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. :-)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 **
What, you guys are allowed to ...gasp... change your minds?!? "Say it ain't so, Joe"!
;-)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It amazes me that after ever major FAQ or errata that has come out recently, there has been a major crapstorm on the boards about them:
Monk flurry of blows revision.
THF with armor spikes.
Crane style.
Yet, still, it's expected that considering and answering a FAQ should only take a few minutes.
Amazing.
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"?
SKR, with all sincerity: I believe you. I have never believed otherwise.
Maybe the system works in such a way that what I am suggesting doesn't make sense. Consider if you approached your supervisor with an issue. You explain to her that A is incompatible with B, but you need A and B to finish your project. However, she never looks up from her desk. She never speaks a word. She never stops reading the papers on her desk. Never nods, never shrugs, never sighs.
How would you feel when you exited her office? How would you feel the rest of the week?
Now, a week goes by, and you've continued your project the best you can. Your phone buzzes. You pick up and your supervisor says, "Here's how you make A and B work."
This is not a perfect example. For one, I don't think Paizo is being deliberately rude. But, this is sort of how the FAQ system looks from the outside.
All I am suggesting is something to acknowledge that you are aware of the issue and it is queued for resolution. If it's not doable, or if you believe the cost/benefit is too low, that's fine. As long as you understand the issue.
It amazes me that after ever major FAQ or errata that has come out recently, there has been a major crapstorm on the boards about them:
Monk revision.
THF with armor spikes.
Crane style.Yet, still, it's expected that considering and answering a FAQ should only take a few minutes.
Amazing.
It does depend on the FAQ, tho. Some have caused that tornado in the toilet, others have passed with some polite "About time", and others have gone without notice.
But yeah, I can imagine that there is a little wincing as the Staff is about to hit the "post" button. <g>
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what's kind of funny? I wouldn't be surprised if an Ice Tomb hex FAQ gets released in the near future.
The funny thing is, if they do release one, it will just further confirm that being an absolute asshat works in getting questions answered.
If it doesn't get released, if will just further confirm that Paizo doesn't respond to FAQs.
Scylla and Charybdis. There can be no winning here.
<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.
"Nothing" is something though. We just don't see it going on. What you're asking for is a change to the programming of the forums, but this change will most likely complicate things from a database standpoint, not simplify it. While it will present the poster with a warm fuzzy, it won't actually do anything to improve getting an answer. You're asking to spend resources on something that will achieve very little and be mostly meaningless.
Where as, we the customers spending our time to better understand the process and be patient takes zero of Paizo's resources and will actually be a more meaningful change to the process.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the system works in such a way that what I am suggesting doesn't make sense. Consider if you approached your supervisor with an issue. You explain to her that A is incompatible with B, but you need A and B to finish your project. However, she never looks up from her desk. She never speaks a word. She never stops reading the papers on her desk. Never nods, never shrugs, never sighs.
False analogy. An accurate analogy is the supervisor is obviously very busy, tells you she's very busy right now but will get to it as soon as possible, and tells you it's okay if you come up with a solution on your own to this problem.
Meanwhile, there's another employee who walks into her office and says, "Why do we bother talking to her? She never answers us. She never gets anything done. I haven't gotten a response from her in months." All of which are complete lies.Should the supervisor drop whatever she's doing (which involves more important, deadline-driven stuff than the project you're on) to get you what you need? Should she stop whatever she's doing to answer the liar's demands? No and no.
Oh, and this isn't your job. It's a game. And it's not even a critical part of the game, like "how do attack rolls work?," it's an optional hex in an optional class in an optional book. If you can't make a house rule for how ice tomb hex works, don't use it in your game. Nobody is forcing you to use that hex. Nobody is saying, "if you don't complete this encounter in your campaign using a character with this hex, you're fired." It's a game. Make a ruling and move on..
All I am suggesting is something to acknowledge that you are aware of the issue and it is queued for resolution.
And for the third time, even though you've acknowledged the other two times: the fact that it hasn't been cleared from the queue means we are aware of the issue and it is still in the queue for resolution. By definition.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crusader, "Under review" sounds like a good idea until you realize we'd still be having this conversation with different semantics: "Ice Tomb Hex has been marked as 'Under Review' for a year! What gives?"
The nature of the beast is that people can ask rules questions faster than the Design Team can answer them. Because of that simple fact, there can be a long delay between a question being asked and it being answered. If fact, for a non-zero number of questions, they will never be answered, because there will always be new questions filing in on top of them.
The only things that would change that outcome is 1) a reduction in incoming questions, which is unlikely as long as Paizo publishes new rules. (And if Paizo stops publishing new rules, odds are they won't be in shape to answer FAQs either.) Or 2) an increase in FAQ answers, which given the work schedules at Paizo is unlikely. Even if Paizo attempted, for instance, to schedule a once-a-week FAQathon, that meeting is going to be the first thing on the altar when the schedule runs behind. Which is always. (Between GenCon and New Years, they're catching up from the Cons. Between New Years and GenCon, they're trying to get ahead so they can go to GenCon.)
How, then, does marking those questions as 'under review' help anyone?
Form over substance, Ross.
Works every time.
The other question to ask yourselves is this: do you want them to rip off a 5 minute answer or one that they put time into on these things? Me, I'd rather there be conversation and contemplation on the topics than something that is thrown out off the top of their heads.
As Sean said, relax. This isn't life or death and none of these issues should be ruining your games.
I'd like to see an Under Review option if only so we can know the question is clear enough to serve as a solid starting point. I haven't personally gotten involved in these FAQ threads (since I tend to decide for myself and revise if it gets clarified differently), but that's where I would worry about a black hole - I know what I'm asking but my phrasing doesn't get that across.
As for the "Why are they reviewing it for so long", I think that can be addressed partially with different language. Something like "Submission accepted".
Edit: I'm playing devil's advocate and trying to state where there is value in that otherwise meaningless state. I personally am happy with the process and trust that with proper queuing it's possible to make sure that every item will eventually be completed, even if we never clear the list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crusader, "Under review" sounds like a good idea until you realize we'd still be having this conversation with different semantics: "Ice Tomb Hex has been marked as 'Under Review' for a year! What gives?"
The nature of the beast is that people can ask rules questions faster than the Design Team can answer them. Because of that simple fact, there can be a long delay between a question being asked and it being answered. If fact, for a non-zero number of questions, they will never be answered, because there will always be new questions filing in on top of them.
The only things that would change that outcome is 1) a reduction in incoming questions, which is unlikely as long as Paizo publishes new rules. (And if Paizo stops publishing new rules, odds are they won't be in shape to answer FAQs either.) Or 2) an increase in FAQ answers, which given the work schedules at Paizo is unlikely. Even if Paizo attempted, for instance, to schedule a once-a-week FAQathon, that meeting is going to be the first thing on the altar when the schedule runs behind. Which is always. (Between GenCon and New Years, they're catching up from the Cons. Between New Years and GenCon, they're trying to get ahead so they can go to GenCon.)
How, then, does marking those questions as 'under review' help anyone?
Then the helpful thing to customers would be to identify the "non-zero" requests and let the customers know that, "it is highly unlikely we will ever answer this question. Expect table variation in PFS and for your home games you are on your own."
The biggest benefit to this would be for those posters who regularly monitor the rules forum to help folks who come in and ask that question in the future. As is stands, when someone comes in and asks a question that is pending in the FAQs is point to the post and suggest they click. This is highly unsatisfying for both parties.
If a topic was marked as "expect table variation" then this acknowledges that RAW is unclear and lets folks more familiar with the rules base to make suggestions without encountering "your houserule is nice but this is the rules forum" response.
@SKR: Ok, this is obviously ruffling feathers, which is not my intent. I am actually trying to offer constructive ways to address the OP's and others' similar issues, with the apparent - repeat apparent - lack of movement on FAQ's. Like I said earlier, the problem is one of perception. That's where I think it could be corrected.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then the helpful thing to customers would be to identify the "non-zero" requests and let the customers know that, "it is highly unlikely we will ever answer this question. Expect table variation in PFS and for your home games you are on your own."
It is not that these questions are deliberately being ignored.
Let me try another way. Twice a year, Steam does a large sale. (The Holiday Sale and the Summer Sale.) Every year, I buy a bunch of games, because $1 for a well-reviewed Indie game, or $5 for last years Game of the Year that I never bought is a great deal. And I get to feel like I'm supporting the publishers and whatnot.
On the other hand, I'm a grownup now, with a job and a wife and chores and whatnot. I'm also one of those unfortunate people who requires more than 8 hours sleep a day, which essentially makes my day an hour or two shorter than most people's.
On a typical week, I have maybe 5 hours a week to sit and play video games. The result is that I buy games faster than I can play them. I have something like 50 games in my Steam Library that I have never even installed.
But please, tell me, which of those games am I never going to get to? Which ones will I start but not finish? Which ones will I eventually play in a couple years?
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"?
Do not see it as Instead of..., of course people will prefer to see hte problem solved but in the meanwhile it could help a lot that the staff let people know they are working in the issue.
Yes, you are saying you see all the FAQ, but you are saying that here, not in the threads people ask about the FAQ, so I know it but people that will not read this trhead will not know.
Ross, I understand where you are coming from on this. However, no one but you is waiting for you to play those games. If however you were running a review site with 1000's members they might like to know which ones you were planning to review and you would probably do well to figure it out for them.
Then the helpful thing to customers would be to identify the "non-zero" requests and let the customers know that, "it is highly unlikely we will ever answer this question. Expect table variation in PFS and for your home games you are on your own."It is not that these questions are deliberately being ignored.
Let me try another way. Twice a year, Steam does a large sale. (The Holiday Sale and the Summer Sale.) Every year, I buy a bunch of games, because $1 for a well-reviewed Indie game, or $5 for last years Game of the Year that I never bought is a great deal. And I get to feel like I'm supporting the publishers and whatnot.
On the other hand, I'm a grownup now, with a job and a wife and chores and whatnot. I'm also one of those unfortunate people who requires more than 8 hours sleep a day, which essentially makes my day an hour or two shorter than most people's.
On a typical week, I have maybe 5 hours a week to sit and play video games. The result is that I buy games faster than I can play them. I have something like 50 games in my Steam Library that I have never even installed.
But please, tell me, which of those games am I never going to get to? Which ones will I start but not finish? Which ones will I eventually play in a couple years?
Well, there is also the fact that some of those question have been aroung for a very long time.
THe missing range of several witch hexes is older than crane wings, yet crane wings get treated first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@SKR: Ok, this is obviously ruffling feathers, which is not my intent. I am actually trying to offer constructive ways to address the OP's and others' similar issues, with the apparent - repeat apparent - lack of movement on FAQ's. Like I said earlier, the problem is one of perception. That's where I think it could be corrected.
A solution to that problem is to change your perception to match that of the process.
Yes, I acknowledge this. The fact that some questions will go unanswered in an inevitable consequence of questions being answered more slowly than they are being asked.
Well, there is also the fact that some of those question have been aroung for a very long time.
THe missing range of several witch hexes is older than crane wings, yet crane wings get treated first.
Which questions go unanswered is a much more complicated question.
Ross, I understand where you are coming from on this. However, no one but you is waiting for you to play those games. If however you were running a review site with 1000's members they might like to know which ones you were planning to review and you would probably do well to figure it out for them.
And then the people whose pet game (or pet rules question) gets marked as 'Probably Never' go and complain that it's never going to get reviewed/answered.
I fail to see how that is an improvement over the current process.
@SKR: Ok, this is obviously ruffling feathers, which is not my intent. I am actually trying to offer constructive ways to address the OP's and others' similar issues, with the apparent - repeat apparent - lack of movement on FAQ's. Like I said earlier, the problem is one of perception. That's where I think it could be corrected.A solution to that problem is to change your perception to match that of the process.
That's fine. Just be prepared to say that to the next guy in the next thread, and the next guy in the next thread, and the next, and the next, and the next...
Change each persons perceptions, or change the thing being perceived. One seems simpler to me than the other. SKR called mine a false analogy, but I disagree. People don't perceive Paizo being busy. They perceive Paizo not responding to, or acknowledging the FAQ's. I understand that not tagging them leaves them in the queue. But, the mere absence of activity looks the same as inactivity... from outside.
Because you failed to read my previous post.
Marking it that way allows the community to assume some responcibility with helping folks in the rules forum with questions about it.
Also, knowing you will never get to it and not telling people because you are afraid of the backlash is disingenuous at best and [redacted to avoid another flame war] at worst.
But, the mere absence of activity looks the same as inactivity... from outside.
I understand that. My assertion is that a proper labeling wouldn't look much different and would require more work to maintain the overhead. And might result in even more blowback from the people whose questions haven't even been upgraded to 'under consideration'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there is also the fact that some of those question have been aroung for a very long time.
THe missing range of several witch hexes is older than crane wings, yet crane wings get treated first.
And there is the no-win scenario for those answering the question. It isn't just 'throw out an answer on X and people will be happy.' Then it becomes "Why didn't you answer Y or Z or Q or the one I wanted? Why did you answer this way instead of that way or the 123412541 ways we talked about in the ten threads about this?"
It isn't just a fire and forget solution. Not even getting into the work to answer/fix the FAQ (and some of these may not be "real" issues, but more "I don't like how this works, make it work the way I'd like"), then you have the hours of justification and arguing on the boards.
I'd be happy with a rate of 1 per month, myself, of things answered in no certain order. That gives people ample time to hammer things out and gives the board time to boil over about it and then forget it as we move to the next problem.
@SKR: Ok, this is obviously ruffling feathers, which is not my intent. I am actually trying to offer constructive ways to address the OP's and others' similar issues, with the apparent - repeat apparent - lack of movement on FAQ's. Like I said earlier, the problem is one of perception. That's where I think it could be corrected.A solution to that problem is to change your perception to match that of the process.
That's fine. Just be prepared to say that to the next guy in the next thread, and the next guy in the next thread, and the next, and the next, and the next...
Change each persons perceptions, or change the thing being perceived. One seems simpler to me than the other. SKR called mine a false analogy, but I disagree. People don't perceive Paizo being busy. They perceive Paizo not responding to, or acknowledging the FAQ's. I understand that not tagging them leaves them in the queue. But, the mere absence of activity looks the same as inactivity... from outside.
Which people are these?
I, as a people, tend to believe the company is busy making the next books I plan to buy and hammering out APs down the line, preparing for conventions, having the standard day to day challenges that come from running a company and all that jazz. Just because they aren't answering some questions on a thread on the boards doesn't mean they aren't busy. They are prioritizing what is more important at the moment which, usually, isn't answering the FAQ. I'd rather have my books on time than the FAQ answered.
I'm a people and that's my view on it. YMMV.
@SKR: Ok, this is obviously ruffling feathers, which is not my intent. I am actually trying to offer constructive ways to address the OP's and others' similar issues, with the apparent - repeat apparent - lack of movement on FAQ's. Like I said earlier, the problem is one of perception. That's where I think it could be corrected.A solution to that problem is to change your perception to match that of the process.
That's fine. Just be prepared to say that to the next guy in the next thread, and the next guy in the next thread, and the next, and the next, and the next...
Change each persons perceptions, or change the thing being perceived. One seems simpler to me than the other. SKR called mine a false analogy, but I disagree. People don't perceive Paizo being busy. They perceive Paizo not responding to, or acknowledging the FAQ's. I understand that not tagging them leaves them in the queue. But, the mere absence of activity looks the same as inactivity... from outside.
Which people are these?
I, as a people, tend to believe the company is busy making the next books I plan to buy and hammering out APs down the line, preparing for conventions, having the standard day to day challenges that come from running a company and all that jazz. Just because they aren't answering some questions on a thread on the boards doesn't mean they aren't busy. They are prioritizing what is more important at the moment which, usually, isn't answering the FAQ. I'd rather have my books on time than the FAQ answered.
I'm a people and that's my view on it. YMMV.
Perhaps the people, who unlike yourself, have not been around here posting since June of 2008.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine. Just be prepared to say that to the next guy in the next thread, and the next guy in the next thread, and the next, and the next, and the next...
As a counter: you be prepared to explain that to people; I'll be prepared to explain that to people; everyone else here be ready to explain that to people. This is in addition to them being ready.
Here's the thing. I see where you're coming from. I even agree.
The fact of the matter is, though, that the appearance of nothing is better than doing lots of work for little benefit. And make no mistake - any benefits that would be derived from them doing so would be minor long-term gains for significant short-term losses... that would result in long-term losses.
They work. They work a lot. They provide free extra service that is above and beyond what is required for that work, and substantially more than their closest competitor.
People have been exceedingly rude and abusive toward them, demanding, and (in some cases) completely lacking any sort of empathy or understanding. Frankly, I'm really shocked.
For the most part, you've been gracious, The Crusader. But many people have not.
To me, though many will disagree (due to a sense of entitlement), it's our job, as part of a community, to work together to create a cohesive group. Questions we have answers for? We answer them. We assist each other.
Perhaps the people, who unlike yourself, have not been around here posting since June of 2008.
You mean like me? (I'm a n00b, arriving only in 2011!)
The fact is, it's our job to help "newer" (and older!) posters learn and grow. That's what a forum community is - a group of people engaging in discourse (whether verbal, written, or active) for the purpose of mutual support, cooperation, and betterment.
I mean, guys, look: they're busy. We can try to help people understand this. If people refuse to do so, that's a shame.
The Paizo people will respond (and have), and likely will be eaten alive for it by a rabid sub-set of the fan base, because, you know, the Internet.
But what that means is that we educate. We speak. We point to previous answers.
The team does a lot. But what's being requested of them simply isn't feasible.
I covered this in another thread: putting forth the mental focus to deal with something so tightly wound is not easy.
Look at like Jeopardy or Who Wants to be a Millionaire?. I can answer so daggum many of those questions. It's easy! Why can't the contestant? Don't they know that? What's so difficult?!
Q: Am I smarter than the competitor? (A: No.)
So what's going on?
Simple: it's a competitive, highly emotionally charged environment.
Paizo actually has some similarity here. There's no direct, "I answer and get money, fail and lose money" scenario at work, but it's pretty similar. Thus, like any good player of the other game, they take questions they're likely to know and be able to successfully do something about.
In addition to FAQs, Paizo produces a ton of material, has to process large amounts of financial stuff, and blah-blah-blah, it's been covered.
Short version: peoples minds don't work that way, and the more pressure we put on them for specific things the more resistant most people get, not because they're being petulant, but because there's too much stress and their minds are literally blanking out, making the amount of mental work they have to overcome that issue increasingly more difficult, dramatically decreasing production.
"It only takes five minutes" is great when you're at home. It sucks when you've got not just your own games, but everyone else's to try and work with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, the mere absence of activity looks the same as inactivity... from outside.I understand that. My assertion is that a proper labeling wouldn't look much different and would require more work to maintain the overhead. And might result in even more blowback from the people whose questions haven't even been upgraded to 'under consideration'.
I feel you on the perception and process. Let me share my experience which might help explain my comment.
In my line of work, customers (players) request changes (FAQ’s) that I submit to a department (Paizo Devs) for processing. I’m one of thousands submitting hundreds of requests each week—slightly larger scale than Pathfinder I believe.
In the beginning these FAQ’s would be done when they were done (which could take weeks) with no notification to me. Imagine the frustration—my players are asking me for the ruling and I have to say how lazy, err…busy the Dev’s must be –they haven’t updated it and I don’t know when they will. Sometimes I could contact an understanding Dev to get a ruling on the spot, which was nice and really sped up the process…for me and my players, but none of those other poor saps.
Now things have changed…I can’t jump those other FAQ’s no matter that mine is more important than all the others and it still takes weeks to get a response.
But lo and behold! STATUS TRACKER was born!!! All I have to do is submit the name of my player and the tracker tells me when it the FAQ was received and an estimated time as to when it will be processed. Awesome, right? The FAQ I submitted last week shows it should be complete next week. Here’s where it gets fun. I look next week and the tracker shows it will be completed the following week. And so on and so on…much better, huh?
What do you suggest—I know they have it, I know someone will look at it when they get a chance, and I (mostly) know when, except the when keeps getting pushed further and further away.
And if I contact a Dev to ask if anyone is really looking at it…well you know the answer. “We will get to it when we get to it. The FAQ’s are taken in the order they are received. “
Don’t even get me started on the complicated FAQ’s—you know, like Ice Tomb Hex. Those can take months for the Dev’s to review, but the tracker still shows next week and next and next…
My experience matches what Ross said—it wouldn’t really solve your problem—only shift it to looking for a different solution, which is simply for the Devs to answer the FAQ’s already. Others have already pointed out the impracticality to that, therefore my suggestion holds—change your perception and you’ll feel much better about the process.
Perhaps the people, who unlike yourself, have not been around here posting since June of 2008.@SKR: Ok, this is obviously ruffling feathers, which is not my intent. I am actually trying to offer constructive ways to address the OP's and others' similar issues, with the apparent - repeat apparent - lack of movement on FAQ's. Like I said earlier, the problem is one of perception. That's where I think it could be corrected.A solution to that problem is to change your perception to match that of the process.
That's fine. Just be prepared to say that to the next guy in the next thread, and the next guy in the next thread, and the next, and the next, and the next...
Change each persons perceptions, or change the thing being perceived. One seems simpler to me than the other. SKR called mine a false analogy, but I disagree. People don't perceive Paizo being busy. They perceive Paizo not responding to, or acknowledging the FAQ's. I understand that not tagging them leaves them in the queue. But, the mere absence of activity looks the same as inactivity... from outside.
Which people are these?
I, as a people, tend to believe the company is busy making the next books I plan to buy and hammering out APs down the line, preparing for conventions, having the standard day to day challenges that come from running a company and all that jazz. Just because they aren't answering some questions on a thread on the boards doesn't mean they aren't busy. They are prioritizing what is more important at the moment which, usually, isn't answering the FAQ. I'd rather have my books on time than the FAQ answered.
I'm a people and that's my view on it. YMMV.
That is certainly a possibility. But I would think and hope that whether someone has been here five years or five minutes they can look at the sheer amount of product listed in the store and ready to come out in the future and understand that somehow, someway, that represents people being busy. There aren't tiny elves churning out the books while the employees at Paizo play games and frolic.
After the debacle that was the Crane Wing errata/nerf/fix, maybe they all stepped back and are discussing how to not have their faces ripped off and have a better process. But no where in here, in the varied posts by the very people that folks want to do this work, does it appear that they are lazing around and ignoring the FAQS. Sean was very clear that they have dozens of other things on the fire and where priorities lie. Changing the label from one thing to another is a band aid that won't pacify the more vocal posters past a few days, IMO.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is absolutely a question of perception.
In this sort of situation there's always going to be a lot of "hidden cost" involved. This does not mean it feels any less frustrating when we feel our questions aren't given "the nod" or we feel they're ignored. I don't believe this is Paizo's intent. They wouldn't be answering this thread, otherwise.
On the other hand, I (and apparently a number of other posters) do not feel that the issue is as wholly visible from outside Paizo as inside of it. However, I work in similar situations every day and I'm sure there are others here who do as well. :) So let me see if I can shed some light on a part of it.
I saw for example, that a queue question should only take 5 minutes or so to answer. This isn't true. Given how complex Pathfinder is, let's assume that an employee at Paizo is given leeway to research and thoroughly look into a question. This involves reading all of a poster's concerns, and looking into the context. This clearly takes longer than a few minutes. After all, we /want/ them to spend time on our question, and to consider the ramifications.
So allot 1 day to do this.
Now, as we've seen from some threadsplosions, it will take 1 day to 1 week to address replies and explain the decision. After all, a number of people had been concerned...why wouldn't they have questions afterwards?
Yet...it's starting to look like a larger iceburg, isn't it? And, much of that theoretical Paizo employee's time, and need, is driven by the time taken to respond and /communicate/ with individual fans. That is, /we/ are taking up the queue time. Yes, we. If there are 100+ queues, it means that it then takes an average of 2-8 days per question, when the follow-up queries, explanations are included.
We become our own worst enemy to seeing queues resolved.
It would be nice if Paizo could simply "post an answer," wouldn't it? However, people (like the OP) want explanations. They have questions. ...and so, instead of 5 minutes, it takes a day, because the system is complex and we would like our opinions considered. Instead of a day, it takes two to a week because we want to discuss the result.
At minimum for the current queue, then, we're looking at anywhere from 200-800 days of an employee's time, and that is only if we dedicate that person to the current queue...and ignore any questions which come up later.
We demand a community--want one, in fact, and we appreciate the interaction Paizo gives us. We've all seen their staff on this thread, for example. However, what does it cost Paizo to engage with us, to answer official questions which require carefully worded responses?
We can determine a rough cost. Assuming 200-800 days, we're also looking at paying a salary of...okay, assume 40k per year and about 250 business days per year.
...so there is our starting salary, and our average salary cost per question. ...I'm not going to do the math, there. Everyone here is capable of it, and my numbers are rough. Not only that: I'm about to expand on them.
Anyone who's worked in project management, editing, or publication knows that we can NEVER assume "just" salary cost. We must also include:
- Paizo's basic operations cost. That is, the basic cost which it incurs per employee, including share of: electricity, utility, and all general services which Paizo relies on to run. Although this might seem silly to mention, it is absolutely important.
- The cost of removing a team member knowledgeable and with authority enough to consider and respond to these queries. What is the cost to the rest of the team and Paizo's development schedule?
- The cost of the time of project managers, editors, page setters, and publishers involved in re-editing, publishing, and re-preparing published material based on the employee's research.
- The cost incurred by 3PP on receiving the rules updates for the same.
- The overall time investment and the amount it subtracts from the available pool (a pool shared with APs, future releases, and so forth)
Given time and research, we could likely put a number on this and round it out to the "cost per question."
What I am saying is: nothing is as simple as "go erase the one line." Or, "just take 5 minutes and respond." As this thread illustrates, we ourselves require engagement, responses, and thoughtful replies...on top of the research we clearly, and should, expect before an answer is given. Too, we must include the "time cascade effect" is pushing these errata onto editors, publishers, and project managers.
From here, the cost and time cascade well, cascades. Each employee costs a greater amount than just a salary. Each project costs a greater amount than the time given on its sheet.
It is remarkable that Paizo has done what it has accomplished. To clear out the queue more quickly would take more staff and more overhead than they currently possess. It would then involve the delayment of other projects.
This is largely a problem of perception. We see the iceburg, but it's hard to see underneath. Instead, we feel hurt because our questions aren't responded to. We don't receive that handshake when we feel we deserve it--or worse, we feel overlooked.
...and we get really, really upset.
However, at this point, we owe it to ourselves--and before we make our next demands--to understand what the bottom of the iceburg looks like.
I could well imagine, if this does not happen, that someone might demand that one of the Paizo staff be willing to submit a rough work schedule for a day, and ask the forum how they might prioritize...just to illustrate the types of decisions made each day. It may not be a bad idea.
...though on the flip side, if we've gotten to the point where anyone is informing a Paizo employee of /how much time they have/ and /what their priorities should be/...then...
...That's a problem.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I respectfully request that the Ice Tomb hex not receive any faq attention or Errata. As it has been one of the main topics of this thread, giving it attention will only encourage more threads like this one. Something we don't need. I am a DM, I can rule how it works for my players. When I play in someone else's game, I can ask the DM to make a ruling. I'm an adult and can live with whatever decision a DM makes about a mechanic in a game.
Please leave Ice Tomb just like it is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People can totally do this, but I suppose the still want to get they information the paid for.
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.
Some details missing from a hex is what, at best, a tenth of a page in a 200 page book? If the book retails for $30, that's about 15 cents a page, or 1.5 cents for a tenth of a page.
We're making an issue out of two cents? Really? I know times are bad and the economy is horrible but come on. Is a two thousandth part of a $30 book really that big a deal? It's not like a video file where a missing piece will render the entire file unplayable. It's a VERY SMALL DETAIL in the entirety of the book. 99.95% of what you paid for is still there.
Do you also weigh your steaks at the restaurant to make sure there isn't a 0.05% variance from the listed weight?
Would it help if you got a refund for the 1.5 cents?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People can totally do this, but I suppose the still want to get they information the paid for.
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.Some details missing from a hex is what, at best, a tenth of a page in a 200 page book? If the book retails for $30, that's about 15 cents a page, or 1.5 cents for a tenth of a page.
We're making an issue out of two cents? Really? I know times are bad and the economy is horrible but come on. Is a two thousandth part of a $30 book really that big a deal? It's not like a video file where a missing piece will render the entire file unplayable. It's a VERY SMALL DETAIL in the entirety of the book. 99.95% of what you paid for is still there.
Do you also weigh your steaks at the restaurant to make sure there isn't a 0.05% variance from the listed weight?
Would it help if you got a refund for the 1.5 cents?
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People can totally do this, but I suppose the still want to get they information the paid for.
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.Some details missing from a hex is what, at best, a tenth of a page in a 200 page book? If the book retails for $30, that's about 15 cents a page, or 1.5 cents for a tenth of a page.
We're making an issue out of two cents? Really? I know times are bad and the economy is horrible but come on. Is a two thousandth part of a $30 book really that big a deal? It's not like a video file where a missing piece will render the entire file unplayable. It's a VERY SMALL DETAIL in the entirety of the book. 99.95% of what you paid for is still there.
Do you also weigh your steaks at the restaurant to make sure there isn't a 0.05% variance from the listed weight?
Would it help if you got a refund for the 1.5 cents?
If that's how you want to look at it, then I only want to buy about 40 pages of the 256 page book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that's how you want to look at it, then I only want to buy about 40 pages of the 256 page book.People can totally do this, but I suppose the still want to get they information the paid for.
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.Some details missing from a hex is what, at best, a tenth of a page in a 200 page book? If the book retails for $30, that's about 15 cents a page, or 1.5 cents for a tenth of a page.
We're making an issue out of two cents? Really? I know times are bad and the economy is horrible but come on. Is a two thousandth part of a $30 book really that big a deal? It's not like a video file where a missing piece will render the entire file unplayable. It's a VERY SMALL DETAIL in the entirety of the book. 99.95% of what you paid for is still there.
Do you also weigh your steaks at the restaurant to make sure there isn't a 0.05% variance from the listed weight?
Would it help if you got a refund for the 1.5 cents?
Buy the PDF and print off the 40 pages you want- see its doable. Glad to help.
|
|
I have no idea if something like this could work:
Could the FAQ candidates - "good" questions with lots of FAQ flags - be collected into a section viewable by the peanut gallery? That way people could go through a list of questions and flag the ones they care about vice digging through the entirety of the message boards and/or posting a new thread asking a question that has already been asked, and potentially diluting the effectiveness of the FAQ system by having 10 FAQ flags on the ice tomb hex here and ten there and another ten over yonder.
It would show the items on y'all's plate, prevent the perception that there are only 4 or 5 items (so hurry up and do it already) and let people quickly access the list of times that haven't been addressed, that way we can (en shah allah) have fewer instances of repeated "how does this work" questions.
Edit: By "good" questions, I mean question that are clear and concise. This being the internet, I'm sure many questions are asked that don't make sense, or ask too many things in too short a space, or...
Buy the PDF and print off the 40 pages you want- see its doable. Glad to help.If that's how you want to look at it, then I only want to buy about 40 pages of the 256 page book.People can totally do this, but I suppose the still want to get they information the paid for.
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.Some details missing from a hex is what, at best, a tenth of a page in a 200 page book? If the book retails for $30, that's about 15 cents a page, or 1.5 cents for a tenth of a page.
We're making an issue out of two cents? Really? I know times are bad and the economy is horrible but come on. Is a two thousandth part of a $30 book really that big a deal? It's not like a video file where a missing piece will render the entire file unplayable. It's a VERY SMALL DETAIL in the entirety of the book. 99.95% of what you paid for is still there.
Do you also weigh your steaks at the restaurant to make sure there isn't a 0.05% variance from the listed weight?
Would it help if you got a refund for the 1.5 cents?
If you printed those 40 pages in color at your local print shop, plus the $10 for the pdf it would set you back $33.60. That doesn't sound like a great deal.
The point was that you don't buy the book fractionally, so using fractions to express the amount paid for the error is just silly.
People buy a product from a company like Paizo because they have a reputation for putting out solid products. Post-sales product support is also very important. Paizo has a system for handling certain aspects of post-sales product support called the FAQ system. It is not unreasonable for people to expect it to work.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People buy a product from a company like Paizo because they have a reputation for putting out solid products. Post-sales product support is also very important. Paizo has a system for handling certain aspects of post-sales product support called the FAQ system. It is not unreasonable for people to expect it to work.
I think it does work. It just doesn't work as fast as you would like it to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People buy a product from a company like Paizo because they have a reputation for putting out solid products. Post-sales product support is also very important. Paizo has a system for handling certain aspects of post-sales product support called the FAQ system. It is not unreasonable for people to expect it to work.
It does work. It produces results fairly often. SKR linked multiple occasions it has worked just in the past few weeks.
Now we're just quibbling over how much and how often is enough.
If we accept that not all questions will be answered, that there are just too many, than someone one whose pet question goes unanswered will always view the system as not operating sufficiently.
Since there will always be that question and therefore that person, should we declare them the arbiter of when the system is or isn't working?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it does work. It just doesn't work as fast as you would like it to.
People buy a product from a company like Paizo because they have a reputation for putting out solid products. Post-sales product support is also very important. Paizo has a system for handling certain aspects of post-sales product support called the FAQ system. It is not unreasonable for people to expect it to work.
You have no basis to make that determination about my desired haste. My entire point in this thread was to state that the OP has a true reason to lodge complaint. The issue in question has been reported to Paizo during the first playtest of the product. Over 3 years and multiple printings of the product have transpired in the interim.
I will say though that in this case 3+ years does exceed a reasonable waiting time and that the OP had good cause to lodge his complaint about the time which has transpired.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we accept that not all questions will be answered, that there are just too many.
No one from Paizo has as yet said that. In fact, the only Paizo representative that has spoken on that topic sincerly stated that all FAQ's will be answered.
If Paizo was willing to come out and state that there are too many FAQ's to answer then it would go a long way to help diffuse issues like this in the long run. More than a week ago (before any of this blew up) the community would have seen the first posts that Question put out and could have helped. However, he was completely side tracked by the idea that the FAQ could help. When he found the two FAQ's marked "Answered" from 2011 and 2012 is when he began to get upset. What he really wanted answered was where he could find those missing FAQ's. Of course no one could tell him and no one from Paizo would tell him they didn't exist. Which is why he started this thread. He was frustrated that he couldn't get a simple response (not to the question about ice tomb, but to his question about the supposed FAQ for ice tomb) and started to get poked by the community for being belligerent. So he quite appropriately wanted to know "how" to ask paizo for information about their own processes that would (1)get answered and (2)not draw flak.
Granted, he rolled really poorly on his diplomacy. But, if Paizo would have been willing to state that the FAQ system is overloaded beyond capacity or had been willing to come out and say "Hey, we screwed up marking that FAQ as answered." Then this situation could have been avoided.
Some of us would like to help prevent that situation from happening again, because seeing Developers lose their cool and go off on customers doesn't appeal to our sensibilities. (Also, make no mistake, posts have been removed from this and other threads that were not noted with the usual moderator post. Some of those included staff posts.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have no basis to make that determination about my desired haste. My entire point in this thread was to state that the OP has a true reason to lodge complaint. The issue in question has been reported to Paizo during the first playtest of the product. Over 3 years and multiple printings of the product have transpired in the interim.I will say though that in this case 3+ years does exceed a reasonable waiting time and that the OP had good cause to lodge his complaint about the time which has transpired.
You mentioned time scales no less than 5 times over the course of this thread (before this post). I think it is unreasonable for you to claim that someone following the conversation has "no basis to make a determination about [your] desired haste."
My main point, though, was that it is simply wrong - whether by design or mistake - to imply that the FAQ system simply doesn't work. It is working - as Irontruth pointed out - so the only remaining question is time.
You have no basis to make that determination about my desired haste. My entire point in this thread was to state that the OP has a true reason to lodge complaint. The issue in question has been reported to Paizo during the first playtest of the product. Over 3 years and multiple printings of the product have transpired in the interim.I will say though that in this case 3+ years does exceed a reasonable waiting time and that the OP had good cause to lodge his complaint about the time which has transpired.
You mentioned time scales no less than 5 times over the course of this thread (before this post). I think it is unreasonable for you to claim that someone following the conversation has "no basis to make a determination about [your] desired haste."
My main point, though, was that it is simply wrong - whether by design or mistake - to imply that the FAQ system simply doesn't work. It is working - as Irontruth pointed out - so the only remaining question is time.
I agree that 3 years of waiting allows for a customer to complain legitimately about delay. I personally don't care about the FAQ except that it helps me help other posters in the rules forum clarify ambiguities. I DM 100% of the time, I'm not worried about these rulings. That doesn't mean others aren't, and those people are not out of line complaining.
Your assertation about me is incorrect.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point im trying to make is that is a lot of negativity towards Paizo for various things like inappropriate handling for FAQs, and to be honest thats because of actions that Paizo has chosen to take (or not to take). As long as Paizo chooses not to address these issues, negativity towards Paizo will continue to mount with the resulting loss of sales.
Most of the commentary assumes that there is some massive uprising against Paizo because this issue wasn't taken care of as fast as you'd like. There isn't. There are a few vocal people that are going on about it, and a lot of traffic pointing out that it isn't the case.
Incidentally, for someone who doesn't want their posts mistaken for insults and doesn't want to start a fight, insulting the CEO is a good way to not go about that.