride off on my high horse. Hi ho, Silver! Away!!!
Also, just because an idea was presented with not the best tone, doesn't mean it was dismissed out of hand. I believe these guys* are better than that.
*and gals.
And speaking as someone who actually knows Sean, whatever boogeyman people have decided to hate and build up as their own mythic figures in their own corners of the internet has very little resemblance to the actual man, who is posting here.
And speaking as someone who doesn't know Sean aside from his online presence since his days as a TSR rep, I've never been able to understand the level of vitriol hurled his way, and can only conclude that your observations vis a vis confirmation bias must be a strong factor in it. A sort of self-replicating "Sean hate" virus that can probably be traced all the way back to some Patient Zero on the TSR mailing list nearly two decades ago.
And speaking as someone who actually knows Sean, whatever boogeyman people have decided to hate and build up as their own mythic figures in their own corners of the internet has very little resemblance to the actual man, who is posting here.And speaking as someone who doesn't know Sean aside from his online presence since his days as a TSR rep, I've never been able to understand the level of vitriol hurled his way, and can only conclude that your observations vis a vis confirmation bias must be a strong factor in it. A sort of self-replicating "Sean hate" virus that can probably be traced all the way back to some Patient Zero on the TSR mailing list nearly two decades ago.
I actually never visited the Paizo boards or knew who SKR was until the playtest. Over the course of the two weeks I developed opinions on the three devs in charge of the Playtest (Which can be viewed on page three of this thread, right at the top of the page).
After the playtest (and my post on pg 3) someone at the LGS was complaining about SKR and showed me a lot of screenshots of the Paizo boards that helped reinforce the opinion I had of him from the playtest.
I became a patient zero as of December 2013 I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And speaking as someone who actually knows Sean, whatever boogeyman people have decided to hate and build up as their own mythic figures in their own corners of the internet has very little resemblance to the actual man, who is posting here.And speaking as someone who doesn't know Sean aside from his online presence since his days as a TSR rep, I've never been able to understand the level of vitriol hurled his way, and can only conclude that your observations vis a vis confirmation bias must be a strong factor in it. A sort of self-replicating "Sean hate" virus that can probably be traced all the way back to some Patient Zero on the TSR mailing list nearly two decades ago.
I'll state that my first experience was personal, before I'd really heard of him (it wasn't until a month ago that I even knew he used to work for TSR; I remember TSR primarily as the people who published a bunch of novels my dad owned). I can't speak for anyone else, but I came in untainted and walked out bitter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there some list of expectations for a playtest? Like "Here's what's going to happen, here's what's not going to happen?"
It seems to me that some people expected to receive some kind of feedback on their feedback - either reasons for not taking it on board or some statement that a not-yet-revealed change was going to render the critique moot. Perhaps some of the angst arose from a mismatch of expectations between the design team and the participants.
Is there some list of expectations for a playtest? Like "Here's what's going to happen, here's what's not going to happen?"
It seems to me that some people expected to receive some kind of feedback on their feedback - either reasons for not taking it on board or some statement that a not-yet-revealed change was going to render the critique moot. Perhaps some of the angst arose from a mismatch of expectations between the design team and the participants.
I never thought of that before, but yes I think you're onto something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there some list of expectations for a playtest? Like "Here's what's going to happen, here's what's not going to happen?"
It seems to me that some people expected to receive some kind of feedback on their feedback - either reasons for not taking it on board or some statement that a not-yet-revealed change was going to render the critique moot. Perhaps some of the angst arose from a mismatch of expectations between the design team and the participants.
Well I heard that Paizo was very receptive to feedback and discussion. That was one of the big appeals to join the Pathfinder community as an outsider. The open playtests, etc.
The Brawler discussion was not indicative of that. It was a grudging change to get Brawler Strike extraordinary as it should have been for the getgo on a 99.9% mundane class. It was an uphill push to show that Awesome Blow as a capstone was worthless despite the vast amount of evidence. Discussions on how to get a more flavorful ability than Brawler Strike was rebuffed on the basis of Brawler Strike being "Okay" and being good "enough" for the purpose of getting through DR despite being an obviously rewritten Ki Strike and devoid of flavor.
As for the Slayer, it wasn't much of discussion. 13 posts by SKR discussing the Slayer. Much of the thread was just trying to brainstorm talents and comparisons to the Ranger. The comparisons generally resulted in the Ranger being still stronger overall due to having a free animal companion and spells. The general consensus was that the Slayer should be more effective than the Ranger at general combat and possibly skillwise as well but it was only marginally so and only if the Ranger isn't fighting it's favored enemies. Thematically, the Slayer could use some umph with a neat ability. I'm hoping everything comes out nicely in the final product though. TLDR; There wasn't much developer input on the Slayer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there some list of expectations for a playtest? Like "Here's what's going to happen, here's what's not going to happen?"
It seems to me that some people expected to receive some kind of feedback on their feedback - either reasons for not taking it on board or some statement that a not-yet-revealed change was going to render the critique moot. Perhaps some of the angst arose from a mismatch of expectations between the design team and the participants.
Well I heard that Paizo was very receptive to feedback and discussion. That was one of the big appeals to join the Pathfinder community as an outsider. The open playtests, etc.
The Brawler discussion was not indicative of that. It was a grudging change to get Brawler Strike extraordinary as it should have been for the getgo on a 99.9% mundane class. It was an uphill push to show that Awesome Blow as a capstone was worthless despite the vast amount of evidence. Discussions on how to get a more flavorful ability than Brawler Strike was rebuffed on the basis of Brawler Strike being "Okay" and being good "enough" for the purpose of getting through DR despite being an obviously rewritten Ki Strike and devoid of flavor.
As for the Slayer, it wasn't much of discussion. 13 posts by SKR discussing the Slayer. Much of the thread was just trying to brainstorm talents and comparisons to the Ranger. The comparisons generally resulted in the Ranger being still stronger overall due to having a free animal companion and spells. The general consensus was that the Slayer should be more effective than the Ranger at general combat and possibly skillwise as well but it was only marginally so and only if the Ranger isn't fighting it's favored enemies. Thematically, the Slayer could use some umph with a neat ability. I'm hoping everything comes out nicely in the final product though. TLDR; There wasn't much developer input on the Slayer.
This is kind of what I mean. I wonder if the developers thought "Here's some ideas for a class called Slayer we'd like people to go and playtest and report back on how it went." and the participants heard "What do you guys think we should do when designing the class?"
Maybe the response was to devote less energy responding to posts along the lines of: "Class X should have the following feature..." because what they really wanted to hear was how the features they'd described worked out, not whether there was something better.
I'm just speculating, since I dont participate in the playtests. But as someone who only saw the "bleedover" from the playtest to the wider forums, it seems to me that many people thought it was a kind of open design process rather than a playtest. That kind of disappointment could perhaps be managed by a clearly spelt out document listing what sort of input was wanted (and what wasnt).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is kind of what I mean. I wonder if the developers thought "Here's some ideas for a class called Slayer we'd like people to go and playtest and report back on how it went." and the participants heard "What do you guys think we should do when designing the class?"Maybe the response was to devote less energy responding to posts along the lines of: "Class X should have the following feature..." because what they really wanted to hear was how the features they'd described worked out, not whether there was something better.
I'm just speculating, since I dont participate in the playtests. But as someone who only saw the "bleedover" from the playtest to the wider forums, it seems to me that many people thought it was a kind of open design process rather than a playtest. That kind of disappointment could perhaps be managed by a clearly spelt out document listing what sort of input was wanted (and what wasnt).
See you may have had a point here but much of the other threads weren't like those. For the Investigator thread, Stephen took feedback we gave and inputted some of it whilst also explaining why other feedback wouldn't work. The Warpriest was quite the discussion and before revision was very niche and not inclusive to character concepts. This was debated and changed, for many, for the better. Blessings were mentioned as rather pointless and it was mentioned that they'd be taking a look in the final product. The Arcanist was devoid of flavor. This was quite quickly rectified.
A great deal of feedback was replied to in the other threads.
This is kind of what I mean. I wonder if the developers thought "Here's some ideas for a class called Slayer we'd like people to go and playtest and report back on how it went." and the participants heard "What do you guys think we should do when designing the class?"Maybe the response was to devote less energy responding to posts along the lines of: "Class X should have the following feature..." because what they really wanted to hear was how the features they'd described worked out, not whether there was something better.
I'm just speculating, since I dont participate in the playtests. But as someone who only saw the "bleedover" from the playtest to the wider forums, it seems to me that many people thought it was a kind of open design process rather than a playtest. That kind of disappointment could perhaps be managed by a clearly spelt out document listing what sort of input was wanted (and what wasnt).
See you may have had a point here but much of the other threads weren't like those. For the Investigator thread, Stephen took feedback we gave and inputted some of it whilst also explaining why other feedback wouldn't work. The Warpriest was quite the discussion and before revision was very niche and not inclusive to character concepts. This was debated and changed, for many, for the better. Blessings were mentioned as rather pointless and it was mentioned that they'd be taking a look in the final product. The Arcanist was devoid of flavor. This was quite quickly rectified.
A great deal of feedback was replied to in the other threads.
The point of mismatched expectations would still stand I think (if that's indeed what was going on) - even if Stephen then took further input that wasnt asked for into consideration or otherwise responded to feedback beyond what was actually called for. In fact, it could well be worse if there wasnt consistency as to what was expected even amongst the designers - if they responded to different types of feedback, that could easily contribute to confusion.
Basically, I think clarity can't hurt. (Though I have no idea if there was, in fact such a document. Nor if this disjunction was really part of the problem).
The way I remember the Playtest: Sean and Stephen was the most active posters, Jason was more focused on active updating/rewriting ‘his’ classes and not so much on posting.
For me, I think that “Sean’s” classes (Brawler, Hunter and Skald) were the least appealing along with Jason’s first draft of the Shaman, but to be fair I never been a fan of Pets or monks/Brawler type of classes. I hope Sean dropped the idea of giving the hunter Prisice shot as a team work feat, since it won’t be just the pet that will be fighting foes, but I seem to remember Sean saying that he was aware of this problem and he was looking into it.
I didn’t like the Skald’s ragesong, so unless there will be an archetype that swaps ragesong for Inspire courage I probably won’t play the Skald. I surprised the problems with ragesong (casters and others not accepting the ragesong) wasn’t acknowledged more explicitly, but I respect that not all parties will contain casters or stealth characters or others that are forced to turn down the ragesong. Still, I must say that Sean was active in the Skald thread and made some solid changes to the class, even though ragesong wasn't fixed the way I would have liked.
As I wrote in my first post in the thread I think it would be a good idea if next time the Devs tells us what is set in stone so we don’t spend time and energy on stuff that won’t be changed.
Edit:
Over all I Think all Devs did a great job, but we won't know the result until august. So far Arcanist, Swashbuckler, Bloodrager and Warpriest are my favorite classes. Investigator and Shaman also looks appealing. Depending on how Investigator and Shaman turns out these two classes could turn out to join the Bard as my favorite classes along with Arcanist, Swashbuckler and Warpriest. Edit 2: Although the Warpriest can turn out to be either a nerf cleric that is more MAD than the Cleric and less versatile, or lovely new class that is just what I have waited for.
I’m really looking forward to this book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, I think clarity can't hurt. (Though I have no idea if there was, in fact such a document. Nor if this disjunction was really part of the problem)
I'd agree with you on this, Steve, if I hadn't seen consistently during this playtest Developers saying "Hey, we appreciate the creative input, but what would be most helpful to us is actual playtesting feedback. Which they did say, repeatedly, and vocally (most vocally by Sean, which doubtless contributes to the particular vitriol directed his way and the cries of "we weren't listened to! AT ALL!" which have been pointed out as not being true in this thread more than once).
In short, even when the goal of the playtest (please Playtest and let us know!) was made clear, a large (perhaps overwhelmingly) portion of the feedback was theoretical, which wasn't what the developers were looking for, and expectations by the "playtesters" were not being met. But it wasn't a fault of miscommunication by the developers.
So what can you do?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which feeds back into the tiny timeframe because getting actual playtest material from people who can generally only game once a week or so (which I think is the majority of people) over a span of a week per revision is pretty darn hard. Which leaves theorycrafting, which isn't as useless as some people like to pretend it is.
FWIW I ran through a short game with the classes I was talking most about (we had a Swashbuckler made by me, an Investigator, a Brawler, and a...something else. I can't recall what it was), but I'm the minority in that I pretty much have unlimited free time currently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, I think clarity can't hurt. (Though I have no idea if there was, in fact such a document. Nor if this disjunction was really part of the problem)I'd agree with you on this, Steve, if I hadn't seen consistently during this playtest Developers saying "Hey, we appreciate the creative input, but what would be most helpful to us is actual playtesting feedback. Which they did say, repeatedly, and vocally (most vocally by Sean, which doubtless contributes to the particular vitriol directed his way and the cries of "we weren't listened to! AT ALL!" which have been pointed out as not being true in this thread more than once).
In short, even when the goal of the playtest (please Playtest and let us know!) was made clear, a large (perhaps overwhelmingly) portion of the feedback was theoretical, which wasn't what the developers were looking for, and expectations by the "playtesters" were not being met. But it wasn't a fault of miscommunication by the developers.
So what can you do?
As someone who didnt even read the threads, I obviously have no clue. Nonetheless, I'm not really trying to identify whose fault it was so much as suggest something Paizo might like to do next time. If there was a mismatch of expectations, it would be in Paizo's interests to avoid that going forward - irrespective of who said what to whom.
Perhaps a clear, stickied document at the top of each thread outlining timelines, number of passes, which developer is doing what, what kind of feedback is desired, what isnt desired, etcetera would help..
Which feeds back into the tiny timeframe because getting actual playtest material from people who can generally only game once a week or so (which I think is the majority of people) over a span of a week per revision is pretty darn hard. Which leaves theorycrafting, which isn't as useless as some people like to pretend it is.
Yeah the time restriction is unfortunate, viewed in isolation. Unfortunately, it doesnt sound like it's possible to change that without drastically changing lots of other things.
Nonetheless, whether they're interested in theorycrafted feedback in addition to playtest results would be another good thing to make explicit, I'd suggest.
Basically, I think clarity can't hurt. (Though I have no idea if there was, in fact such a document. Nor if this disjunction was really part of the problem)I'd agree with you on this, Steve, if I hadn't seen consistently during this playtest Developers saying "Hey, we appreciate the creative input, but what would be most helpful to us is actual playtesting feedback. Which they did say, repeatedly, and vocally (most vocally by Sean, which doubtless contributes to the particular vitriol directed his way and the cries of "we weren't listened to! AT ALL!" which have been pointed out as not being true in this thread more than once).
In short, even when the goal of the playtest (please Playtest and let us know!) was made clear, a large (perhaps overwhelmingly) portion of the feedback was theoretical, which wasn't what the developers were looking for, and expectations by the "playtesters" were not being met. But it wasn't a fault of miscommunication by the developers.
So what can you do?
I put Arcanist and Brawler through the wringer only to get told that I did the wrong kind of playtest and that they wanted data from facing stock humanoid NPCs outta the CRB, so...
Yeah.
As someone who didnt even read the threads, I obviously have no clue. Nonetheless, I'm not really trying to identify whose fault it was so much as suggest something Paizo might like to do next time.
Understood, and I hope you didn't take that as a criticism, as I understand you didn't participate and thus didn't have any real way of knowing.
From a personal perspective, I just feel there is really only so much pointing out of intent to people you can do before one has to step back and realize that misunderstandings are the fault of the other party, though. It seems to me that the staff did pretty much everything they could to relay their intentions short of putting a big flashing post at the beginning of the sub-forum, and I'm not sure even that would have helped.
Perhaps a clear, stickied document at the top of each thread outlining timelines, number of passes, which developer is doing what, what kind of feedback is desired, what isnt desired, etcetera would help..
They did do this, somewhat, time permitting. The first post or two in each thread outlined changes under consideration and things that weren't included in the playtest document (versions 1 or 2) that they were considering and would like the playtesters to implement and provide feedback on.
Rynjin has a good point about the playtest timing, particularly around that time of year (holiday season). It's a bit of a sticky wicket, for reasons of publishing lead time as Sean and others have pointed out, though.
It seems to me (I'd have to double check), that Pathfinder Society members had a bit more lead time this year as a sort of "perk" to test things out before the general public got into it, which may or may not have helped.
I put Arcanist and Brawler through the wringer only to get told that I did the wrong kind of playtest and that they wanted data from facing stock humanoid NPCs outta the CRB, so...
Yeah.
This is exactly the kind of thing I mean - it cant be anything but annoying for this to happen. It's still going to be annoying if someone then points to an opening post in the thread explaining what they want - but at least you'll be annoyed with yourself for not reading it, rather than whoever told you after the fact.
In short, even when the goal of the playtest (please Playtest and let us know!) was made clear, a large (perhaps overwhelmingly) portion of the feedback was theoretical, which wasn't what the developers were looking for, and expectations by the "playtesters" were not being met. But it wasn't a fault of miscommunication by the developers.
So what can you do?
And the explanation is simple: A) Don't have a playtest over the holidays. B) Some people don’t have the possibility to playtest regardless of when the test is made public.
As someone who didnt even read the threads, I obviously have no clue. Nonetheless, I'm not really trying to identify whose fault it was so much as suggest something Paizo might like to do next time.Understood, and I hope you didn't take that as a criticism, as I understand you didn't participate and thus didn't have any real way of knowing.
Nah. It's pretty hard to annoy me on the internet.
From a personal perspective, I just feel there is really only so much pointing out of intent to people you can do before one has to step back and realize that misunderstandings are the fault of the other party, though. It seems to me that the staff did pretty much everything they could to relay their intentions short of putting a big flashing post at the beginning of the sub-forum, and I'm not sure even that would have helped.
I guess I'm hoping to make some suggestions for next time since it can't hurt (and exhaustively spelling out in advance what they're looking for and how it's going to work might even allow them to design a superior playtest anyway - even if none of the participants ever actually read it!)
I'm not sure there's going to be much consensus looking back at the last playtest to determine whether any ill-feeling was Sean's fault or whether it was someone else's. I've seen quite a few of those conversations and havent yet witnessed a conversion.
And the explanation is simple: A) Don't have a playtest over the holidays. B) Some people don’t have the possibility to playtest regardless of when the test is made public.
B is certainly true, however as I understand it A is unavoidable (when it comes to a book which is to release at GenCon).
Basically, I think clarity can't hurt. (Though I have no idea if there was, in fact such a document. Nor if this disjunction was really part of the problem)I'd agree with you on this, Steve, if I hadn't seen consistently during this playtest Developers saying "Hey, we appreciate the creative input, but what would be most helpful to us is actual playtesting feedback. Which they did say, repeatedly, and vocally (most vocally by Sean, which doubtless contributes to the particular vitriol directed his way and the cries of "we weren't listened to! AT ALL!" which have been pointed out as not being true in this thread more than once).
In short, even when the goal of the playtest (please Playtest and let us know!) was made clear, a large (perhaps overwhelmingly) portion of the feedback was theoretical, which wasn't what the developers were looking for, and expectations by the "playtesters" were not being met. But it wasn't a fault of miscommunication by the developers.
So what can you do?
I put Arcanist and Brawler through the wringer only to get told that I did the wrong kind of playtest and that they wanted data from facing stock humanoid NPCs outta the CRB, so...
Yeah.
Wait a second..... I think I remember where I know you from!
Were you the guy who made 10 encounters and had each new class go solo against those encounters in order to test for meaningful contribution? Then found that the Arcanist solo'd each encounter (something that no class should do) and that the Brawler couldn't make a meaningful contribution to any of the encounters?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious what you expect a professional game designer to do when someone posts a message like this...
Ok here is what I know he did, but it's not a comprehensive list. Proof is on these boards, just hard to find. There are screenshots too.
-Killed the Monk class
-Treated a lot of play testers badly in the play test
-Made a lot of very bad feats and class abilities
-Played a huge part in why Crossbows are so bad
-Helped nerf martial characters a lot
... which is a blatant mischaracterization at best (#2), or based on pure speculation (#3, because he has no idea which feats and class abilities I wrote for the game and therefore doesn't know which of the "bad" ones are "mine"), or outright lies (#1, #4, #5).
And yet this same person said the following in the 1st and second hunter playtest threads:
H1 link: Needs more static buffs to the animal companion through leveling.
H1 link: Animal focus is really bad in almost every case. Instead replace it with something that actually focuses on animals. 1. Similar to summoner let this class be the "pet class" and give it the ranger spell list, not the Druid list. 2. Keep the teamwork feat thing, but add good teamwork feats. 3. Give the hunter better weapon proficiencies and better ability to support the companion in combat.
H2 link: I really like the direction! Though I must know. Is there a possibility you'll allow a second animal aspect to be put on the companion? Possibly something like its BAB counts as its level while attacking only? Either one of these options would really cement the place a Hunter holds in this game as opposed to a Ranger or Druid.
So apparently I not only "killed" monks, martial characters, and crossbows (even though I didn't write the monk, fighter, rogue, or crossbow rules for 3E or PF), but I completely ignored playtester feedback and treated hunter playtesters badly (even though the class ended up with almost all of what the quoted person wanted).
Yes, I made people fight for the changes they wanted. That's because the playtest wasn't design-by-committee, and the playtesters had to have a logical explanation or proof to convince me that X needed to be changed, because I couldn't let a few argumentative people push changes in a class that would be played by 10,000 people. Especially when the design team has to deal with players who try to twist published rules to the most abusable interpretation. In the end, all the ACG classes turned out better because of the playtest--you'll see in August. Yet somehow I'm still the bad guy for forcing everyone to think about all the details and justify why they think a change should be made (instead of me just being a pushover and adding whatever anyone suggested). And because I disagreed with them, or didn't accept "because I said so" as an argument, or because I got tired of people refusing to playtest and insisting I didn't know what I was doing, some people think it's fine to say rude things about me and post lies about me. Stay classy!
And the explanation is simple: A) Don't have a playtest over the holidays. B) Some people don’t have the possibility to playtest regardless of when the test is made public.B is certainly true, however as I understand it A is a unavoidable (when it comes to a book which is to release at GenCon).
No it is not unavoidable. Planing is the key.
If the responses from Paizo on feedback is A) It is not possible and B) it is not fair, "Well then [to quote blues Brothers], I guess you're really up S**t Creek".
stuff
Don't focus on jerks, focus on those people that like you.
Most of us (I think) do like you.Stay classy!
As I recall from the mythic play test, PbPs served me well in getting useful data for the devs. I remember more than a few folks let me know they were watching the PbPs and I am certain the devs looked in once or twice.
The same kind of responses and such happened then with theorycrafters and it was frustrating on my end when trying to provide actual playtime feedback.
I wonder if it would be possible or helpful it there were a stable of PbP GMs for these play tests in the future?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I put Arcanist and Brawler through the wringer only to get told that I did the wrong kind of playtest and that they wanted data from facing stock humanoid NPCs outta the CRB, so...Wait a second..... I think I remember where I know you from!
Were you the guy who made 10 encounters and had each new class go solo against those encounters in order to test for meaningful contribution? Then found that the Arcanist solo'd each encounter (something that no class should do) and that the Brawler couldn't make a meaningful contribution to any of the encounters?
Yeah, funny how a solo brawler couldn't handle Prince's playtest encounters against 16 level-draining monsters, four flying opponents, or CR-appropriate monsters with DR 10/good or DR 10/adamantine (which is DR the revised brawler can't overcome). Yeah, that's Paizo's fault for not being clear about what kind of playtest you should run...
No it is not unavoidable. Planing is the key.And the explanation is simple: A) Don't have a playtest over the holidays. B) Some people don’t have the possibility to playtest regardless of when the test is made public.B is certainly true, however as I understand it A is a unavoidable (when it comes to a book which is to release at GenCon).
Are you really in a position to know that? Paizo are pretty good at churning out tons of material each year and still miss the odd scheduled release. If they tell me it can't be done any differently (without requiring significant compromise elsewhere behind the scenes) I'm going to need pretty good evidence to disagree with them.
I'd need to know how much of the designers' work time is taken up on the APs, the other two hardbacks, the modules, campaign setting the RPG superstar competition, their involvement with PFS and I'd need to know the timelines for all of those products. I'd need to know how the designers' time has to mesh with the other staff, the workflow of the editors and developers plus the "crunch times" of year where everyone is flat out, or the quiet times when many are on leave. Even with all that information, I'd still probably screw it up (Jessica Price must have one of the hardest jobs at Paizo, in my view).
Yeah, funny how a solo brawler couldn't handle Prince's playtest encounters against 16 level-draining monsters, four flying opponents, or CR-appropriate monsters with DR 10/good or DR 10/adamantine (which is DR the revised brawler can't overcome). Yeah, that's Paizo's fault for not being clear about what kind of playtest you should run...I put Arcanist and Brawler through the wringer only to get told that I did the wrong kind of playtest and that they wanted data from facing stock humanoid NPCs outta the CRB, so...Wait a second..... I think I remember where I know you from!
Were you the guy who made 10 encounters and had each new class go solo against those encounters in order to test for meaningful contribution? Then found that the Arcanist solo'd each encounter (something that no class should do) and that the Brawler couldn't make a meaningful contribution to any of the encounters?
Yet the Arcanist soloed them all.
Also in case you forgot, his intent was to see if a class could produce "meaningful contribution" not to have them be victorious.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I put Arcanist and Brawler through the wringer only to get told that I did the wrong kind of playtest and that they wanted data from facing stock humanoid NPCs outta the CRB, so...
Yeah.
Wait a second..... I think I remember where I know you from!
Were you the guy who made 10 encounters and had each new class go solo against those encounters in order to test for meaningful contribution? Then found that the Arcanist solo'd each encounter (something that no class should do) and that the Brawler couldn't make a meaningful contribution to any of the encounters?
Not quite. When I playtest classes my go-to is a series of combat encounters at level 11. This is for several reasons:
- Levels 1-6 are generally balanced, but problems can be hard to detect in 6-10. Personal experience suggests to me that 11 is about when most builds hit their solid stride and is still within the range of 3 - 15 that many campaigns fall into.
- I don't have anyone to come up with non-combat encounters for me and I don't feel comfortable attempting to run a class through a non-com I designed myself because I feel I would be unavoidably biased.
- 11 holds a good spread of classical enemies that I can throw in numbers, singly, or as pairs.
So in this case, I tested with Arcanist and Brawler. Both characters were built as generic 'adventurers' attempting to be prepared for anything they might come across; though I knew the contents of the encounters, the characters were prepped as though they did not. Both were human, just for my own convenience, with full normal WBL and standard point buy. The set of encounters get run twice - once with the ability to refresh hit points, spells, and dailies between each, and once as a gauntlet of soul-wrenching terror.
The five encounters I default to are:
- Four erinyes, fought in the cathedral they have just desecrated
- Sixteen vampire spawn in a twisting crypt complex, attacking in waves of four
- One stone golem, battled in the alchemical laboratory it's guarding
- One hezrou, confronted in the ruins of the burning village it has just sacked
- One mature adult white dragon (CR 11 exactly), confronted in its lair.
Surprise is not granted to the monsters, but it might be granted to the PCs if they have the right skills/prep/items. The idea is not to defeat all or even most of the encounters - each one is a CR-appropriate encounter for 4 people, after all, and should in theory be a hell of a fight for a single person, one they're lucky to walk away from. What I'm looking to measure is how well the class adapts to the challenges in each encounter, how much of their resources it takes for them to do so (and how permanent those resources are) and how well they deal with the parts of the encounters that aren't the monster, like the simmering potions in the alchemy lab or the varied terrain in the dragon lair.
Arcanist casterlaughed his way through all 10 fights, finding difficulty only with the dragon - to solo it he spent about 45% of his daily resources, including consumables. The other four encounters barely scratched 10%.
The Brawler, on the other hand, struggled mightily. He got outmaneuvered by the she-devils (not to mention the illusions), out-fought by the golem, outsmarted by the hezrou, overwhelmed by the spawn, and then dragon'd right in the face with little to no recourse for doing absolutely anything about almost any of it, even when he started trying to use the terrain.
Sean's response was that the tests were unreasonable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I made people fight for the changes they wanted.
@_@
SKR you make me feel so weird about you. On one hand the Brawler thread made me quite frustrated but if this was your intention from the getgo then I don't know if I should hate or respect you or probably both.
On one hand, we just didn't have alot of time to do actual playtesting. It's a bit of work to corral folks together to do a module. I managed to get three and a half games in before the playtest was over but I wasn't able to get a Brawler in play despite my interest in it but I feel like some of the problems were rather obvious without needing playtesting. In any event, I hope that clustered shots mechanic for the Brawler's flurry was looked at because it was probably the most interesting mechanic to come out of the Brawler thread.
In defense of Prince's playtest, A Paladin or even a Barbarian has a solid shot at tackling those challenges and more than contributes in those scenarios. I feel like a character shouldn't be invalidated by somewhat common enemy attributes like flying foes or even negative levels(To a degree). I'll also say that getting outfought by the Golem was rather silly considering the Brawler is supposed to be a frontliner. Again, I know it may seem a bit ridiculous of a test but consider it in parts. The general points Prince was trying to make was that,
1. The Brawler has poor defenses
2. The Brawler lost in an all out brawl with a Golem, a fight most other frontliners can handle if not the others.
3. The Brawler has no ranged option(Can't even chuck something effectively)
These are valid points to make I feel.
On one hand, we just didn't have alot of time to do actual playtesting.
I totally get that. The playtest started later than it was supposed to, for various reasons I can't go into. But it was late, and we know it was late. And then we added round 2, because it needed a round 2. I'm sure this playtest taught Paizo several important things about running a playtest, including "don't have such a big playtest document," "get the playtest document done on time," and "plan for delays."
In defense of Prince's playtest, A Paladin or even a Barbarian has a solid shot at tackling those challenges and more than contributes in those scenarios.
And the problems he discovered were also discovered by other playtests that didn't involved absurd situations, and changes were made. Is "can this class solo 100 kobolds" a realistic test if the game tells you that "a combat 100 opponents" is something you shouldn't do?
1. The Brawler has poor defenses
You'll have to see what the final brawler looks like (as will I, as I left Paizo before the book went to print, so there may have been some last minute changes after the developed version I sent over to editing), but I think the brawler playtest has created a class that has reasonable defenses for a melee-oriented character who is somewhat limited to light armor, and that's not even considering using martial maneuvers to nab some more defensive feats in a pinch.
2. The Brawler lost in an all out brawl with a Golem, a fight most other frontliners can handle if not the others.
See above (mind you, PoK's playtest didn't mention if the brawler had an adamantine close weapon it could use as a backup against the golem, which is what a fighter or barbarian would do to overcome DR).
3. The Brawler has no ranged option(Can't even chuck something effectively)
The revised brawlers are proficient in simple weapons (which includes the crossbow and throwable weapons) and hand axes (which can be thrown), and can use martial maneuvers to gain prof in any other weapon, including martial or exotic thrown and ranged weapons. PoK's playtest notes describes the brawler trying to climb up to the rafters to engage the flying erinyes instead of using ranged attacks against them. "Lack of ranged options" is not an issue because the class does have ranged options (its primary focus is melee, but it can use its class abilities to shore up a ranged offense if it needs to). An 11th-level brawler who doesn't carry a crossbow with some specialized bolts just in case is guilty of poor planning.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So.... the Brawler is a class you have to spend lots of money on to handle it's crippling weaknesses?
Man! You can really tell it truly is a child of the Monk and Fighter!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you really in a position to know that?No it is not unavoidable. Planing is the key.And the explanation is simple: A) Don't have a playtest over the holidays. B) Some people don’t have the possibility to playtest regardless of when the test is made public.B is certainly true, however as I understand it A is a unavoidable (when it comes to a book which is to release at GenCon).
APG playtest Nov 13 2009 - Jan 31 2010. 3 rounds. 2.5 months for 6 classes.
UM Magus playtest Sept 20 2010 - December 20 2010. 2 Rounds. Comments were open for about 4 weeks of that time. 1 class.
UM Words of Power playtest Nov 22 2010 - Dec 6 2010. 2 weeks over a holiday. 1 sub-system.
UC playtest Jan 24 2011 - April 1 2011. 2 Rounds. About 5 weeks of open comments. 3 classes.
ARG playtest Oct 4 2011 - Oct 17 2011. 1 Round. 2 weeks. 1 sub-system.
MA playtest Nov 14 2012 - ???? (Somewhere between Dec 21 2012 and Mar 25 2013)
-----------------
The playtest schedules of the past would indicate that it is possible to have them at varying times. That may no longer be true, but at some point in the past planning made it possible.
Yet the Arcanist soloed them all.
By flying invisibly past them and using one or two spells that any sorcerer or wizard could have also used.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet the Arcanist soloed them all.By flying invisibly past them and using one or two spells that any sorcerer or wizard could have also used.
But remember, there's no such thing as caster-martial disparity.
Yet the Arcanist soloed them all.By flying invisibly past them and using one or two spells that any sorcerer or wizard could have also used.
Which...doesn't really matter, because sorcerer and wizard weren't being measured. Arcanist was, and Arcanist performed far, far above par. The 'best of both worlds' metamagic was a great help in adapting on the fly to the two Outsider encounters, since he didn't bother having any specific spells prepped to deal with them (he did burn his one just-in-case scroll of banishment on the Hezrou).
But remember, there's no such thing as caster-martial disparity.
Which didn't have much to do with this playtest, although some posters seemed to wish it was their chance to rewrite those apparent disparities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
APG playtest Nov 13 2009 - Jan 31 2010. 3 rounds. 2.5 months for 6 classes.
UM Magus playtest Sept 20 2010 - December 20 2010. 2 Rounds. Comments were open for about 4 weeks of that time. 1 class.
UM Words of Power playtest Nov 22 2010 - Dec 6 2010. 2 weeks over a holiday. 1 sub-system.
UC playtest Jan 24 2011 - April 1 2011. 2 Rounds. About 5 weeks of open comments. 3 classes.
ARG playtest Oct 4 2011 - Oct 17 2011. 1 Round. 2 weeks. 1 sub-system.
MA playtest Nov 14 2012 - ???? (Somewhere between Dec 21 2012 and Mar 25 2013)
Those weren't all gencon releases were they? I suspect that would be relevant.
The playtest schedules of the past would indicate that it is possible to have them at varying times. That may no longer be true, but at some point in the past planning made it possible.
Or things are different now, or theres now a much bigger product release schedule, or there were problems back then that have been resolved or...any number of alternatives beyond planning. Maybe some disaster happened behind the scenes with this one and the holidays was the only time it could be run.
The fact is, paizo have said it wasnt possible to avoid the timing issues with this playtest and they also have access to the past schedules.
Maybe they're wrong, or maybe not. Who's in the best position to tell?
Yes, I made people fight for the changes they wanted. That's because the playtest wasn't design-by-committee, and the playtesters had to have a logical explanation or proof to convince me that X needed to be changed, because I couldn't let a few argumentative people push changes in a class that would be played by 10,000 people. Especially when the design team has to deal with players who try to twist published rules to the most abusable interpretation. In the end, all the ACG classes turned out better because of the playtest--you'll see in August. Yet somehow I'm still the bad guy for forcing everyone to think about all the details and justify why they think a change should be made (instead of me just being a pushover and adding whatever anyone suggested). And because I disagreed with them, or didn't accept "because I said so" as an argument, or because I got tired of people refusing to playtest and insisting I didn't know what I was doing, some people think it's fine to say rude things about me and post lies about me. Stay classy
This.