How are people supposed to "talk" to Paizo exactly?


Paizo General Discussion

101 to 150 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

i don't like it when everyone yells and snarks at each other :(


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
There is still a FAQd thread in the queue about the ice tomb hex. The other "answered in FAQ" thread which other posters are talking about is the one that's no longer in the queue (and doesn't need to be, as multiple FAQd threads for the same topic are redundant, and they'll all be cleared when the FAQ is answered).

Sean (or someone else in the Design Team) can you adress a procedural question? In Question*'s thread about the Ice Tomb hex, I suggested he break his various queries up into a plethora of posts so that you could answer the "easy ones" first. He pointed out that that could be quite irritating, although ultimately followed my suggestion. Could you confirm that that is or isnt a good way to approach these kinds of queries - where there are several perceived issues?

*:
Someone mentioned it before, but Question's screen-name does make it awkward to write grammatically sensible posts sometimes..

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing needs to be done about the question; it's already in the queue, and it's understandable.

However, it would be nice if some people didn't feel the need to be jerks by posting snarky replies in this thread (in other words, I've removed a post and its replies... observe the most important rule of the Paizo boards).


I love how much the staff answers on the message boards. Thats one of my favorite parts of these boards.

Mr. Brock and Mr Compton has exchanged messages with me on a few occassions. I usually alert them that is not necessary to respond because they are busy, but they usually still do anyway.

I generally have had no reason to communicate with others for my interests, but I am willing to bet a polite answer would be answered thusly.

Although I do admit sometimes answers from staff can seem in appropriate to say to customers. The fact they respond is still something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Some really good stuff

Sean, your post was extensive, detailed, explanatory and awesome.

I’m so gonna miss you.

I hope me and my girlfriend will be able come to the US and visit the Gencon sometime in the next few years. I’d like to meet the excellent people of Paizo, but I also hope we’ll be lucky enough to meet you. It would be an honor.

Sean, you rule! :D


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
XperimentalDM wrote:
The claim that the hex issue was marked as answered in FAQ , but then they were not able to find any such FAQ. Assuming the OP was correct in that statement, how does something like that happen? I can understand someone finding something like that finding it frustrating. Did it happen? If not, can someone find the FAQ on that ability? I don't really care about it one way or the other, but that seems to be the only thing left unaddressed.

Well, one, I don't know which post they're referring to, so I can't see what question was marked as "answered in FAQ," so I have no insight about why the question might have been cleared.

Two, we don't have the ability to track which of us cleared that post by clicking "answered in FAQ," so I don't know who did it and can't ask them.

Three, the likeliest answer is that it was accidentally cleared as "answered in FAQ" instead of "question unclear."

Thank you Sean.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
That was a lot of words that somehow managed to not include an apology for acting abusively and rudely.

As I said previously, you need a break from the keyboard in order to gains fresh perspective. I've read the entire thread, and SKR isn't the one who needs to issue an applology.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
That was a lot of words that somehow managed to not include an apology for acting abusively and rudely.

Cole Oyl: "You owe me an apology."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
*punches the internet*

:'(

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I just spent a while reading through this entire thread, and I have to offer my sincere thanks to Paizo staffers for being so interactive and patient. It's obviously not easy wrestling with this sort of stuff, and I'm grateful for your work.

It is slightly puzzling that you spend this time on this discussion, when in a fraction of the time, you could've just posted, "the ice tomb hex has a range of 60'" and been done with it. However, I assume that this is just because you don't have an answer ready and don't want to make any hasty decisions, and/or there are some behind-the-scenes reasons to keep the hexes unclarified for the moment. No big.

And on the other hand, I also find it slightly puzzling why, after two years, people still keep harping on an issue that has clearly been flagged and brought to the devs' attention multiple times. They're going to answer whenever they're going to, if they're going to. Until then, why not just make up your own answer? It's not like a missing detail on a single ability is going to prevent one from playing the game. Just let it go. Make up your own answer, or cut the ability from the game. The game was plenty playable before the APG came out, I'm going to assume it'll still be playable if you cut out a couple of sentences from the APG. Pressing the issue is clearly not getting you anywhere.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
It is slightly puzzling that you spend this time on this discussion, when in a fraction of the time, you could've just posted, "the ice tomb hex has a range of 60'" and been done with it. However, I assume that this is just because you don't have an answer ready and don't want to make any hasty decisions, and/or there are some behind-the-scenes reasons to keep the hexes unclarified for the moment. No big.

I think you missed this post, or at least its last paragraph.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not condoning the tone or text of the OP, but this guy's frustration is a lot of people's frustration. Could you not simply post a "FAQ: Status Pending List" so everyone knows their topic of interest has not been forgotten, ignored, dismissed, misunderstood, etc.? It seems like that would mollify most people.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I think you missed this post, or at least its last paragraph.

My apologies, Sean. I did in fact miss that part, and I can definitely respect that reason. All my best, and apologies again.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:
I'm not condoning the tone or text of the OP, but this guy's frustration is a lot of people's frustration. Could you not simply post a "FAQ: Status Pending List" so everyone knows their topic of interest has not been forgotten, ignored, dismissed, misunderstood, etc.? It seems like that would mollify most people.

The FAQ is a service that is pretty much organized by Paizo for us as fans. A service that is voluntary on their end. They post things to the FAQ when they have time over and above their regular duties. We as the community have started to take this for advantage and seem to come to expect them to take care of it immediately. This is not how it works though.

We as a community need to learn patience and above all a little thick skin as well. Stop blaming Paizo for not doing something that is a voluntary thing, one that is purely a good thing for us and helps us out. It is not our right to have the FAQ, it is a privilege. While some might be frustrated that their questions and or problems are not getting answered. We are told by Sean at least the one in question is in the hopper so to speak, waiting it's place for discussion among the Staff to put in to the FAQ.

If you are not satisfied with "We will get to it when we have time..." then come to the community and ask it of them and see what they say about it. They might have some advice on the rule question of an interpretation of the rule that you might not have read.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

The Crusader wrote:
I'm not condoning the tone or text of the OP, but this guy's frustration is a lot of people's frustration. Could you not simply post a "FAQ: Status Pending List" so everyone knows their topic of interest has not been forgotten, ignored, dismissed, misunderstood, etc.? It seems like that would mollify most people.

Because all FAQs that haven't been marked as cleared (answered in FAQ, answered in errata, question unclear, no response needed) are "pending."

Or, to look at it another way: when we look at the FAQ queue, one of the things we do is to clear out items that we know have already been answered in the FAQ, already answered in errata, or don't need a reply. Everything else is stuff that will be addressed in time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno... getting angry and frustrated and posting a thread titled roughly, "Paizo get your house in order!" seemed to have worked pretty well...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
I dunno... getting angry and frustrated and posting a thread titled roughly, "Paizo get your house in order!" seemed to have worked pretty well...

It may have elicited an answer or two but it did more harm then it did good. So while you may think it worked, by getting one answer or two and angering a lot of people in the process is considered "worked pretty well" then I feel sad for this community and the way some people think. Very sad indeed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems to have worked better than politely asking for a FAQ on the Ice Tomb hex.

3 years going and still no answer...


Deanoth wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
I'm not condoning the tone or text of the OP, but this guy's frustration is a lot of people's frustration. Could you not simply post a "FAQ: Status Pending List" so everyone knows their topic of interest has not been forgotten, ignored, dismissed, misunderstood, etc.? It seems like that would mollify most people.

The FAQ is a service that is pretty much organized by Paizo for us as fans. A service that is voluntary on their end. They post things to the FAQ when they have time over and above their regular duties. We as the community have started to take this for advantage and seem to come to expect them to take care of it immediately. This is not how it works though.

We as a community need to learn patience and above all a little thick skin as well. Stop blaming Paizo for not doing something that is a voluntary thing, one that is purely a good thing for us and helps us out. It is not our right to have the FAQ, it is a privilege. While some might be frustrated that their questions and or problems are not getting answered. We are told by Sean at least the one in question is in the hopper so to speak, waiting it's place for discussion among the Staff to put in to the FAQ.

If you are not satisfied with "We will get to it when we have time..." then come to the community and ask it of them and see what they say about it. They might have some advice on the rule question of an interpretation of the rule that you might not have read.

Have no doubt, supporting existing product via FAQ and errata is good for Paizo too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wonder whether it will ever be enough though. They publish what? Hundreds of FAQs a year? Dozens at least. Yet there's quite a lot of complaint over the ones left unanswered for a long time. If those were answered, wouldnt the expectation just shift to whichever are unanswered?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I wonder whether it will ever be enough though. They publish what? Hundreds of FAQs a year? Dozens at least. Yet there's quite a lot of complaint over the ones left unanswered for a long time. If those were answered, wouldnt the expectation just shift to whichever are unanswered?

I think that is a major part of some people's underlying concern. Legitimate faq requests stack in to the queue faster than they can be processed out. (This may not be true, but that is the implication that I have gotten about the entire system.) If so, that means that some requests will go "lost" simply due to mathematics. I think what The Crusader is asking about is if there is a way that the community can determine if the request is "lost" or if it has an actual realistic chance of being addressed (rather than a hypothetical, "well, it is still technically in the queue so someday we might answer it, maybe). And I don't think that idea is unreasonable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I certainly agree that it's a problem. I think it's one of perception though.

Whilst I dont think the idea is unreasonable, presumably there is no list of FAQs which have been forgotten, so the list of "pending FAQs" is going to be identical to the list of "unanswered FAQs" - which makes publishing it kind of irrelevant (and a drain on precious FAQ-time).

For my part, I'd like the development team to prioritise FAQ requests for ommitted information (like range, targets, duration, and so forth) over corner cases. I'd also like them to prioritise long-standing FAQ requests. However, I dont want it to become some formula - perhaps a long-standing FAQ is just very complex, very contentious within the design team or has some other issue. Perhaps some recently arrived, corner-case FAQs are more far reaching than some long-standing, specific query.

I'd rather they use their professional judgement as to what's next and what's for later. In other words - I suspect they're already doing exactly what I've suggested.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I certainly agree that it's a problem. I think it's one of perception though.

I really hope you are right. Though the ice tomb hex as a particular case was brought forward as issue when the class was released for playtesting. At some point the benefit of the doubt falls flat and perception becomes reality.

Steve Geddes wrote:


Whilst I dont think the idea is unreasonable, presumably there is no list of FAQs which have been forgotten, so the list of "pending FAQs" is going to be identical to the list of "unanswered FAQs" - which makes publishing it kind of irrelevant (and a drain on precious FAQ-time).

I think you are completely correct on this point. And that's what The Crusader was speaking to. If am wrong and FAQ's do get resolved faster than they accumulate then no big deal. If however I am correct and there is an ever growing queue of legitimate FAQ's then some of them simply won't ever be resolved (again, no dig on Paizo, that's just numbers.) I also understand that it would be very unpopular for Paizo to release a list of "dead" FAQ's, though it might help resolve animosity in the long run. FAQ marked as "Table Variance" or "You're on your own." As I recall that is the default position for any PC's with more than 2 arms for example.

Steve Geddes wrote:


For my part, I'd like the development team to prioritise FAQ requests for ommitted information (like range, targets, duration, and so forth) over corner cases. I'd also like them to prioritise long-standing FAQ requests. However, I dont want it to become some formula - perhaps a long-standing FAQ is just very complex, very contentious within the design team or has some other issue. Perhaps some recently arrived, corner-case FAQs are more far reaching than some long-standing, specific query.

I'd rather they use their professional judgement as to what's next and what's for later. In other words - I suspect they're already doing exactly what I've suggested.

I agree, I feel that things which were missed in an editing/publishing pass should be higher priority. No doubt it is a tricky job to balance all the factors.


It is absolutely one of perception.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because all FAQs that haven't been marked as cleared (answered in FAQ, answered in errata, question unclear, no response needed) are "pending."

Or, to look at it another way: when we look at the FAQ queue, one of the things we do is to clear out items that we know have already been answered in the FAQ, already answered in errata, or don't need a reply. Everything else is stuff that will be addressed in time.

In all fairness, this basically says, "If you never hear from us, it's because we're not ignoring you." Which you have to admit, is a bit of a mixed message.

Maybe an additional tag...? Instead of "Answered in FAQ" or "No response needed," it could be "Under consideration."


The Crusader wrote:


It is absolutely one of perception.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because all FAQs that haven't been marked as cleared (answered in FAQ, answered in errata, question unclear, no response needed) are "pending."

Or, to look at it another way: when we look at the FAQ queue, one of the things we do is to clear out items that we know have already been answered in the FAQ, already answered in errata, or don't need a reply. Everything else is stuff that will be addressed in time.

In all fairness, this basically says, "If you never hear from us, it's because we're not ignoring you." Which you have to admit, is a bit of a mixed message.

Maybe an additional tag...? Instead of "Answered in FAQ" or "No response needed," it could be "Under consideration."

At which point people would be harassing staff for that pending answer... "we want it now" would be the attitude. Others, with a bit more patience would be asking just how much time "under consideration" is. Or do you think the internet is going to be "reasonable" suddenly?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:

It is absolutely one of perception.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because all FAQs that haven't been marked as cleared (answered in FAQ, answered in errata, question unclear, no response needed) are "pending."

Or, to look at it another way: when we look at the FAQ queue, one of the things we do is to clear out items that we know have already been answered in the FAQ, already answered in errata, or don't need a reply. Everything else is stuff that will be addressed in time.

In all fairness, this basically says, "If you never hear from us, it's because we're not ignoring you." Which you have to admit, is a bit of a mixed message.

Maybe an additional tag...? Instead of "Answered in FAQ" or "No response needed," it could be "Under consideration."

The original tag already means "under consideration".


R_Chance wrote:
The Crusader wrote:


It is absolutely one of perception.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because all FAQs that haven't been marked as cleared (answered in FAQ, answered in errata, question unclear, no response needed) are "pending."

Or, to look at it another way: when we look at the FAQ queue, one of the things we do is to clear out items that we know have already been answered in the FAQ, already answered in errata, or don't need a reply. Everything else is stuff that will be addressed in time.

In all fairness, this basically says, "If you never hear from us, it's because we're not ignoring you." Which you have to admit, is a bit of a mixed message.

Maybe an additional tag...? Instead of "Answered in FAQ" or "No response needed," it could be "Under consideration."

At which point people would be harassing staff for that pending answer... "we want it now" would be the attitude. Others, with a bit more patience would be asking just how much time "under consideration" is. Or do you think the internet is going to be "reasonable" suddenly?

That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. Yes, some people are going to be jerks, this is the internet, it's ALWAYS going to be that way. The idea that everyone who was recently asking if Paizo was even aware of the problems with witch hexes would all shift into "Give us our toys now" mode, though, is presumptuous and insulting towards those who behaved well, showed understanding, and followed the rules.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

A t-tex strolls into the room, his stride wide but sedate, stompy, yet gentlemanly. "GOOD SIRS," he booms, his teeth clacking together most ferociously, for which instance he covers them, demurely, with a cloth--lest someone should think he's here to devour the goblins.

"GOOD SIRS. I HAVE STOMPED FORTH FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE JUNGLE, I HAVE STOMPED FORTH PAST HORRORS VAST AND UNKNOWN, PAST THE TRICERATOPS' J-POP BAND, PAST THE KOBOLDS OF TUCKERSTAN, ALL TO COME FORTH, TO PRESENT BEFORE YOU THIS GREATEST OF MESSAGES AND MOST PONDEROUS OF QUERIES."

...says the gentlemanly t-tex. Then he doffs his hat, and adjusts his monocle. He says, "FOR BEHOLD. ...I BRING EVIDENCE OF BELEAGUERED TACOS."

He pauses. Dramatically. Dramatically, of course, to let the gravity of the question take its course. To set the stage. To wait, kindly, for the audience (and for surely an audience it must be) to catch its breath regarding this solemn beleagurement of tacos.

"BELEAGUERED," he then continues in his booming voice, "FOR THE RULES ON PAGE 297, SUBSECTION C AND SUBPARAGRAPH 92 COVER NOT THE ABILITY OF DIGESTION WHEREWITHIN THE PLAYER CHARACTER SITS SO NEATLY ATOP A VOLCANO WHILST BEING BOTHERED BY BEHEMOTH RHINOCERI WEARING NOT A SEVEN-PIECE ARMORY BUT A SIX-POINT-FIVE. THE DIFFERENCE IS ASTRONOMICAL. I PRAY YOU, GOOD SIRS, AND ESPECIALLY MOST APPROPRIATELY THE DEITY SEAN K REYNOLDS..."

"...SAVE THESE TACOS AND MEND THIS INCOMPLETENESS IN THE HOLY BOOK OF RULES MOST HIGH, BEFORE AND LEST OTHER TACOS BE BELEAGUERED INAPPROPRIATELY," says the t-rex, his teeth snapping together politely with a great, breathy sigh, and his voice booming dramatically as he stands there in his three-piece suit.

He bows, then, and takes his leave, having left behind a proper SASE with attached postage.

...that is how you talk with Paizo.

PS I only giggle at the intensity at which we geeks can get to. It is a thing which all of us are prone to doing. Sometimes it does us good to honor the great Pratchett or Monty.

PPS You are all awesome. Let's go play some Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
The Crusader wrote:


It is absolutely one of perception.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because all FAQs that haven't been marked as cleared (answered in FAQ, answered in errata, question unclear, no response needed) are "pending."

Or, to look at it another way: when we look at the FAQ queue, one of the things we do is to clear out items that we know have already been answered in the FAQ, already answered in errata, or don't need a reply. Everything else is stuff that will be addressed in time.

In all fairness, this basically says, "If you never hear from us, it's because we're not ignoring you." Which you have to admit, is a bit of a mixed message.

Maybe an additional tag...? Instead of "Answered in FAQ" or "No response needed," it could be "Under consideration."

At which point people would be harassing staff for that pending answer... "we want it now" would be the attitude. Others, with a bit more patience would be asking just how much time "under consideration" is. Or do you think the internet is going to be "reasonable" suddenly?

I disagree with this. I work in a job where communication is nearly constant. People are constantly calling and shouting across a very noisy workspace. It's a restaurant.

If you call for something, and it is not acknowledged, what are you going to do next? Most likely call for it again, louder. Frustration grows, if you continue to call for the same thing over and over. Waste grows, too. If you don't acknowledge the order you receive, how do you know whether what they're shouting is a repeat or a new order? Problems arise. Problems grow. Frustrations grow. All easily alleviated.

The original "tag" is nothing. We FAQ it, and it sits, being FAQ'd for however long it sits. A simple acknowledgement is at least something in place of nothing. Nothing tends to feel like dismissal.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough... "Because there are internet jerks!" is not a good reason to do or not do anything.


It's been said that once it hits the FAQ-Q, that it's been acknowledged. It's stored digitally and they look it over and decide how and when they will handle said problem. There is no further need to hound them about it.

For PFS play, I can see it being a real issue. For home games just make a ruling and go with it, making changes as necessary. This is a game about using your imagination. We can handle using it. We don't need everything to be perfect. While it would be nice, it's never going to happen.


Well, there's a solution. Just take a day and clear out all the FAQ. That means there's no special deal for the Ice hex or anything else.

Honestly the FAQ slush pile has gotten quite high.

Sovereign Court

The Crusader wrote:

If you call for something, and it is not acknowledged, what are you going to do next? Most likely call for it again, louder. Frustration grows, if you continue to call for the same thing over and over. Waste grows, too. If you don't acknowledge the order you receive, how do you know whether what they're shouting is a repeat or a new order? Problems arise. Problems grow. Frustrations grow. All easily alleviated.

The original "tag" is nothing. We FAQ it, and it sits, being FAQ'd for however long it sits. A simple acknowledgement is at least something in place of nothing. Nothing tends to feel like dismissal.

Actually, you clicking the FAQ button is you calling out for something, the post you FAQed showing another person marked it for FAQ consideration is your confirmation. Just sayin'.

As to the frustration, yeah, for PFS, I could understand it, RAW is Law in that realm. But as it stands it is either unplayable or play it and expect table variation.

For home games, there is no need to get bent out of shape really. Either axe it or house rule it until the errata is in place. According to the OP (though in another thread, I think) it should only take 5 minutes apparently. ;)


zylphryx wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

If you call for something, and it is not acknowledged, what are you going to do next? Most likely call for it again, louder. Frustration grows, if you continue to call for the same thing over and over. Waste grows, too. If you don't acknowledge the order you receive, how do you know whether what they're shouting is a repeat or a new order? Problems arise. Problems grow. Frustrations grow. All easily alleviated.

The original "tag" is nothing. We FAQ it, and it sits, being FAQ'd for however long it sits. A simple acknowledgement is at least something in place of nothing. Nothing tends to feel like dismissal.

Actually, you clicking the FAQ button is you calling out for something, the post you FAQed showing another person marked it for FAQ consideration is your confirmation. Just sayin'.

As to the frustration, yeah, for PFS, I could understand it, RAW is Law in that realm. But as it stands it is either unplayable or play it and expect table variation.

For home games, there is no need to get bent out of shape really. Either axe it or house rule it until the errata is in place. According to the OP (though in another thread, I think) it should only take 5 minutes apparently. ;)

Or less than 3.5 years...


zylphryx wrote:


For home games, there is no need to get bent out of shape really. Either axe it or house rule it until the errata is in place. According to the OP (though in another thread, I think) it should only take 5 minutes apparently. ;)

People can totally do this, but I suppose the still want to get they information the paid for. And I also suppose more than the time it takes for the FAQ/Errata is the feeling of paizo not paying attention to the question that bothers them the most.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
The Crusader wrote:


It is absolutely one of perception.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because all FAQs that haven't been marked as cleared (answered in FAQ, answered in errata, question unclear, no response needed) are "pending."

Or, to look at it another way: when we look at the FAQ queue, one of the things we do is to clear out items that we know have already been answered in the FAQ, already answered in errata, or don't need a reply. Everything else is stuff that will be addressed in time.

In all fairness, this basically says, "If you never hear from us, it's because we're not ignoring you." Which you have to admit, is a bit of a mixed message.

Maybe an additional tag...? Instead of "Answered in FAQ" or "No response needed," it could be "Under consideration."

At which point people would be harassing staff for that pending answer... "we want it now" would be the attitude. Others, with a bit more patience would be asking just how much time "under consideration" is. Or do you think the internet is going to be "reasonable" suddenly?

I disagree with this. I work in a job where communication is nearly constant. People are constantly calling and shouting across a very noisy workspace. It's a restaurant.

If you call for something, and it is not acknowledged, what are you going to do next? Most likely call for it again, louder. Frustration grows, if you continue to call for the same thing over and over. Waste grows, too. If you don't acknowledge the order you receive, how do you know whether what they're shouting is a repeat or a new order? Problems arise. Problems grow. Frustrations grow. All easily alleviated.

The original "tag" is nothing. We FAQ it, and it sits, being FAQ'd for however long it sits. A simple acknowledgement is at least something in place of nothing. Nothing tends to feel like dismissal.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough... "Because there are internet jerks!" is not a good reason to do or not do...

Disclaimer: I don't work at Paizo, so I don't exactly know how their system works. But I've worked with databases, forum management and records before, so I feel like I can guess.

If you had admin access to the forums, you could pull up a list of posts where the FAQ button has been pressed. You would then be able to click the link and read the post doing one of the following:

1) Nothing*
2) Change the tag if the question has already been dealt with in a previous FAQ post

I put a * by the nothing, because that still carries with it certain automatic actions. If you don't change the tag, it stays in the queue. That means if you pull up a report of all the posts with the FAQ button pressed, it's still there, it doesn't go away. That list is the pending list.

This isn't like a restaurant, buying a copy of the book does not entitle you to have any and all questions answered in an official capacity. It is good customer service and community building to answer as many as possible, but they don't make money directly from answering forums posts. They make money by writing and printing books. Making that money then affords them some resources to spend on extra customer service and community building, like answering FAQ posts. Since there are many more FAQ posts than resources to answer them, they have to prioritize, which means some will go unanswered, possibly for years or even forever.

They could hire more people to handle FAQ posts, but that would eat into the money they make from the books, but they don't really make that much money. Paizo hasn't released financials, but the biggest RPG publisher that I've seen release them was Evil Hat, who's owner cleared about $60,000k last year, from a little under $1,000,000 in gross revenue. That's a decent sized business with a pretty small pay check for the top person involved. Hiring additional staff to answer FAQ posts for Paizo would mean either paying all their employees less (making it harder to retain good employees) or raising the prices of their books (which could result in fewer books sold).

You're right, you're not getting a full, constant access pass on the FAQ process. They have explained it and unfortunately we're going to have to live with it. The staff does communicate with us, quite regularly and while the updates would be appreciated, it would mean less time spent on more actionable communication, like actually answering a FAQ.

There isn't going to be a countdown timer on when a post will most likely be answered. It might happen, it might not. It all depends on the priorities that the staff sets, which can change and probably do quite often as questions come to light.

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:
zylphryx wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

If you call for something, and it is not acknowledged, what are you going to do next? Most likely call for it again, louder. Frustration grows, if you continue to call for the same thing over and over. Waste grows, too. If you don't acknowledge the order you receive, how do you know whether what they're shouting is a repeat or a new order? Problems arise. Problems grow. Frustrations grow. All easily alleviated.

The original "tag" is nothing. We FAQ it, and it sits, being FAQ'd for however long it sits. A simple acknowledgement is at least something in place of nothing. Nothing tends to feel like dismissal.

Actually, you clicking the FAQ button is you calling out for something, the post you FAQed showing another person marked it for FAQ consideration is your confirmation. Just sayin'.

As to the frustration, yeah, for PFS, I could understand it, RAW is Law in that realm. But as it stands it is either unplayable or play it and expect table variation.

For home games, there is no need to get bent out of shape really. Either axe it or house rule it until the errata is in place. According to the OP (though in another thread, I think) it should only take 5 minutes apparently. ;)

Or less than 3.5 years...

In all fairness, you would need to change one rule, not every FAQ listed.

That said, could it have been addressed
faster, probably. Is really as big a deal as it has been made into? No, not really.


Irontruth wrote:
<snip>

I understand that there is a difference in customer service at a restaurant and at a publishing company. If you read my post then you should understand that a change in their customer service approach was not mentioned and has nothing to do with what I was saying.

What I am saying, is that there is a need for acknowledgement of the issue. I understand that if they "do nothing" the item stay in the queue. I understood it before this thread. I still understood it when it was explained by SKR. I continue to understand it as it continues to be repeatedly explained by several others since.

I am simply proposing that instead of having "nothing" be the correct response, have "something" be the correct response. Tag it "Under Review" so that people see that the problem was received, understood, and acknowledged. No doubt the same problem will arise on the boards from time to time. But, marking something "Under Review" or "FAQ Pending" will be a lot more palatable and understandable to people than not tagging it at all, or tagging it "No response needed" or "Answered in FAQ" just to clear duplicates from the board. If I understood the OP, that is mostly what started this. His question was inappropriately tagged to clear it, because a similar question from a different thread was already in the queue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
zylphryx wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
zylphryx wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

If you call for something, and it is not acknowledged, what are you going to do next? Most likely call for it again, louder. Frustration grows, if you continue to call for the same thing over and over. Waste grows, too. If you don't acknowledge the order you receive, how do you know whether what they're shouting is a repeat or a new order? Problems arise. Problems grow. Frustrations grow. All easily alleviated.

The original "tag" is nothing. We FAQ it, and it sits, being FAQ'd for however long it sits. A simple acknowledgement is at least something in place of nothing. Nothing tends to feel like dismissal.

Actually, you clicking the FAQ button is you calling out for something, the post you FAQed showing another person marked it for FAQ consideration is your confirmation. Just sayin'.

As to the frustration, yeah, for PFS, I could understand it, RAW is Law in that realm. But as it stands it is either unplayable or play it and expect table variation.

For home games, there is no need to get bent out of shape really. Either axe it or house rule it until the errata is in place. According to the OP (though in another thread, I think) it should only take 5 minutes apparently. ;)

Or less than 3.5 years...

In all fairness, you would need to change one rule, not every FAQ listed.

That said, could it have been addressed
faster, probably. Is really as big a deal as it has been made into? No, not really.

It's not Ice Tomb that's pissing people off, it's the repeated occurrence of this happening. There are many, many FAQs that are real issues in this game that never go answered. Some of them have been around for years (like Ice Tomb) while others will emerge and suddenly cause a huge controversy that could easily be solved by a 5 minute post clarifying something.

I will state that issues like Simulacrum, Planar Binding, Blood Money shenanigans etc. are all not the subject of FAQs, that's where Errata comes in. However, other issues come up, that get lots of attention by the forum, and then never get answered.

It's funny how SKR says they don't want to set a precedent for FAQs getting answered by being rude are disrespectful, yet it's those very threads that are the ones getting answered.

Look at things like Weapon Cords, Armor Spikes, the 'Get Your House in Order' thread, amongst others. Many of the posts in those threads were very rude, very disrespectful and very derogatory. Yet they got the job done.

As much as they don't want to set the precedent, it's too late, it's already been set. As far as I've seen on the forums, the more you violate the Don't Be a Jerk rule, and the more you insult Paizo in a post, the more likely you are to get a response from them.

Human beings are negative by nature, and we like to be involved in and debate negative things. You see a story on the internet about how Such and Such guy did something nice for a Random Person and you respond with, "Aw, that's nice" and scroll on by. You see a post about someone heavily criticizing something and how much they hate it, and you stop to read all the comments, and comment yourself.

If you make a thread praising the ingenuity and cleverness of the Paizo writers, it gets a handful of posts, and a few like and that's the end of the thread.

You make a thread criticizing Paizo and their Design team and you can almost be assured it's going to spawn a multiple page monster of insults, debates and arguments being slung back and forth. Plus, you're almost guaranteed to see a post by one of the Paizo design team themselves.

Look at this thread for example. It has Sean K Reynolds, Stephen Radney-Macfarland, James Sutter and Jason Bulmahn all posting on the very first page.

If Paizo doesn't want to set the precedent of being rude = getting answers, then maybe they should pay more attention to the threads that involve the people being nice. Perhaps they should head off FAQ threads once they start devolving immediately and lock them with a post saying, "This issue is currently under advisement. Thread locked pending further developments." So they don't turn nasty, as they all inevitably do.

As it stands, being nice ends up getting the issues shelved for 3+ years, while being rude gets your answer in the span of a couple months at worst.


The Crusader wrote:
But, marking something "Under Review" or "FAQ Pending" will be a lot more palatable and understandable to people than not tagging it at all, or tagging it "No response needed" or "Answered in FAQ" just to clear duplicates from the board. If I understood the OP, that is mostly what started this. His question was inappropriately tagged to clear it, because a similar question from a different thread was already in the queue.

That to my understanding is big source of confusion. An "Under Review" or "Already asked" or etc tag for duplicate questions would be a good idea.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

you know that moment as a GM, when one of your players asks for something seemingly innocuous, like "hey, is it okay to rule this particular item in this particular fashion?" and you nonchalantly say "yes, sure, why not?"

and then like a month later that seemingly innocuous ruling has turned that player's PC into a world-altering engine of destruction and chaos

this is why I cut the Paizo devs slack on things, because they have to make sure what they rule does not set off a butterfly effect of horror and player tears

also because most people have common sense and the forums are not a good representation of that amongst the playerbase

also, when enough terrible thread personing has been done to actually make Mikaze sad, you definitely need to settle down


Tels wrote:


I will state that issues like Simulacrum, Planar Binding, Blood Money shenanigans etc. are all not the subject of FAQs, that's where Errata comes in.

Actually, I have started a Rule questions thread for Simulacrum and Scry & Fry (Teleport with only Scry to determine location) and will be doing Planar Binding soon. Not to mention Blood Money.

Both of the RQ threads have been getting quite a few postings etc.

But yeah- Note that “Things You Love, That Others Might Not?” Thread has 63 posts , whereas it’s counterpart “Which rules (if any) do you find absurd and / or unnecessary?” has double that. Note that a good number of the posters in that last thread pretty much hate PF in it’s entirety and don’t play the game, despite the fact they post a lot.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Simulacrum, in my opinion, is one of the best spells due to the possibilities for adventures it creates... and one of the worst spells due to the possibilities for player characters it creates! :-)

And here's my personal take on the scry & fry scene for folks to use in their games if they want:

It doesn't work. Scrying allows you to observe a creature, but teleportation requires you know a location. Scrying a creature isn't scrying a location, therefore you can't scry on a creature and then teleport to it.

It's all about semantics, but that's often enough to justify overruling an element of game play that was both never intended to be an option and that tends to lessen the fun of game play overall, in my opinion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
It doesn't work. Scrying allows you to observe a creature, but teleportation requires you know a location. Scrying a creature isn't scrying a location, therefore you can't scry on a creature and then teleport to it.

I seem to recall at least one Paizo adventure that used scry and fry as part of an encounter. :)

Spoiler:
Shackled City, with the mad derro. But I repeat myself....

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Well, there's a solution. Just take a day and clear out all the FAQ.

Honestly, spending just one day to answer all the FAQs would just get you a lot of insufficient answers that would require followup posts to clarify aspects of the answers. Just look at the innocuous answers posted to existing FAQs and how much controversy and clarification that some of them caused... and they were done at the "let's take the time to do it right" pace.

Frex, if there are 100 pending FAQs (and I can't check from home to count them, I'm home today, but I'd estimate there are 100 posts with various numbers of FAQ-flags), spending only 5 minutes on each (which is how long it would take, at minimum, to read the post, agree on an answer, post a new FAQ, post a PDT response to the thread, and clear the post from the FAQ) would be 500 minutes, which is over 8 hours of time. At the bare minimum.

The Crusader wrote:
I am simply proposing that instead of having "nothing" be the correct response, have "something" be the correct response.

Crusader, with all sincerity: I promise you that ALL pending FAQs will be addressed, and either answered or cleared using one of the clearing categories. Spending time to go through the FAQs to mark the ones we've looked at would just take time away from actually answering FAQ questions. In other words, if we're digging around in the FAQ queue, would you rather us be answering questions, or posting informative but useless replies like "we acknowledge this is a question people are interested in answering, and will get to it as soon as possible"?

Tels wrote:
Look at this thread for example. It has Sean K Reynolds, Stephen Radney-Macfarland, James Sutter and Jason Bulmahn all posting on the very first page.

... because we don't like people lying about us and saying we aren't doing our jobs.

Meanwhile, anyone who thinks they can do this job as good as or better than we can should feel free to apply if/when the game designer position is posted.


James Jacobs wrote:

Simulacrum, in my opinion, is one of the best spells due to the possibilities for adventures it creates... and one of the worst spells due to the possibilities for player characters it creates! :-)

And here's my personal take on the scry & fry scene for folks to use in their games if they want:

It doesn't work. Scrying allows you to observe a creature, but teleportation requires you know a location. Scrying a creature isn't scrying a location, therefore you can't scry on a creature and then teleport to it.

It's all about semantics, but that's often enough to justify overruling an element of game play that was both never intended to be an option and that tends to lessen the fun of game play overall, in my opinion.

Excellent James, and thank you. I suspect the line "Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying." is just one of those things copied & pasted over from D20.

Now, given my reply to Sean below, please accept this advice with all humility; this is one FAQ where just deleting that line would be a very very fast fix, and I can't think of why not. Re-writing Simulacrum, OTOH, is not going to be such an easy task.


Lamontius wrote:

you know that moment as a GM, when one of your players asks for something seemingly innocuous, like "hey, is it okay to rule this particular item in this particular fashion?" and you nonchalantly say "yes, sure, why not?"

and then like a month later that seemingly innocuous ruling has turned that player's PC into a world-altering engine of destruction and chaos

this is why I cut the Paizo devs slack on things, because they have to make sure what they rule does not set off a butterfly effect of horror and player tears

also because most people have common sense and the forums are not a good representation of that amongst the playerbase

also, when enough terrible thread personing has been done to actually make Mikaze sad, you definitely need to settle down

To some extent, I can agree. Some ruling can have unforeseen consequences. However, issuing a FAQ that details the range, and duration for Ice Tomb isn't one such ruling.

Making a ruling like allwing Racial SLA's to qualify for Prestige Classes is one such ruling that may have consequences. Or a ruling that allows Alchemists to pass out Extracts of True Strike. Or a ruling that says Monks can't flurry with one weapon.

Sometimes rulings have unforeseen combinations. However, sometimes a FAQ is for a legitimate question that can't be answered because text was missing from the original printing. Such as Ice Tomb. We don't know what the range is, we don't know how long the person stays encased in ice. These are simple things that can be answered without some far reaching consequences unless the answer is outrageous. Like saying the duration is infinite until freed, though I doubt this is the case.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Well, there's a solution. Just take a day and clear out all the FAQ.

Honestly, spending just one day to answer all the FAQs would just get you a lot of insufficient answers that would require followup posts to clarify aspects of the answers. Just look at the innocuous answers posted to existing FAQs and how much controversy and clarification that some of them caused... and they were done at the "let's take the time to do it right" pace.

Frex, if there are 100 pending FAQs (and I can't check from home to count them, I'm home today, but I'd estimate there are 100 posts with various numbers of FAQ-flags), spending only 5 minutes on each (which is how long it would take, at minimum, to read the post, agree on an answer, post a new FAQ, post a PDT response to the thread, and clear the post from the FAQ) would be 500 minutes, which is over 8 hours of time. At the bare minimum.

... because we don't like people lying about us and saying we aren't doing our jobs.

Meanwhile, anyone who thinks they can do this job as good as or better than we can should feel free to...

Sean, thank you for your prompt, courteous and full reply.

1. I had no idea there were that many FAQ pending with 8+ 'clicks", I honestly thought there were under a dozen. I know it'd take at least a hour to answer each of these- on a average. So, if there is 100 pending FAQ, then that's several staff-weeks, which is a lot in your industry. wow. However, maybe you guys could set aside one day a month to clear these out? Some of them have been around for rather a long time, right?

2. No thanks! ;-) Having been a dev I know something that a lot of posters here don't- it's a LOT of freaken very hard work with rather low pay. I always love it when someone who has never published a page in their life comes here and assumes they can do it oh so much better than you professionals. <g>

The satisfaction comes mostly from doing something you love. It's hardly the pay, and the groupies aren't quite what the rock-stars get. ;-)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
It doesn't work. Scrying allows you to observe a creature, but teleportation requires you know a location. Scrying a creature isn't scrying a location, therefore you can't scry on a creature and then teleport to it.

I seem to recall at least one Paizo adventure that used scry and fry as part of an encounter. :)

** spoiler omitted **

Turns out, I can change my mind about a lot of things over the course of a decade in which I also change my level of confidence and self-assurance in the industry. :-)

101 to 150 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / How are people supposed to "talk" to Paizo exactly? All Messageboards