Are you suggesting that they don't???
I agree with the OP. For example: I personally suck at solving puzzles, although I do enjoy them most of the time. I can think of two scenarios this season where there has been errors that render the puzzle unsolvable by RAW.
As a GM I have edited these errors and thus have violated RAW. On both these occasions John Compton has been correcting the errors on these broads, which is appreciated. That does not, however, help if you don't have time to go through the boards, shared prep etc. that I tend to do before running scenarios. I might have to jump in at last moment at our annual big con coming up next month and it will hurt my GMing and the players experience if a simple typo is having a negative effect on the scenario's victory condition or similar.
I have liked season 5 for the most part and have a high opinion about PFS in general. But please, hire a 'read-through person' or something akin.
Could someone remind me why these errors are never corrected on the released pdf files?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want less editing! Its slowing the PFS scenarios down. More mistakes more scenarios!
I want less editing! Its slowing the PFS scenarios down. More mistakes more scenarios!
The year of just winging it awaits!
(This would be a joke, mind you.)
I think it's probably a better strategy to identify errors explicitly - that's more use to them since maybe it will identify an error in their processes (maybe they always get swim checks wrong, maybe one specific module or series of modules only got one editing pass instead of two, etcetera). Just saying "there's lots of mistakes" doesn't actually help them identify and then address any issue.
In my experience, it's better to restrict feedback to the problems rather than your speculation as to the causes of them. The assumption in the OP that paizo release scenarios without being edited is, lets face it, almost certainly wrong.
|
Since this appears to be about PFS scenarios specifically, this should be moved to the PFS forum where the PFS folks like John are more likely to see it.This is about PFS, it was posted on the PFS boards and was moved to this forum.
It was? Maybe it got moved because your original post just said "Please ensure that scenarios are edited before they are released ..." without ever actually specifying your were specifically referring to PFS.
Now that it's clear you ARE referring specifically to PFS scenarios, I absolutely think this thread needs moved.
[flagging as 'In Wrong Forum']
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please ensure that scenarios are edited before they are released to the public. You have a staff whose job is to edit scenarios.
A concerned player.
PS I'm trying to post this in a more polite manner after my last post was taken down.
A bit of friendly advice: This is still overboard.
Let me see if I can come up with something a little less... attacking.
Dear Paizo PFS Scenario Editors,
I have noticed a number of errors in Season 5 scenarios for PFS, such as <insert examples here>, which make it harder to play these scenarios. I am aware that errors crop up in any printed work, however the increased number of these errors in recent products raises concerns from me, as a loyal customer, regarding quality moving forward.
I do not expect a response, but wish to make my concerns known.
Thank you for your time.
So far as I am aware, scenarios ARE PFS, modules are the single adventure for general consumption, and adventure paths are long campaigns.
Going strictly by Paizo Product Branding Speak, you're correct, however the terms "scenario", "module", and "adventure" tend to be more interchangeable outside of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
VoBY,
If indeed you are sincerely concerned, I suggest sending a direct message to Paizo with the specifics. Here is the Paizo Contact Us page.
VoBY,
If indeed you are sincerely concerned, I suggest sending a direct message to Paizo with the specifics. Here is the Paizo Contact Us page.
TBH, this.
By posting on the forums (unless you're posting a customer support issue in the appropriate place) you're asking for a discussion with forum members, including those that disagree with you. There's no guarantee anyone at Paizo will even read this thread - if they read everything directed towards them on here they'd never get any work done.
By sending an email to Paizo, you're raising the issue with them directly.
Unless you really need help from other forum members in fixing the issue or feel there's any discussion whatsoever to actually be had about it (which is doubtful if you're making such a statement) , the former is usually done by people who feel it'll be useful to stir up some product criticism from the rest of the masses and use it to make their view popular enough that something will get done about it - and in the majority of instances, doesn't result in a single thing being changed because that's not the kind of pressure a company wants to be seen caving into if they want to go on producing the products they want to produce. It can end up feeling like something of a petition, and nobody in the creative sector tends to be very interested in customer petitions to direct them to do things a certain way.
The latter is usually done by people with some respect for the company they're dealing with.
If posting to the forums, you'd be far better off starting a thread about "Do people run into many issues with PFS Scenarios?", move on to describe the ones you've had, and then discuss it with everyone. That's what forums are for. Anything that starts off "it's broken and needs fixing!!!!" doesn't tend to get anything constructive done and usually just results in flaming back and forth between posters.
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
We do indeed edit our products. We're constantly working to improve our editorial process as well, but keep in mind that we also have to decide when to stop editing and ship it to the printer (or in the case of a PDF product, release it). In some cases, that means deciding whether or not to give something one extra pass and have it miss an important date (like letting folks prepare scenarios for Paizo Con by getting it out BEFORE Paizo Con), or giving it an extra pass and having it come out after it should have... which in 99.999% of cases is a greater error overall than a few typos.
AKA: At a certain point, we look at it as something like "Do we want folks complaining about typos or do we want folks complaining we're sabotaging their Paizo Con games by not getting them the scenario in a timely manner?" It's obviously a difficult choice, since no matter what we do, we get yelled at and disappoint someone. The only sane choice is to make the choice that minimizes disappointment and maximizes enjoyment.
In any event... yes. If you want to let us know to edit more or edit better, it's better to contact us in person via PM or email rather than to post on the boards, because when you post on the boards, you invite discourse from EVERYONE and that, as a general rule, causes more problems than it solves.
So! Be nice to each other! That includes to us at Paizo, and to posters who provide criticism! The internet is a negative enough place already. Let's all work together to keep these boards positive!
HUGS!!!!!!!
It's "you have staff", not "you have a staff". Unless you're implying that Paizo has a magic item that does the editing, which would be awesome.
When a staff is referred to as a singular unit it is referred to as "a staff". I'm pretty sure he could have said it either way, but the fact that you said he was wrong makes you and you alone wrong, and that's what you get for nitpicking.
I am always suspicious of T-Rex hugs.
Ba hahaha
I am always suspicious of T-Rex hugs.
Well there's no way they're using their short little arms so...
"Come on, dear, I can't reach you. Come closer. Closerrrr..."
|
Creative Director
|
Thank you very much for this insight James. I will use the contact us button. Our current plan was to put together a list of errors. If there anything specific we should do with the list of outstanding issues when we're done with it?
In any event... yes. If you want to let us know to edit more or edit better, it's better to contact us in person via PM or email rather than to post on the boards, because when you post on the boards, you invite discourse from EVERYONE and that, as a general rule, causes more problems than it solves.So! Be nice to each other! That includes to us at Paizo, and to posters who provide criticism! The internet is a negative enough place already. Let's all work together to keep these boards positive!
HUGS!!!!!!!
Still assuming the issue is with a PFS scenario, and assuming that the errors completely cripple the scenario and make it unplayable, concerns should be sent to Mike Brock, but keep in mind realistic expectations. We don't normally do a very agressive errata for the scenarios. In the case of significant errors that make a scenario completely unusable, we'll correct things... but if it's something minor like typos or a few stat block math errors, we generally just let those slide.
One thing that lots of folks do is to post errors and possible corrections to the actual product page, though, so other gamers can see the solutions and, as is often the case, troubleshoot and errata check the proposed solutions themselves. That's probably the best bet, assuming they're minor errors that don't impact the usability of the product.
Both solutions are a lot more helpful in the long run than vague "Paizo needs to edit more!" complaints.
Could someone remind me why these errors are never corrected on the released pdf files?
I don't know for sure, but if I was to guess, I'd say it was the layout of all of the other stuff. Once a product is laid out, if an error is found then, it is often ignored due to it not being worth the man-hours to relay everything out.
And what people don't seem to recognize is if they did not ignore it as not being worth the man-hours then they're committing to hiring more men for more man-hours which means you're going to be paying more for your Scenarios/Modules/APs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what people don't seem to recognize is if they did not ignore it as not being worth the man-hours then they're committing to hiring more men for more man-hours which means you're going to be paying more for your Scenarios/Modules/APs.
that doesnt matter. you dont put out an unfinished product and then claim it was to keep the price down. in my line of work, if i failed to calk a window or install some quarter round and claimed it was to keep the price down, i would never get called back. there are no other publishing companies usining this as an excuse, and thats because its no excuse. but, i do find what jacobs said to be somewhat reasonable
Do we have the stats for the staff editing? I can't find them anywhere?
lol, im gonna hold my action to dispel. im pretty happy with the staff, though i agree that a bit more effort/time editing would make me happy
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what people don't seem to recognize is if they did not ignore it as not being worth the man-hours then they're committing to hiring more men for more man-hours which means you're going to be paying more for your Scenarios/Modules/APs.that doesnt matter. you dont put out an unfinished product and then claim it was to keep the price down. in my line of work, if i failed to calk a window or install some quarter round and claimed it was to keep the price down, i would never get called back. there are no other publishing companies usining this as an excuse, and thats because its no excuse. but, i do find what jacobs said to be somewhat reasonable
And this is where I come along and point out we didn't use it as an excuse.
It's more a case of the scenarios HAVE to be out, and that means that they don't have an eternal amount of time for editing and development. We have to get in as many passes as we can before time is up, and then they go live, because if they don't, the fallout and complaints and disaster of not having these scenarios out for Paizo Con vastly exceeds the fallout and complaints about a few editorial errors.
We will, of course, constantly strive to do better, but as a friend of mine said, we try not to "let the perfect become the enemy of the good." One solution would be to halve the number of scenarios we put out in a month, of course; that'd give us lots of time to give those scenarios additional edit and development passes... but I'm positive that cutting the number of scenarios in half would be, shall I say... "poorly received."
One thing we CAN do though is to keep hiring new editors and new developers, and that's something we HAVE been doing. But those changes take time to manifest. A new hire doesn't hit the ground running and ready to fix everything, after all!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am always suspicious of T-Rex hugs.Well there's no way they're using their short little arms so...
T-Rexes hug with their MOUFS!!!!
@JJ I understand there's a deadline, its just that Gullyble Dwarfs comment seemed to excuse it. If every on excused it, it would never get better. I'm happy to hear you guys are taking on more editors:)
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@JJ I understand there's a deadline, its just that Gullyble Dwarfs comment seemed to excuse it. If every on excused it, it would never get better. I'm happy to hear you guys are taking on more editors:)
It does excuse it to a certain extent. Keep in mind that there's a HUGE difference between, say, building a house (which is intended to provide safety and shelter for a person) and building an adventure (which is intended to provide entertainment).
If you mess up building a shelter, there's a chance someone could get hurt. That's not really an issue with an adventure. It's a bit unfair to make that comparison.
Furthermore... if you find an error in a document... keep in mind that there's lots in the document that are NOT errors. There are on average 900 words on a page in a Paizo product. Even if there are 8 words wrong on every page of a book, that's still over a 99% accuracy score for the entire product. Being 99% accurate is pretty dang good at pretty much any and every endeavor... I would have LOVED to have gotten an 99% on any of my finals in college, as an example.
Going back to the housebuilding comparison... a typo here and there might be more akin to something like a drop of paint on a window or a tiny scratch on a floorboard. Enough drops on that window will make it opaque, and enough scratches on a floorboard will make a hole... but a few here and there? You have to expect that level of imperfection in anything created by a human, since humans are, by their nature, imperfect beings.
And try to remember that one person trying to "excuse" something doesn't magically cancel out criticisms. In fact, hearing kind words when presented with criticisms (especially if the criticisms are valid) can be VERY nice. It's demoralizing to put your heart and soul into something and then have the person you made it for say "It's ugly, you should have done a better job." Especially if you know it was ugly, because you didn't have the time to make it prettier because it was a birthday present and today is the birthday. So if someone else says, "They did their best on it, stop picking on them!" keep in mind that to the person who made the present... that helps them bear the criticism better.
Especially if, unknown to you, the person making the gift stayed up all night and got sick as a result of making the gift and had to go to the hospital as a result of that sickness.
AKA: There's more going on at Paizo than deadline pressures. And it's nice to hear nice things.
That's enough of that for now. It's almost 2:00 am and I'm sleepy.
It is pretty unusual for a not fully calked window to endanger anyone's life.
|
|
Being 99% accurate is pretty dang good at pretty much any and every endeavor... I would have LOVED to have gotten an 99% on any of my finals in college, as an example.
While this is not relevant to the situation at hand, there are some endaeavors where 99% is pretty terrible. Consider terrorism detection, for example. The problem isn't so much the 1% of terrorists that get through (though they can be bad), but the HUGE number of false positives that will overwhelm the system and generally make it worthless.
There are also some endeavors where 35% is amazingly good. Consider baseball hitters.... A hitter with a .990 average would be unreal. (Some of them do briefly have a 1.000 average after their first at-bat of the season, though.)
It is pretty unusual for a not fully calked window to endanger anyone's life.Missing the point of my metaphor entirely, of course...
Maybe so, but it was a strange metaphor since nobody in this whole thread suggested that editing was comparable to putting someone's life in danger (well, other than possibly yourself).
The original comparison that was made was more than fair.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being 99% accurate is pretty dang good at pretty much any and every endeavor... I would have LOVED to have gotten an 99% on any of my finals in college, as an example.While this is not relevant to the situation at hand, there are some endaeavors where 99% is pretty terrible. Consider terrorism detection, for example. The problem isn't so much the 1% of terrorists that get through (though they can be bad), but the HUGE number of false positives that will overwhelm the system and generally make it worthless.
There are also some endeavors where 35% is amazingly good. Consider baseball hitters.... A hitter with a .990 average would be unreal. (Some of them do briefly have a 1.000 average after their first at-bat of the season, though.)
I absolutely agree that in some situations a 99% accuracy is unacceptable.
But entertainment products like RPGs? Not in that category at all, and to pretend like they are is kind of insulting and disrespectful and ridiculous.
I love the passion that gamers bring to the industry... but that same passion can be incredibly self destructive. To ANY genre industry. Fans have a lot more power than they realize when it comes to supporting and directing the development of the things they're fans of, and when they don't realize they have that power, they often end up ruining the very things they love.
I will disclaim that I am generally very happy with the quality of product produced by paizo so this statement should not be taken as an argument in that regard, however, the 99% accuracy argument is pretty bad.
Why not take it one step further? Why not say that 8 typos out of 6300 characters is 99.87% accurate, or 8 typos out of 8200 ASCII values is 99.976% accurate? It's a really misleading statistic. A bad typo could affect the meaning of an entire sentence; which is putting you closer to a 91% accuracy rating. A particularly bad typo could not only impact the sentence it is in, but the surrounding one or two on each side. That could potentially put you around 55% accuracy.
That's just typos. Sentences which were otherwise perfect before being typed. So that leaves only errors in grammar, punctuation, syntax, continuity, etc to account for. All of that says nothing of omissions.
So I really feel that the argument could probably be made in a better way. Because I do agree with you, but this isn't particularly convincing.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't realize how good Paizo's products were until I spent 2 years as a judge for the Ennies awards. I had to read through a huge pile of RPG products from a wide range of companies/individuals/authors/etc. Some of it was truly awful and gave me a deep appreciation of how much time and care Paizo puts into their Pathfinder products.
I love the passion that gamers bring to the industry... but that same passion can be incredibly self destructive. To ANY genre industry. Fans have a lot more power than they realize when it comes to supporting and directing the development of the things they're fans of, and when they don't realize they have that power, they often end up ruining the very things they love.
This is so very true of comics, movies, RPGs and so on.
-Skeld
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
dear paizo staff,
Umm, OP, have you even bothered to post a list of these horrible typos and errors?
Please do so.