| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we agree for the most part. I do see some exceptions though; particularly when something is part of a trend which is heading in the wrong direction or something is particularly bad. I feel that a pointed reaction in those cases is acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A pointed reaction is fine, so long as the creator isn't accused of some silly, sinister-sounding motive. Just because you (general) can't imagine any other reason for the trend doesn't make it true.
Well, there's posting criticism and there's posting criticism like a jackass. There's a difference.
I disagree. Okay yeah, an asshat is an asshat, but the AVGN isn't being an asshat when he rips into a game. I'm criticized for my writing all the time. Maybe that's a bad example since I don't plan on breaking anonymity but I don't take it as a personal attack either. I personally think that The Room was a craptastic movie.And that may be mean, but only in so far as expressing a negative opinion of something is inherently mean. I think the acting was laughable and I don't mind saying so. It's not a personal attack on the actor even though it is a harsh criticism of his ability to perform. Criticizing a game is no different. Maybe it's just me but feeling offended on behalf of the devs seems silly. Part of letting a product speak for itself is that people will actually speak about it. Sometimes they'll even be honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You wrote an unbalanced rule" is different from "you don't care about balance".
"This new FAQ hurts martials more than casters" is different from "paizo hate martial classes".
Paizo like to hear criticism of their work and very few fans object to it either. It's criticism of the staff that's jerkish.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everytime someone posts a "Paizo hates" thread, James Jacob kill a CG orc tribe.
But seriously, especially from reading the playtests, I think a lot of people don't understand the concept of constructive criticism. I am a research scientists, so a good chunk of my life has been getting criticism (feedback on talks, advisor comments on manuscripts, peer review, etc), as well as giving it. Saying "I think X might be too overvalued/undervalued/difficult to use/niche, and here is something you may want to consider instead" is fine. It's the remarks that say something along the lines of "This is garbage and you should start over from scratch" which are not constructive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everytime someone posts a "Paizo hates" thread, James Jacob kill a CG orc tribe.
But seriously, especially from reading the playtests, I think a lot of people don't understand the concept of constructive criticism. I am a research scientists, so a good chunk of my life has been getting criticism (feedback on talks, advisor comments on manuscripts, peer review, etc), as well as giving it. Saying "I think X might be too overvalued/undervalued/difficult to use/niche, and here is something you may want to consider instead" is fine. It's the remarks that say something along the lines of "This is garbage and you should start over from scratch" which are not constructive.
Just to make sure I understand your point, someone saying, "This was poorly done for reasons A, B, and C. Given those points I see very little of redeemable value. I would suggest taking aspect D and creating an entirely new concept based around it. I also noticed, however, that aspect D had mechanical problems E, F, and G. It would probably be best to work those out before scaling it."
Is that OK? From what I have witnessed on the boards many here would say it is not.
I'm no expert, but to me it seems pointless to suggest creating an entirely new concept.
I usually have a very different opinion from Paizo about what makes a good RPG product. I look at an upcoming Paizo book, and realize that it's fundamentally different from what I think it should be. Should I say so? Of course not. What would be the point? Paizo's not going to throw out all its work and rebuild it from the ground up. They're going to put out the products they want to put out, which is exactly what a gaming company should do.
If you want to suggest a little tweak, do so (politely, of course). If you want a product with a radically different premise, you should do what I do: look to 3PPs. That's what the OGL is for.
I'm no expert, but to me it seems pointless to suggest creating an entirely new concept.
I usually have a very different opinion from Paizo about what makes a good RPG product. I look at an upcoming Paizo book, and realize that it's fundamentally different from what I think it should be. Should I say so? Of course not. What would be the point? Paizo's not going to throw out all its work and rebuild it from the ground up. They're going to put out the products they want to put out, which is exactly what a gaming company should do.
If you want to suggest a little tweak, do so (politely, of course). If you want a product with a radically different premise, you should do what I do: look to 3PPs. That's what the OGL is for.
So criticism is only OK if you disagree a little? If you disagree a bunch then you should keep your mouth shut.
I agree that is the level of acceptable critique the community expects of posters. I have found that even extremely well reasoned and politely phrased critiques that foray too heavily into "this is bad at a fundamental level" receive blowback and vitriol, and are often accused of being jerks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So criticism is only OK if you disagree a little? If you disagree a bunch then you should keep your mouth shut.
I agree that is the level of acceptable critique the community expects of posters. I have found that even extremely well reasoned and politely phrased critiques that foray too heavily into "this is bad at a fundamental level" receive blowback and vitriol, and are often accused of being jerks.
The problem becomes that if someone disagrees a bunch, it seldom stays well reasoned and polite. Or stops once a point has been made -- once someone has repeated themselves over and over, it isn't a criticism, it's harping and badgering.
Look at the Crane Wing debacle to see how quick things can fall apart. Heck, look at most of the "Paizo HATES paladins/monks/martials/etc". There are some polite people on both sides. And there are some people that are in it for the fighting rather than the topic.
Someone with more free time than I have could probably produce a chart with the usual suspects and their positions -- and yes, from what I see the same handful of people tend to migrate to these sorts of "discussions" and contribute to the chaos and anger, and yes, on all sides of the argument.
It's just hard to take any of these threads seriously when they degenerate into the equivalent of "Ben Affleck is Batman! The End is Nigh!"
There are some smart folks with a lot of game knowledge that I find totally unreadable when they get into these threads, simply because they either go into melodramatic hysterics about the issue or they spend it fighting/baiting their arch enemy in the discussion.
So criticism is only OK if you disagree a little? If you disagree a bunch then you should keep your mouth shut.
It's nothing to do with how strongly you disagree. It's to do with the scope of the changes for which you're asking.
As a parable, imagine that you write the first draft of a novel about vampires, and I look it over. If I tell you "This sentence is unclear and should be rephrased" you may want to consider my criticism. If I say "This is not what you should be writing at all. You should throw out the whole novel and start again, this time writing a book about werewolves" are you really going to listen to me?
If you feel that Paizo's "<whatever> Guide" nerfs the class you wanted, and fixing that problem requires a radical change, you may want to look into <3PP>'s "Guide to <an alternative to that class>".
EDIT: And yes, as I think knightnday implied, if you disagree a bunch, you should still keep your comments well reasoned and polite. And once it becomes clear that Paizo - or the community - won't see your point of view, there's no point in fighting over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking particularly about the free action FAQ debacle. The criticism began very well reasoned, along the lines of "certainly this is a mistake because the ramifications of such a ruling would be wide spread and devastating to many aspects of the game." And those were almost immediately met with, "the only reason anyone would have a problem with this is if you are a cheese cheat optimizer min-max badwrongfun having jerk face who's sole goal is to ruin pathfinder for everyone, this FAQ is divinely inspired and the PDT is the direct conduit on earth for the voice of Jesus Christ."
That may sound like hyperbole on my part because it is pretty out there. I can assure you that I purposely left out the worst parts of what I read because no one would believe me if I quoted it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"the only reason anyone would have a problem with this is if you are a cheese cheat optimizer min-max badwrongfun having jerk face who's sole goal is to ruin pathfinder for everyone, this FAQ is divinely inspired and the PDT is the direct conduit on earth for the voice of Jesus Christ."
Yeah, there comes a time to bail out of a thread, and simply discuss house ruling with your gaming group.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Examples of...
Criticism:
"While I applaud the attempt at trying to create the superchef class, the implementation is massively lacking--the class's spatula-slinging abilities scale at an inconsistent rate (at 1st, 3rd, but then 7th, and 18th level?), and the fact that he gets meteor swarm as a spell-like ability at 2nd level is both hugely unbalanced and inappropriate for the class's theme."
Being An Asshat:
"Paizo clearly hates us. We've been wanting a toastmaster class for years, and instead we get this stupid, broken, dumbass chef class. These losers clearly don't care about their customers and hates everyone who plays games."
Hopefully the difference is understood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Examples of...
Criticism:
"While I applaud the attempt at trying to create the superchef class, the implementation is massively lacking--the class's spatula-slinging abilities scale at an inconsistent rate (at 1st, 3rd, but then 7th, and 18th level?), and the fact that he gets meteor swarm as a spell-like ability at 2nd level is both hugely unbalanced and inappropriate for the class's theme."Being An Asshat:
"Paizo clearly hates us. We've been wanting a toastmaster class for years, and instead we get this stupid, broken, dumbass chef class. These losers clearly don't care about their customers and hates everyone who plays games."Hopefully the difference is understood.
In my experience on these boards I would predict both replies to be met with a roughly equal level of blowback and vitriol.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't matter how people reply to it. What matters is you did your best to address the problem like a grownup, rather than attack personal character and this join in with the lowest common denominator on the boards.
("You" of course here is generic, not you personally.)
Yeah, asshaterry can go both ways. Vitriol is still vitriol, whether it's directed at Paizo or at Joe Poster.
I still say that when the conversation gets ugly, you should either stay civil or else bail out.
EDIT: ...which is pretty much what DeathQuaker just said, I think.
There's not enough time to hate when you're having too much fun doing things you love. Hate doesn't exist at Paizo. We love you all!!!
It's a great thing to be able to say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience on these boards I would predict both replies to be met with a roughly equal level of blowback and vitriol.Examples of...
Criticism:
"While I applaud the attempt at trying to create the superchef class, the implementation is massively lacking--the class's spatula-slinging abilities scale at an inconsistent rate (at 1st, 3rd, but then 7th, and 18th level?), and the fact that he gets meteor swarm as a spell-like ability at 2nd level is both hugely unbalanced and inappropriate for the class's theme."Being An Asshat:
"Paizo clearly hates us. We've been wanting a toastmaster class for years, and instead we get this stupid, broken, dumbass chef class. These losers clearly don't care about their customers and hates everyone who plays games."Hopefully the difference is understood.
People who leap to attack anyone critical of the game are also being jerks - paizo have asked for feedback, good and bad and they don't need nor want us to protect their egos.
That doesn't really matter though. It's still wrong to make posts along the lines of "It's a weak option because paizo hates monks" (or whatever).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. As for the negativity versus positivity thing: It is not just toddlers. When trying to encourage or correct your mistakes, telling your brain "don't panic" reminds your brain of panicking, while "stay calm" does not. Using positive reminders and encouragement with yourself at any age will be more effective than negative ones.
2. If everyone followed the rule of post constructive criticism, not hate-speech, then the constructive criticism posts would be fine, and the hate-speech threads might actually get down to the real issue.
People post inappropriately angry threads for a variety of reasons:
A. The ability to control other people helps them feel better about any number of personal problems in their life. -- If people reply civilly and try to respect them as a person, while still offering criticism, they might not need to act out in such as way as often.
B. People are passionate about something, and see different view points as attacks against their own character. -- If people reply civilly, and do not end up attacking the person for either their views or for their expression of those views, the situation can de-escalate much more easily.
C. People post too quickly, letting brief flashes of emotion turn an entire discussion off track. -- Replying civilly gives them the chance to calm down, and does not give them further fuel.
Being An Asshat:
"Paizo clearly hates us. We've been wanting a toastmaster class for years, and instead we get this stupid, broken, dumbass chef class. These losers clearly don't care about their customers and hates everyone who plays games."
Once I see "Paizo hates.." or "This Dev hates..." I then know the poster is just a ignorant jerk. Simple.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once I see "Paizo hates.." or "This Dev hates..." I then know the poster is just a ignorant jerk. Simple.
Being An Asshat:
"Paizo clearly hates us. We've been wanting a toastmaster class for years, and instead we get this stupid, broken, dumbass chef class. These losers clearly don't care about their customers and hates everyone who plays games."
And in fact, that extends to us. When we see a thread with that kind of header, we tend to treat that thread with less interest and respect and attention in house as well, since if it's not being constructive in its header, why would we expect the thread itself to be constructive. Antagonistic threads and messages like that are part and parcel on the internet... but they are also destructive to morale and productivity. I know I've lost hours and days and, likely, even weeks of work due to internet hate directed at Paizo or co-workers or even me. It's hard NOT to let it bother you, but when it does... your work suffers and slows and that's bad for the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost as if that if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to be respectful and take the subject of your discussion seriously.
I remember during one of the playtests, there was a guy who was, quite frankly, downright disrespectful to a lot of people and he had the gall at one point to wonder why no one was taking his opinions seriously. Imagine if you held public office. Would you take the person who was angrily protesting outside your office more seriously than the person who wrote you a polite letter disagreeing with your policies? Same principles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost as if that if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to be respectful and take the subject of your discussion seriously.
I remember during one of the playtests, there was a guy who was, quite frankly, downright disrespectful to a lot of people and he had the gall at one point to wonder why no one was taking his opinions seriously. Imagine if you held public office. Would you take the person who was angrily protesting outside your office more seriously than the person who wrote you a polite letter disagreeing with your policies? Same principles.
Sadly, there are some people who have been taught by bad example that the only way to get attention is to throw a tantrum. There are people who truly do believe the only way to get what they want in the world is by bullying their way through life. Sometimes they succeed on the surface, but seldom satisfyingly or in long term ways.
There are other people who just don't feel heard, and "yell louder" so to speak before their forebrains catch up and realize that's not the way to go about having a discussion. Maybe it would help if we reinforced and thanked others when they're behaving the way we appreciate. Maybe that's weird but... I know the days I get cranky and post stupid things are when I'm not thinking AND I feel like no one cares what I say anyway. A couple times, though, I've received PMs that say, "hey thanks for thing you said in positive way you said it" and it actually makes me think about how I post and I actually work harder to keep posting constructively rather than belligerently... for a little while.
I very much doubt Paizo hates much. Except James Jacobs and clowns, but who can blame him? Those creepy smiles, those freakish balloon animals, there desire to eat small children...
I do think there is a fairly heavy caster bias, though. I dislike that martial classes, even though they regularly abuse the laws of physics (you try swinging two eight pound lumps of steel 4 times each every six seconds and see how long it is before your arms drop off) have to be limited by a very odd version of realism, whereas even partial casters get a 'get out of physics' free card. I'm still dumbfounded by the idea that a high level monk goes to 1d3 damage when he puts a knuckle duster on, whereas it's perfectly OK that he can warp time and space to teleport...and no, I don't want Abundant Step removed.
At the end of the day, it's a niggle, and one of the few things I'd like to see reviewed if there was ever a Pathfinder Version II. But I choose to play Pathfinder, warts and all - if it ever gets too annoying I can equally choose to stop. But I very much doubt Paizo hates me.
Until I puts on the makeup, boys and girls...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said it before: it's alright to criticise the rules. It's alright to criticise the balance. It is absolutely NOT alright to claim that the designers/developers don't know what they're doing. Nor is it alright to ascribe malign motives to the designers/developers.
In the "Ask Jason Bulmahn" thread I got an early question in about whether he's ever designed something and forgotten how it would interact with another rule and thus become hugely broken. No great surprise that his answer was "Yes".
The whole staff at Paizo are trying to do two things: make money, and make their products as good and diverse as they can be. It has certain fundamental limitations, having been built on the 3.x chassis, which has flaws, but that doesn't stop them from trying. Personally, I think they do a great job of balancing the need to publish new material and the desire to make what they create fit well within the framework they have. I could write pages and pages about problems I perceive, and I might be right, but that could equally be my perception being flawed, and I would have absolutely no right whatsoever to claim that Paizo are doing a bad job.
To bastardise a quote: my right to criticise ends when I'm criticising the person or the company, rather than what has been written.