The ACG is the only book so far I've had problems with pretty much wholesale. I have problems with systemic issues, but most of those aren't Paizo's fault directly.
But pretty much the entire process leading up to the ACG's release was handled so poorly, the book turned out mediocre at best, and many excuses, but no apologies or so far attempts to fix issues, have been made.
Which leads back to the topic, Paizo will be able to rely on the same excuses for this book, so who's to say they're going to make a special effort this time?
As much as I like SKR, he doesn't handle playtests as well as I'd like. So with Occult Adventures playtest being the first without him, I feel that more of our concerns and critiques may be addressed, especially seeing how interactive Mark Seifer is with the community.
Not trying to insult the guy here, or start a dogpile on him.
I dare not have high expectations for this book. Not after the ACG.
I do hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lately it seems like the forthcoming Pathfinder Unchained is being offered as the (potential) solution of all problems. Don't like how X class works? Unchained. Want a rules light/streamlined game? Unchained. Want a secret edition playtest/stealth edition change? Unchained. Are your colours fading in the wash? Unchained. (One of these is facetious.)
When I read the write-up for Unchained, my impression was that it would essentially be like a Dev. brainstorming session, in book form. Equal parts "wish we'd thought of that before", and "here's a cool idea that wouldn't fly in a canon rule book". Perhaps I read it with different desires.
What do you expect Unchained to contain, and do you think it can live up to the expectations being placed on it?
There is no possible way for Unchained to live up to expectations. Many people are expecting contradictory and mutually exclusive fixes.
I plan on buying a new flame retardant suit for release.
I dare not have high expectations for this book. Not after the ACG.
I do hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm a fan of Paizo and their products, and even I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained being an editing mess with mediocre options. Like I could handle some minor issues here and there, like you see with normal products. But ACG was a whole new level of poor editing and it has me worried about future releases. I understand there were a lot of factors going into it (SKR leaving and them bringing in a new guy, other stuff) but I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained living up to its acronym, and REALLY worried about Occult Adventures suffering from GenCon coming early. In the topic, they did explain the issues going into ACG and how it won't be there with OA, but still.... it's difficult to have faith after seeing such a blunder like ACG.
Not that it matters, since it seems as though the people that played Pathfinder at my local gaming store no longer after they got their ACG hardcopies and promptly returned it for store credit.
I love the classic X-Men storyline where Magneto steals Xavier's spell component pouch.
:P
Since they said upfront that it was going to be more "Penny Dreadful" and less "Professor X", what exactly are you complaining about? The former style will mesh with existing PF canon better/easier than incorporating Mary-Sue-Telepathy into the game.
Also, doesn't Dreamscarred's treatment slant more towards Sci-fi/comics - style psionics?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problems in the game, to me, are Feat Taxes, Feat Chains, the Christmas Tree Effect, and the power imbalances regarding the Fighter, Monk and Rogue.
If Unchained adresses even half of those issues, I will buy it.
I love the classic X-Men storyline where Magneto steals Xavier's spell component pouch.
:P
Since they said upfront that it was going to be more "Penny Dreadful" and less "Professor X", what exactly are you complaining about? The former style will mesh with existing PF canon better/easier than incorporating Mary-Sue-Telepathy into the game.
Also, doesn't Dreamscarred's treatment slant more towards Sci-fi/comics - style psionics?
One of the biggest reasons they are avoiding the DSP style of psionics is that DSP already has done it, and done it really well. There's no reason to retread over ground that's been done. Spellpoint Psionics exist for those who want it, and to be fair, if Paizo did their own version (regardless of whether it's better or worse), it could be seen as the official version and people coming into the hobby would migrate to that instead of DSP. And frankly, I've always preferred a more Vancian style psychic magic out of preference (not balance), plus of late, I've been very interested in Gnosticism and spiritualism of the late 1800s/early 1900, so I'm personally happy with the direction that Occult Adventures is taking.
The fact that two styles of psionics will exist for people with different tastes is good for the game. I'm happy that DSP exists and produces good work with Psionics, and I am happy I'll get the psionics I've wanted from Paizo. I just really REALLY hope it avoids the editing pitfalls that the ACG suffered.
But this thread is about Pathfinder Unchained, not Occult Adventures, we should take this elsewhere.
I dare not have high expectations for this book. Not after the ACG.
I do hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm a fan of Paizo and their products, and even I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained being an editing mess with mediocre options. Like I could handle some minor issues here and there, like you see with normal products. But ACG was a whole new level of poor editing and it has me worried about future releases. I understand there were a lot of factors going into it (SKR leaving and them bringing in a new guy, other stuff) but I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained living up to its acronym, and REALLY worried about Occult Adventures suffering from GenCon coming early. In the topic, they did explain the issues going into ACG and how it won't be there with OA, but still.... it's difficult to have faith after seeing such a blunder like ACG.
Not that it matters, since it seems as though the people that played Pathfinder at my local gaming store no longer after they got their ACG hardcopies and promptly returned it for store credit.
That's pretty much how I feel, actually.
A couple months ago, I would have been excited for the announcement of any hardcover release (other than Mythic), but after seeing how the ACG was handled and realizing how much Paizo is willing to let quality suffer in order to release something in time for GenCon, I can't help but be worried about the quality of future books, specially the ones scheduled for GenCon release.
The ACG has the dubious honor of being the only hardcover (other than Mythic rules) that I don't plan to buy. Ultimate Combat was kinda "meh", but never before had I been as disappointed with a hardcover book's quality as I'm with the ACG.
I really do hope that I'm proven wrong, though.
I dare not have high expectations for this book. Not after the ACG.
I do hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm a fan of Paizo and their products, and even I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained being an editing mess with mediocre options. Like I could handle some minor issues here and there, like you see with normal products. But ACG was a whole new level of poor editing and it has me worried about future releases. I understand there were a lot of factors going into it (SKR leaving and them bringing in a new guy, other stuff) but I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained living up to its acronym, and REALLY worried about Occult Adventures suffering from GenCon coming early. In the topic, they did explain the issues going into ACG and how it won't be there with OA, but still.... it's difficult to have faith after seeing such a blunder like ACG.
Not that it matters, since it seems as though the people that played Pathfinder at my local gaming store no longer after they got their ACG hardcopies and promptly returned it for store credit.
That's pretty much how I feel, actually.
A couple months ago, I would have been excited for the announcement of any hardcover release (other than Mythic), but after seeing how the ACG was handled and realizing how much Paizo is willing to let quality suffer in order to release something in time for GenCon, I can't help but be worried about the quality of future books, specially the ones scheduled for GenCon release.
The ACG has the dubious honor of being the only hardcover (other than Mythic rules) that I don't plan to buy. Ultimate Combat was kinda "meh", but never before had I been as disappointed with a hardcover book's quality as I'm with the ACG.
I really do hope that I'm proven wrong, though.
Well, to their credit, they did discuss the issues coming into the ACG, which actually wasn't rushing the book. Between losing SKR, doing the ES Kickstarter, and also doing the Strategy Guide in addition to the other main hard cover books really killed them. And sadly, gaming companies can live or die because of GenCon releases. So I do understand the issues coming in and that they won't be dealing with them next year (except for an earlier GenCon release). Still worried, but I'm in a "wait and see" kind of mode.
Honestly, my biggest issue with the ACG isn't even the editing problems, but the radio silence that the devs had a month after it released and these issues were given. No apologies, no assurances, nothing until Kthulhu made a topic about it. That's what bothers me. We got a blog post about something as small as the wrong title logo, but nothing about the FAQs we need with the ACG to make it functional in PFS.
I'm happy the devs were able to comment on it and reveal their insight. I do wish it was more public, but you can't win them all.
Well, to their credit, they did discuss the issues coming into the ACG, which actually wasn't rushing the book. Between losing SKR, doing the ES Kickstarter,...
I'm happy the devs were able to comment on it and reveal their insight. I do wish it was more public, but you can't win them all.
Could you please provide a link to that thread.
-- david
I'm sure there were many reasons for the way the ACG turned out. Still, those reasons do nothing to make it a better product. At best, they might explain its flaws...
Honestly, I was worried about the ACG the moment I heard it had 10 new classes in it. In the end, 3 of them would have been better off as archetypes of existing classes (Skald and Hunter) or alternate casting rules (Arcanist).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, to their credit, they did discuss the issues coming into the ACG, which actually wasn't rushing the book. Between losing SKR, doing the ES Kickstarter,...
I'm happy the devs were able to comment on it and reveal their insight. I do wish it was more public, but you can't win them all.
Could you please provide a link to that thread.
-- david
I'm sure there were many reasons for the way the ACG turned out. Still, those reasons do nothing to make it a better product. At best, they might explain its flaws...
Honestly, I was worried about the ACG the moment I heard it had 10 new classes in it. In the end, 3 of them would have been better off as archetypes of existing classes (Skald and Hunter) or alternate casting rules (Arcanist).
The reasons were given to dispel the notion that A) they are working on too many things and quality is slipping and B) the idea that they do less editing for GenCon releases. With only two announced books next year, there shouldn't be the same issues we've seen in the ACG. Of course, I'm still very hesitant in buying future hardcovers from Paizo. I've always been an actions will speak louder than words kind of guy, no matter how candid and open the person or people are. I'll just wait and see.
The reasons were given to dispel the notion that A) they are working on too many things and quality is slipping and B) the idea that they do less editing for GenCon releases. With only two announced books next year, there shouldn't be the same issues we've seen in the ACG.I'm sure there were many reasons for the way the ACG turned out. Still, those reasons do nothing to make it a better product. At best, they might explain its flaws...
Honestly, I was worried about the ACG the moment I heard it had 10 new classes in it. In the end, 3 of them would have been better off as archetypes of existing classes (Skald and Hunter) or alternate casting rules (Arcanist).
I know it might not look like it at times, specially recently, since I've been quite vocal about my recent disappointments with Paizo, but I'm a fan of their work.
However... It really doesn't make sense. Either the ACG was rushed and that made its quality suffer, or it editing and revision processes were as good as any other product, which means the quality is slipping, because the ACG is by far the most poorly edited hardcover book in Pathfinder.
I know not some products will be worse than others, but the issues with the ACG are not just minor mistakes (even the cover has a huge editing mistake!). It might not have had fewer revisions, but however many it got, were certainly more rushed than usual.
Personally, I believe the book was rushed. Designing classes is long and hard work, and creating 10 of them for a single book, then having to release it in time for GenCon, while also having to replace a member of the design team, prevented the devs from doing a work as good as they could have done. I'm sure they tried, but the schedule simply didn't allow it.
Of course, I'm still very hesitant in buying future hardcovers from Paizo. I've always been an actions will speak louder than words kind of guy, no matter how candid and open the person or people are. I'll just wait and see.
Yeah, same here. I simply don't see myself preordering a Pathfinder book ever again... And I'm happy I cancelled my ACG pre-order in time.
Who knows...? Maybe future products will restore my confidence in Paizo's work, but for now, I will wait at least a couple months after release before deciding if I should buy anything from them.
If nothing else, it's a continued encouragement to stick with PDFs.
The reasons were given to dispel the notion that A) they are working on too many things and quality is slipping and B) the idea that they do less editing for GenCon releases. With only two announced books next year, there shouldn't be the same issues we've seen in the ACG.I'm sure there were many reasons for the way the ACG turned out. Still, those reasons do nothing to make it a better product. At best, they might explain its flaws...
Honestly, I was worried about the ACG the moment I heard it had 10 new classes in it. In the end, 3 of them would have been better off as archetypes of existing classes (Skald and Hunter) or alternate casting rules (Arcanist).
I know it might not look like it at times, specially recently, since I've been quite vocal about my recent disappointments with Paizo, but I'm a fan of their work.
However... It really doesn't make sense. Either the ACG was rushed and that made its quality suffer, or it editing and revision processes were as good as any other product, which means the quality is slipping, because the ACG is by far the most poorly edited hardcover book in Pathfinder.
I know not some products will be worse than others, but the issues with the ACG are not just minor mistakes (even the cover has a huge editing mistake!). It might not have had fewer revisions, but however many it got, were certainly more rushed than usual.
Personally, I believe the book was rushed. Designing classes is long and hard work, and creating 10 of them for a single book, then having to release it in time for GenCon, while also having to replace a member of the design team, prevented the devs from doing a work as good as they could have done. I'm sure they tried, but the schedule simply didn't allow it.
Of course, I'm still very hesitant in buying future hardcovers from Paizo. I've always been an actions will speak louder than words kind of guy, no matter how candid and open the...
Yeah I feel you. I think if we got some kind of word or apology on their own about the ACG, I'd feel a lot better. But we pretty much had to wait over a month after ACG release and then only because a topic called them out for it. And while the later apologies were great, one of the early apologies came off as essentially "Sorry that your expectations are too high." Which, in my line of work, if I said that to a customer for over cooking a meal, I'd be fired instantly. It was cleared up, but it still bothered me a bit. Considering the raving reviews I've given about previous Paizo books, I'd like to think that my standards aren't impossiblely high.
We'll have to see I guess. I have faith that Paizo will try and make things better. I just don't have faith that it'll work.
If nothing else, it's a continued encouragement to stick with PDFs.
I generally do, but it's not really fair to those that prefer hardcovers. I understand that there will always be editing issues and such. But ACG was just at a really unacceptable amount of editing errors. And I feel really bad for people that spent the $40 to support Paizo, only to discover the issues inside (and outside) of the book.
|
I think if we got some kind of word or apology on their own about the ACG, I'd feel a lot better.
I honestly don't find an apology meaningful. I get that other people do, but it just doesn't have any effect on me.
Just like subscribers get the first, needs-errata copy of every book, the ACG errors just are. Apologizing doesn't change reality. At least not for me.
I think if we got some kind of word or apology on their own about the ACG, I'd feel a lot better.I honestly don't find an apology meaningful. I get that other people do, but it just doesn't have any effect on me.
Just like subscribers get the first, needs-errata copy of every book, the ACG errors just are. Apologizing doesn't change reality. At least not for me.
For me, at least, it's an acknowledgement of failure that's important. In that way, there can be improvement in the future. The failure someone makes generally doesn't bother me. Everyone f!*#s up and nobody is perfect. It's their reaction to it that matters. An apology and acknowledgement of doing better from a company that is known for decent products and being transparent with their customers would have alleviate some peoples concerns. Not all, of course, but you can't please everyone.
To their credit, the answers they gave us were candid and overall were the transparency I've come to expect from Paizo. I'll certainly await Paizo's next hardcover. I'm not going to stop buying their other products, since the Technology Guide was awesome. But I will be more hesitant about their GenCon hardcovers and, unfortunately, any hype for it I hear from Mark. Sorry man, that hype train derailed and took no prisoners ;)
Course, some of this frustration is from me being unemployed again so... *shrug*
Yeah... I actually feel bad criticizing Paizo's work as harshly as I've criticized the ACG, but it's hard not to.
The disappointment hurts even more considering the APG and ARG are such great books (Well... The Race Builder is really badly implemented, but the idea is pretty cool). Before the ACG, I considered UC to be the weakest Pathfinder hardcover, but even it had redeeming features and its editing errors were not nearly as numerous or as serious as the ACG's.
I think if we got some kind of word or apology on their own about the ACG, I'd feel a lot better.I honestly don't find an apology meaningful. I get that other people do, but it just doesn't have any effect on me.
Just like subscribers get the first, needs-errata copy of every book, the ACG errors just are. Apologizing doesn't change reality. At least not for me.
I agree with TOZ here. Apologies just don't do anything for me... That said, Paizo acknowledging the problems with the ACG at least inspires some confidence that they are aware of said problems and are honest enough to admit their existence, instead of pretending there's nothing wrong, like they do with other (rather serious, IMHO) issues with the game.
|
The only reason I buy PDF's is because I can no longer carry 100lbs of books to games. I greatly prefer hardcopy and wish the Paizo books were of higher quality. The last AP I purchased (WotR) already has pages falling out.
I actually dumped nearly all of my hardcopies before I got involved in PFS. Now I mostly only have the main hardcovers, but I still use my PDFs more. Having the entire library on my iPad is much better than a bag of dead tree, in my opinion.
Yeah... I actually feel bad criticizing Paizo's work as harshly as I've criticized the ACG, but it's hard not to.
The disappointment hurts even more considering the APG and ARG are such great books (Well... The Race Builder is really badly implemented, but the idea is pretty cool). Before the ACG, I considered UC to be the weakest Pathfinder hardcover, but even it had redeeming features and didn't co
I agree with TOZ here. Apologies just don't do anything for me... That said, Paizo acknowledging the problems with the ACG at least inspires some confidence that they are aware of said problems and are honest enough to accept, instead of pretending it's not there, like they do with other (rather serious, IMHO) issues with the game.I think if we got some kind of word or apology on their own about the ACG, I'd feel a lot better.I honestly don't find an apology meaningful. I get that other people do, but it just doesn't have any effect on me.
Just like subscribers get the first, needs-errata copy of every book, the ACG errors just are. Apologizing doesn't change reality. At least not for me.
I liked APG and ARG too. I still think Ultimate Campaign is like the pinnacle of Paizo's publishing. Which is why I have better hopes for PU than OA. It's a book that treads new ground and isn't a GenCon release.
I think I've used about 80% of UCamp since it's release. It's really good.
The only reason I buy PDF's is because I can no longer carry 100lbs of books to games. I greatly prefer hardcopy and wish the Paizo books were of higher quality. The last AP I purchased (WotR) already has pages falling out.I actually dumped nearly all of my hardcopies before I got involved in PFS. Now I mostly only have the main hardcovers, but I still use my PDFs more. Having the entire library on my iPad is much better than a bag of dead tree, in my opinion.
Agreed. It was so easy moving my library compared to my girlfriend's, since I have every book I own on my Kindle.
|
|
I actually dumped nearly all of my hardcopies before I got involved in PFS. Now I mostly only have the main hardcovers, but I still use my PDFs more. Having the entire library on my iPad is much better than a bag of dead tree, in my opinion.
I purchased an iPad and the PDF's exclusively for PFS. At home, I always reach for my books first.
I liked APG and ARG too. I still think Ultimate Campaign is like the pinnacle of Paizo's publishing. Which is why I have better hopes for PU than OA. It's a book that treads new ground and isn't a GenCon release.
I think I've used about 80% of UCamp since it's release. It's really good.
Ah, when I mentioned "UC", I meant "Ultimate Combat", not Ultimate Campaign... Heh...
Honestly, I have rarely used the Ultimate Campaign... There is not much there that I can use in a game session, and when players want to retrain something, I just allow them to do it without following any of the retraining rules. IME, players usually only want to retrain a characters if its mechanics are boring and/or disappointing for whatever reason, so there's no point in forcing them to stick to characters they don't like.
That's not to say the Ultimate Campaign is a bad book, I just don't use it very often...
I liked APG and ARG too. I still think Ultimate Campaign is like the pinnacle of Paizo's publishing. Which is why I have better hopes for PU than OA. It's a book that treads new ground and isn't a GenCon release.
I think I've used about 80% of UCamp since it's release. It's really good.
Ah, when I mentioned "UC", I meant "Ultimate Combat", not Ultimate Campaign... Heh...
Honestly, I have rarely used the Ultimate Campaign... There is not much there that I can use in a game session, and when players want to retrain something, I just allow them to do it without following any of the retraining rules. IME, players usually only want to retrain a characters if its mechanics are boring and/or disappointing for whatever reason, so there's no point in forcing them to stick to characters they don't like.
That's not to say the Ultimate Campaign is a bad book, I just don't use it very often...
I love the downtime rules and use them on a constant basis. Beyond that, I've gone back and forth on different rules I use. I think the only ones I haven't used are the Honor rules and the Haggling Rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
and, unfortunately, any hype for it I hear from Mark. Sorry man, that hype train derailed and took no prisoners ;)
I wanted to address this directly. I'll be perfectly honest, as someone who was hired after the project was already at the printers, so on ACG at least, I'm a fan looking in—there are parts of the ACG that I just didn't like and wouldn't use in my games. The classes I previewed were not among those parts. I still stand by those classes now as strongly as I did the days I wrote those blogs. I'm still of the opinion that, for instance, Sean's work on the hunter from second playtest version to final is a model to me of how to make subtle changes that really benefit a class. I can get very excited about things I like, although I can also be pretty critical about things I don't like. I'm not going to be openly critical about things I don't like now that I'm a designer, since one of the best things I learned from Mike Brock while serving as a VL is that the most effective way to do things is praise publically and critique privately. But I do promise you this—if I'm worried about something, I promise you that I will not write it an unrealistic excited blog post. From a practical standpoint, I can't fake excitement, I'm just not good at it, so it would come off hollow anyway.
But actions speak louder than words, right? I'll give you guys an example of having done that in the past so you can tell that I'm shooting straight with you here. Remember my hunter blog? Since I didn't have the file that named the picture I chose (until the blog went up and I could click through or mouse over and see which one it was), I actually literally did not know which archetype was pictured there; the blog's guessing game was not all joke (I even asked people and they didn't remember since Sean had ordered the art for that spread). So now that you have the book, you see that there's another picture in that section, and it's obvious what archetype it is. It's the one on page 97 with the two-headed snake. Why didn't I pick that one instead? I skipped it because the primal companion hunter seemed too strong for my own games, and I figured that it might not be allowed for PFS. I didn't want to get people revved up about something I wasn't fully happy with myself, especially if the PFS readers wouldn't even get to play it.
I can promise you this, if I tell you I think it's cool, then I do think it's cool. That doesn't mean that I'm going to come on here and dissect parts I don't think are cool, though, or reference them in my blog posts. People who have spoken with me here on the boards about design will know that I am pretty picky when I see something that strikes me wrong. For instance, there's been rules elements in every release that have slipped through that caused problems, and if you check the boards, I was the first person who asked for errata on the original auto-win terrible remorse, as I had noticed the issues with it from my subscriber copy. No book is going to be free of errors. If anything, after being assigned to solo a hardback errata document, I can tell you from experience that there are many errors in every book; the ACG may even have fewer than several others did. I've been following along Deadmanwalking's thread, and he's found almost all the ones I found and several I didn't. But it definitely seems to have more to me too, even though by count it has fewer. And after several weeks, I think I figured out why—it's basically the scope of how the product fits together, the interconnectivity of the moving pieces. With so many elements that lend an ability to someone who wouldn't ordinarily have them, it's an intricate machine full of tiny gears that need to interface in a variety of ways. So a higher percentage of the inevitable glitches show "symptoms", so to speak. Usually, when there's a minor glitch, it doesn't affect anything, or it doesn't really matter; if a monster winds up with +37 to Swim instead of +36, for instance. And a minor change of wording in a sentence of a subsystem in Ultimate Campaign is unlikely to affect anything at all. It's why the familiar faces from the previous "possible errata" threads, that I've seen commenting, were among the few who didn't think that there was an increase (much love, by the way, to chopswil, Strife2002, Astral Wanderer, and all of the other errata thread champions I am forgetting). So the good news is, that's another aspect that's going to be unique to Advanced Class Guide—for instance, Pathfinder Unchained should be more like Ultimate Campaign in terms of the chance that a glitch in the contents will affect the meaning and create a concern.
Whew, I went longer than I expected here. To avoid a wall, I have a little bit more to say which I'll do in a second post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Course, some of this frustration is from me being unemployed again so... *shrug*
I'm sorry to hear about the unemployment. It sucks, and I know it can sometimes feel like it's tainting everything else too, and that just makes it suck more. I hope for the best for you going onward, and I hope that Pathfinder can continue to bring the awesome to make dealing with hardship more bearable, as it has for me in the past when I've been down.
Honestly, my biggest issue with the ACG isn't even the editing problems, but the radio silence that the devs had a month after it released and these issues were given. No apologies, no assurances, nothing until Kthulhu made a topic about it. That's what bothers me. We got a blog post about something as small as the wrong title logo, but nothing about the FAQs we need with the ACG to make it functional in PFS.
I'm happy the devs were able to comment on it and reveal their insight. I do wish it was more public, but you can't win them all.
Just to let you know, it wasn't any kind of organized radio silence ordered from on high. It's not like everyone gathered around a table and discussed those posts and then placed a gag order while laughing conspiratorially underneath the sign of the Palatine Eye. It was just a matter of a convergence where eventually someone saw the question who was also exactly the right person to answer it. For instance, I had also known about many of those factors, but the book was fully finished before I was even hired; I know I'm gabby, but it would be pretty weird for me to start gabbing about that. And I'm sure moderators also saw some of those threads, but they aren't the right people to discuss it either. Sometimes it takes a little while for things to trickle up to someone with the right big picture to answer a question (it was a month for you, but it may have been just a few days for them since they saw it), so don't worry that we were intentionally trying to keep things from you guys or something like that.
and, unfortunately, any hype for it I hear from Mark. Sorry man, that hype train derailed and took no prisoners ;)I wanted to address this directly. I'll be perfectly honest, as someone who was hired after the project was already at the printers, so on ACG at least, I'm a fan looking in—there are parts of the ACG that I just didn't like and wouldn't use in my games. The classes I previewed were not among those parts. I still stand by those classes now as strongly as I did the days I wrote those blogs. I'm still of the opinion that, for instance, Sean's work on the hunter from second playtest version to final is a model to me of how to make subtle changes that really benefit a class. I can get very excited about things I like, although I can also be pretty critical about things I don't like. I'm not going to be openly critical about things I don't like now that I'm a designer, since one of the best things I learned from Mike Brock while serving as a VL is that the most effective way to do things is praise publically and critique privately. But I do promise you this—if I'm worried about something, I promise you that I will not write it an unrealistic excited blog post. From a practical standpoint, I can't fake excitement, I'm just not good at it, so it would come off hollow anyway.
But actions speak louder than words, right? I'll give you guys an example of having done that in the past so you can tell that I'm shooting straight with you here. Remember my hunter blog? Since I didn't have the file that named the picture I chose (until the blog went up and I could click through or mouse over and see which one it was), I actually literally did not know which archetype was pictured there; the blog's guessing game was not all joke (I even asked people and they didn't remember since Sean had ordered the art for that spread). So now that you have the book, you see that there's another picture in that section, and it's obvious what archetype it is. It's the one on page 97 with the...
Those are fair points, but admittedly, and this is unfair to you, from here on out, it's still going to be hard to get excited for the hardcovers coming out, especially with you talking about it. Hear me out. At least from my point of view, when you got signed on, there was kind of this feeling of, idk, camaraderie, since you were a forum member before hand. Kind of like a, "Hey we got one of our own in there living the dream! Good job." So perhaps there was some unfair expectations of you from my part when I'd read your blog because you were "one of us". And with the issues of ACG (which I still contend has worse editing issues than the previous books), I kind of unfairly don't believe you any more. And I'll admit, it's shitty of me, but it's a matter of "He got me super hyped and it ended up being mediocre. Better not get hyped for the next project." Which, hell, I'm sorry it's like that for me, and I'll definitely try to brush it off and not blame you. I really don't blame you, but subconsciously, it is hard to take your hype for what it is worth after the disappointment of the ACG. I want to be hyped for Occult Adventures, but in the back of my mind, it's still going "Early GenCon release! It's going to be ACG all over again!!!"
I'll endeavor in the future to simply deal with it and not blame Paizo or you for stuff that happens :)
Course, some of this frustration is from me being unemployed again so... *shrug*I'm sorry to hear about the unemployment. It sucks, and I know it can sometimes feel like it's tainting everything else too, and that just makes it suck more. I hope for the best for you going onward, and I hope that Pathfinder can continue to bring the awesome to make dealing with hardship more bearable, as it has for me in the past when I've been down.
Just to let you know, it wasn't any kind of organized radio silence ordered from on high. It's not like everyone gathered around a table and discussed those posts and then placed a gag order while laughing conspiratorially underneath the sign of the Palatine Eye. It was just a matter of a convergence where eventually someone saw the question who was also exactly the right person to answer it. For instance, I had also known about many of those factors, but the book was fully finished before I was even hired; I know I'm gabby, but it would be pretty weird for me to start gabbing about that. And I'm sure moderators also saw some of those threads, but they aren't the right people to discuss it either. Sometimes it takes a little while for things to trickle up to someone with the right big picture to answer a question (it was a month for you, but it may have been just a few days for them since they saw it), so don't worry that we were intentionally trying to keep things from you guys or...Honestly, my biggest issue with the ACG isn't even the editing problems, but the radio silence that the devs had a month after it released and these issues were given. No apologies, no assurances, nothing until Kthulhu made a topic about it. That's what bothers me. We got a blog post about something as small as the wrong title logo, but nothing about the FAQs we need with the ACG to make it functional in PFS.
I'm happy the devs were able to comment on it and reveal their insight. I do wish it was more public, but you can't win them all.
Sad part is, I'm not unemployed, since I do work at a catering company. But they haven't called me or anyone into work for two weeks, so I may as well be unemployed. That's the part that really kills me.
As for the remarks, I get that it wasn't a gag order, but there were remarks from Jason Bulhman about certain aspects and issues with the ACG within a week of release. And given how many of the devs are active on the boards, I honestly find it difficult to comprehend how it took so long for any of the higher ups to receive word about the editorial issues. And I don't know, perhaps it's a sign that maybe there is a large disconnect between the devs and player base that I never really imagined if it takes this long to get any word about these editorial issues. I'd honestly rather there have been a blog about it (like we got for the wrong title cover of the ACG) so we could have a transparent dialogue about it, rather than it being caused because someone essentially called out the devs. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, because I genuinely like Paizo and want to support them. But the lack of communication for the ACG, even for a valid reason, was honestly something I haven't seen before in Paizo and something I never really want to again.
From day one, you all have been transparent and approachable about aspects of the business and the roleplaying game. It's been that candidness that has won me over time and again. Which is why, in the last month, when we got little word from the devs about the editing issues, it has been a cause of great concern for me. Especially with the sheer volume of complaints. To me, it felt like a sign that the company had finally "gone corporate" and didn't really feel the need to acknowledge issues with us anymore.
Which, at the end of the day, isn't true. It was good to finally see the opinions and acknowledgement about the ACG and what happened. The topic had great insight and the candidness I've come to like about Paizo. I just wish the dialogue was sooner and more public and spurred on by more than just someone calling out Paizo.
|
Sometimes it takes a little while for things to trickle up to someone with the right big picture to answer a question (it was a month for you, but it may have been just a few days for them since they saw it), so don't worry that we were intentionally trying to keep things from you guys or something like that.
This strikes me as problematic. Specifically, it strikes me as problematic that the launch of the huge new addition to the ruleset wasn't watched more closely and engaged with more carefully.
I accept that a number of problems are inevitable with any release (and I appreciate your thoughts above about how those might look especially glaring in the case of the ACG), and that it's not a simple matter to "just fix" every little thing that comes up.
But what frustrates me is how "wait till after GenCon" quickly turned into ... nothing. I share Odraude's thought that what's really bad about this situation is what s/he called the "radio silence," which, intentional or not, is still a problem. (I've expressed this frustration to you elsewhere about the lack of a regularly functioning FAQ, which I do take to be a pretty serious failing on your [general "your"] part.)
So see <this August 6th post from Jason>. Some follow-up on this, even if it were just another notice of delay, would have done a lot, I think.
A note to the folks in this thread,
There are a lot of questions flying around, demands for answers, and just general curiosity. There are a few issues in this book we are going to be addressing in the coming days (/weeks with Gencon being next week and all), so I just wanted to give everyone a heads up and ask for your patience.
Feel free to get excited, feel free to ask questions, thats all good. Just don't get upset if you don't get an answer right away. Most people don't even have the book yet and we are neck deep in con prep and getting a book out the door.
And please refrain from posting entire sections verbatim until everyone has access to the book.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are fair points, but admittedly, and this is unfair to you, from here on out, it's still going to be hard to get excited for the hardcovers coming out, especially with you talking about it. Hear me out. At least from my point of view, when you got signed on, there was kind of this feeling of, idk, camaraderie, since you were a forum member before hand. Kind of like a, "Hey we got one of our own in there living the dream! Good job." So perhaps there was some unfair expectations of you from my part when I'd read your blog because you were "one of us". And with the issues of ACG (which I still contend has worse editing issues than the previous books), I kind of unfairly don't believe you any more. And I'll admit, it's s++%ty of me, but it's a matter of "He got me super hyped and it ended up being mediocre. Better not get hyped for the next project." Which, hell, I'm sorry it's like that for me, and I'll definitely try to brush it off and not blame you. I really don't blame you, but subconsciously, it is hard to take your hype for what it is worth after the disappointment of the ACG.
I still feel a great sense of camaraderie to other fans on the boards, and it still feels like living the dream to me. I'm going to endeavor to make sure we get awesome stuff out there for me, for you, and for everyone else. And I'll point out the things I think are the coolest. There will be things that I don't think are the coolest, probably in any book, and to be up-front about it, I won't be singling them out, though if someone asked me if I allow it in my games, I would admit that I don't. Really it's best, in my mind and for me, to go into an RPG book with a mindset of looking for lots of individual gems (8,9, or 10/10 gems) that will make my game more awesome, raising excitement for each, rather than expect that everything is going to be uniformly pretty good (6 or 7/10) and then get disappointed for each thing below.
I want to be hyped for Occult Adventures, but in the back of my mind, it's still going "Early GenCon release! It's going to be ACG all over again!!!"
The interesting thing about the Gencon releases is that it's not the case that Gencon's timing leads to fewer passes than other books. That isn't the reason those are always the books with the most separate threads about errors. They aren't even necessarily the ones with the most errors (check out errata threads to see), they are just usually the releases of the sort most likely to lead to problematic symptoms from any given error, player-centric books with new classes, archetypes, feats, spells, and magic items. That's been true of every RPG purchase I've made, whether from Paizo or any other company, of any rulebook of that particular sort of that length. Since there are always 3 releases and the fall release is pretty much always a monstery book like a Bestiary, that's already one out of three that won't lead to as many symptoms. Spring releases can sometimes be books with a lot of advice sections or subsystems like Gamemastery Guide or Ultimate Campaign, which also won't.
To frame it like I did in the last part of my post—no need to get fully hyped up for every last bit of Occult Adventures (though from what you have said about where you have recently been delving, you are likely to be quite pleased with some of the directions we're going), when you could, for instance, join me in my excitement for the kineticist class in particular (also <redacted> class, but I can talk about kineticist). I will continue to hype the potential of the kineticist as well as refine that class from the playtest when that goes out, and I won't release something I don't think is awesome. If you're then disappointed by the kineticist after I make my blogpost in July or August to reveal what I think is most awesome about the final version, I think you should totally dialogue with me directly about it, and we can discuss it. And if it lives up to my own excitement in my blog, then you have a cool new class that'll make a big splash in your games!
Does that make any sense?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I've expressed this frustration to you elsewhere about the lack of a regularly functioning FAQ, which I do take to be a pretty serious failing on your [general "your"] part.)
In that vein, I have a plan based on your ideas that should be able to garner us once a week FAQs for at the least two months in a row, but it will take some initial buy-in to get that started. I am very hopeful that once we have the Occult Playtest ready for layout, that buy-in should be able to happen sooner rather than later. I share your enthusiasm for more FAQs, but it's more difficult than I had thought to execute them. Know that I am doing my best on this.
Reading Mark's mention of the Occult Adventures made me realize I'm not even excited about the playtest... sigh... :/
I think it's the aftermath of ACG. It's still upon us so it's hard to be excited for a new book when a current one is still receiving negative reviews.
Still the playtest should be interesting. Thanks again for the comments Mark. I'm glad you keep on posting here on the forums for us and hope ou keep it up.
(I've expressed this frustration to you elsewhere about the lack of a regularly functioning FAQ, which I do take to be a pretty serious failing on your [general "your"] part.)In that vein, I have a plan based on your ideas that should be able to garner us once a week FAQs for at the least two months in a row, but it will take some initial buy-in to get that started.
Yay! I am not so worried about rather minor typos in the ACG, but some of the FAQ's concern issues around since the CRB.
I am quite excited about Unchained.
Thank you for all your very complete and extensive posts here (and elsewhere). This sort of thing is what makes Paizo so great.
One thing- the haters and naysayers will hate and complain no matter what you do. Dont try and appease them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's here for your viewing pleasure.Well, to their credit, they did discuss the issues coming into the ACG, which actually wasn't rushing the book. Between losing SKR, doing the ES Kickstarter,...
I'm happy the devs were able to comment on it and reveal their insight. I do wish it was more public, but you can't win them all.
Could you please provide a link to that thread.
-- david
Mind giving me a page number? Don't really want to sift through pages of SKR picking nits. =/
|
|
(I've expressed this frustration to you elsewhere about the lack of a regularly functioning FAQ, which I do take to be a pretty serious failing on your [general "your"] part.)In that vein, I have a plan based on your ideas that should be able to garner us once a week FAQs for at the least two months in a row, but it will take some initial buy-in to get that started. I am very hopeful that once we have the Occult Playtest ready for layout, that buy-in should be able to happen sooner rather than later. I share your enthusiasm for more FAQs, but it's more difficult than I had thought to execute them. Know that I am doing my best on this.
Woo! I'm excited, both for the playtest and for FAQ tinkering. (Once a week is a dream, but honestly I think even once a month FAQs would be enough as long as they were released regularly at a set time. Then we'd at least have something against which to calibrate our expectations.)
And I do hope I haven't come off as aggressively critical or overly negative in our conversations. I know your passion for the game and I trust your judgment.
:-)
Hmmm...I guess some here are much too 'once bitten twice shy'? I am willing to give this a chance as I actually loved much of the ACG (and so did my sons who play Pathfinder). It wasn't as great as the APG (which is what I compare all the other hardbounds to), my fav of the hardbounds, but the ACG contributed intriguing material in feats, classes, spells and items. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
If I find enough in Unchained that is relevant to the way I play, I will purchase it. I do not expect the quality of it to go the same route as ACG, so why worry about that so much? I don't get all the nail-biting over it. It was one book. If the process is repeated, THEN worry about it.
First, Mark rocks for participating in this thread.
Second, can Pathfinder Unchained live up to all of these expectations? Well, since as someone pointed out, there are undoubtedly mutually exclusive expectations for the book, no. No it can't.
But a more useful question for each of us to ask ourselves might be "Can Pathfinder Unchained live up to my expectations?"
In my case, if it can deliver on the promises of "a new system for resolving player actions [which is] designed to speed play and dispel confusion" and "a math-lite system for on-the-fly monster creation," then it will go a long way toward addressing at least some of my disenchantment with the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(I've expressed this frustration to you elsewhere about the lack of a regularly functioning FAQ, which I do take to be a pretty serious failing on your [general "your"] part.)In that vein, I have a plan based on your ideas that should be able to garner us once a week FAQs for at the least two months in a row, but it will take some initial buy-in to get that started.Yay! I am not so worried about rather minor typos in the ACG, but some of the FAQ's concern issues around since the CRB.
I am quite excited about Unchained.
Thank you for all your very complete and extensive posts here (and elsewhere). This sort of thing is what makes Paizo so great.
One thing- the haters and naysayers will hate and complain no matter what you do. Dont try and appease them.
Yup, some of my planned FAQs are about ACG, and some are about issues that have been around since the CRB.
I'm happy to come in and discuss things with you guys. In this case, I feel I have enough of a history from reading Odraude's posts even back when I was just plain old Rogue Eidolon to see that he's been excited about other releases and this one just made him unhappy. I don't feel that he's a chronic naysayer. There are a few chronic naysayers on the boards, but in my time in academia, I've met and befriended a few people with that kind of viewpoint (basically, they would critique whatever they saw pretty hard as part of the culture of rigorous scientific process of peer review), and I think they usually have good insights and something quite valuable to offer, they just make it harder for me to find those insights and value by not making their most salient critiques stand out from the others. It's something I've talked about before in the other thread, and it's a separate problem for such sorts of feedback to the issue that being confrontational will often get people's hackles up and put them in a defensive "battle" mode where they become more firmly entrenched in their previous views (though those two things do tagteam together pretty nastily, leading to plenty of internet scuffles on any discussion site). In this case, Odraude made his critique and viewpoint stand out, so it had more impact to me. To take two other examples in contrast, I've always found Lemmy and Rynjin to be knowledgeable posters with solid experience and mastery of the game whose best points are sometimes harder for me to find and process because of their style. I do try to read through their posts carefully because I don't want to miss something, and they both have a handle on some of the biggest tension points in the game as well as a willingness to discuss how those play out through the lens of their own groups, but it takes extra effort, and it's less likely to move me to action. For a direct example, let's say someone like Mikaze had posted Lemmy's last post in the thread as of my writing this one:
Reading Mark's mention of the Occult Adventures made me realize I'm not even excited about the playtest... sigh... :/
My eyes would widen in alarm, and I would immediately be moved to think about what options I should take to make the Occult Playtest more exciting than ever before. I would be moved to action. When Lemmy says it, I know there is a solid reason for it (otherwise he wouldn't post it), but it's also less surprising. It's human nature to transform our lives and our experiences into stories, in which agents take actions with explanations we make up based on data (sorry for waxing into cogsci again, can't help it, it was my grad work after all). One interesting thing that happens in a Bayesian model for cognition (one popular mathematical model) is an effect called explaining away. Basically, if you have two possible causes for an effect and one of those causes is present and the other is unknown, it decreases the chance of the other one. For instance, if a zombie virus or a magic spell could each cause zombies to appear and you see zombies, there is a certain chance that you can backcalculate that a magic spell has been cast or a virus been released. But if I then tell you that there was definitely a virus, that will lower the chance of the spell because the zombies have now been "explained away" (the math works out on this, I can post all the formulas in a spoiler block if anyone is interested). The upshot here is that there can be an explaining away effect with posters who tend to be very critical in their insights where the cause "X is usually critical in his insights and there are the usual problems" explains away the potential cause "There is an unusually big problem this time".
In summary—I don't think the chronic naysayers are actually "haters". If they were haters, they wouldn't come on here and try to point out the flaws they see; they would go to another board and just bash everything in vitriol and go play another game. They are our friends and comrades in making a better game, and they are likely science and engineering types like my friends from MIT who have a particular way they respond to anything, with rigorous critique. It's harder to pull out specifics from them, but they are still important to consider. I wouldn't dismiss them.
(I've expressed this frustration to you elsewhere about the lack of a regularly functioning FAQ, which I do take to be a pretty serious failing on your [general "your"] part.)In that vein, I have a plan based on your ideas that should be able to garner us once a week FAQs for at the least two months in a row, but it will take some initial buy-in to get that started. I am very hopeful that once we have the Occult Playtest ready for layout, that buy-in should be able to happen sooner rather than later. I share your enthusiasm for more FAQs, but it's more difficult than I had thought to execute them. Know that I am doing my best on this.Woo! I'm excited, both for the playtest and for FAQ tinkering. (Once a week is a dream, but honestly I think even once a month FAQs would be enough as long as they were released regularly at a set time. Then we'd at least have something against which to calibrate our expectations.)
And I do hope I haven't come off as aggressively critical or overly negative in our conversations. I know your passion for the game and I trust your judgment.
:-)
Let's just say this. I am unconfident on when I can get that initial buy-in, but once that happens, if we follow my plan based on your ideas, once a week for several months will not be a pipedream. It will be a reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Posted a whole lot of stuff that I don't have a clue about...
Can you simplify this for a retired dumb electrical engineer whose college days included transistor circuits?
-- david
edit: and use simple words, please.
Posted a whole lot of stuff that I don't have a clue about...Can you simplify this for a retired dumb electrical engineer whose college days included transistor circuits?
-- david
edit: and use simple words, please.
Sorry, the zombie and virus example is an actual quiz question from the class I TAed. I edited in an upshot paragraph for what the effect is, but it basically simplifies to something akin to Occam's Razor. Let's say you have a circuit that isn't working, and you figure it has to be one of three particular transistors that is causing it. You take out the first transistor and test it on the ammeter and it's completely shot. This lowers the chance that the other two are broken. Sure, they might still be broken too, but since transistor 1 being broken would cause the problem in and of itself, it's now much less likely that the other 2 are broken. But let's say transistor 1 works fine. Now it's become more likely that the other 2 are broken than it was before you tested transistor 1.
Does that make sense?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Thanks Mark! I'm sure you and everyone there will do your best. I am (and have expressed openly) utterly disappointed with the releases of the ACG but I'm pretty sure that need not be said again.
I do think Paizo should probably put a dedicated staffer on FAQ's for a few (or several even) months to address the growing concern of needed FAQ's. I know you can't do everything, but there are a lot of issues that haven't been addressed for years. I would also like to see the FAQ section totally rebuilt, I know it is laid out per book, but its not very intuitive and often I can't find FAQ's for days that I know exist because of the layout. I know some say its fine but some are in my boat, I find it awfully hard to navigate and find anything on there.
Anyway, to be somewhat constructive here, here are some needed FAQ
1) Can an archetype that gives up a class ability still take a parent class and vice versa. For instance, The Mysterious Stranger gives up Nimble for Lucky. Can he still multi-class with the swashbuckler, or does that count as a "one-time choice (such as a bloodline), that choice must match similar choices made by the parent classes and vice-versa.
2) Hunter: How do skirmisher tricks work? Are they times per day, per round, per attack, unlimited? If it is times per day, does it go off your abilities level, or the animal companions? I vote once per round attached to another trick personally
3) Pummeling Style, Bully, Charge - Do they work with weapons, or is it unarmed strikes only. Unarmed strikes only is the correct answer as the math wizs have proven in other thread
1) Do abilities that grant bonuses from the same attribute stack? (see an entire other thread with over 200 FAQ requests)
1) Why does the Shaman's Life Link suck so bad?
2) Can a bard use bard song while under the affect of raging song? Can an Oracle use misfortune Hex? I'm sure this list could go on, it probably really needs what is "patience" and "concentration", though I think concentration may be covered as its a defined term?
3) Does Inspiring Cognatogen grant the inspiration points every time he drinks one in a day? Like is a new fresh pool each time?
4) Does the Blood Bond Class Feature of the Bloodrider Bloodrager archetype (tongue twister) replace anything?
5) Does the Druids (Nature Fang) and Inquisitors (Sanctified Slayer) studied target increase the DC of those classes abilities? If so, how about spells?
6) It the fighter (Mutation Master) supposed to gain its mutagen at first level or third when it actually "looses" armor training. Please do third so they make it PFS legal. This is the first time ever I wanted to play a fighter and they banned it in PFS, I'm fairly certain because of that discrepancy.
7) Is the Sorcerer (Mongrel Mage) supposed to be missing the 15th level bloodline power? What is the 7th level bloodline power supposed to be (presumably 9th), and if it is the 9th, does he indeed get it early at 7th level? Really that archetype is kind of a mess.
8) Is the swashbuckler (Picaroon) supposed to be able to reload his firearm somehow? Seems odd to have a TWFing archetype with a ranged weapon where he really can't reload it.
9) Why did they make divine protection...just why (sorry not a faq request.)
10) Does the fortuitous weapon enchantment second attack still count as a riposte? IE. Does it benefit from answering?
11) Cape of feinting? Is this for real or some kind of joke?
1) Bard Sound Striker - The Devs made a proposed change nearly a year ago and then it just went dead. It'd be nice if someone looked into this and finished the ruling.
Anyway, thats what I have. I know I'm missing stuff but thats a good start!