So this is not any feedback on the Vigilante Base Class per se, but rather how the Playtest has been run so far.
* Firstly, I think it a mistake to call or treat the Paizo Blog announcement post discussion "the main thread". Debating the minutiae and design nuances in the Paizo Blog just feels like the wrong place - feels like there should have been a dedicated "Vigilante Feedback" thread, and then folks could make their own threads from there, just as they have done.
* I also think it was a mistake to release the playtest just before the weekend, when both posts of PbP's (where plenty of play testing could occur) drop way off, and the DESIGNERS and DEVELOPERS will be away? So many debates and discussions could have been nixed if the designers/devs stepped in to say: "we are definitely not going to change x.....", or "that's a good point, however....", or "what about the content leads you to think...." or "I can clarify that...." Mark Seifter has appeared here and there, but mostly there seems to be a storm of discontent or debate over/about a number of basic premises, but little from the designers to explain why things are the way they are, or what they are and aren't willing to change.
* The designers seem to be fairly quiet so far. As I said in the above point, I see Mark Seifter, but haven't seen one post from any other designer. As was evident during the ACG playlets, availability (or lack thereof) of various designers led to some degree of frustration.
* There is also some discussion that bemoans the lack of the social interaction rules that are forthcoming in UI. In essence, it feels like some of the major aspects of the class are imperfectly understood as the participles they will apparently interact with are completely unknown and thus unclear. This could be avoided by presenting those rules, or at the very least, giving some sounding on what they are and just what those interactions will be.
* I'd also really like the designers to comb the threads and see where the disparities and disagreements are occurring in the fans minds/feelings. Some really excellent feedback has appeared on the nature of specialisations; the need for universal talents; the thought that the Avenger and Stalker should be mashed together; that the social identity needs to function on its own/not be hampered; or that the secret identity need not, actually be secret.
If the designers/devs could make a list like this, that they see as important (though that will obviously deviate from the fanbase) while determining those things that they are not interested in changing, then the amount of doubling up of similar ideas in multiple threads might decrease, making the reading less onerous, and the ability to move on down the design path more fruitful.
* The designers seem to be fairly quiet so far. As I said in the above point, I see Mark Seifter, but haven't seen one post from any other designer. As was evident during the ACG playlets, availability (or lack thereof) of various designers led to some degree of frustration.
I have actually seen posts by all but Logan and even then I might have simply missed the post, though admittedly Mark does post more often.
So this is not any feedback on the Vigilante Base Class per se, but rather how the Playtest has been run so far.
* Firstly, I think it a mistake to call or treat the Paizo Blog announcement post discussion "the main thread". Debating the minutiae and design nuances in the Paizo Blog just feels like the wrong place - feels like there should have been a dedicated "Vigilante Feedback" thread, and then folks could make their own threads from there, just as they have done.
In previous years, IIRC, there was a dedicated playtest thread...but tons of people still posted thoughts and comments here, and I think at points had to be told by mods to post them in the playtest thread. SO...not seeing a huge difference. If there was a separate thread some posters would still probably be commenting here exclusively.
* I also think it was a mistake to release the playtest just before the weekend, when both posts of PbP's (where plenty of play testing could occur) drop way off, and the DESIGNERS and DEVELOPERS will be away? So many debates and discussions could have been nixed if the designers/devs stepped in to say: "we are definitely not going to change x.....", or "that's a good point, however....", or "what about the content leads you to think...." or "I can clarify that...." Mark Seifter has appeared here and there, but mostly there seems to be a storm of discontent or debate over/about a number of basic premises, but little from the designers to explain why things are the way they are, or what they are and aren't willing to change.
Pluses and minuses are both apparent to me regarding release date. On the other hand the date when playtesting ends is fixed, so the sooner the better for many people. and releasing before the weekend increases the likelihood that people will thoroughly read it, rather than skimming it after a long day at work. Also a lot of groups only play on weekends, so at least they can potentially start playtesting it.
* The designers seem to be fairly quiet so far. As I said in the above point, I see Mark Seifter, but haven't seen one post from any other designer. As was evident during the ACG playlets, availability (or lack thereof) of various designers led to some degree of frustration.
A downside of a weekend release. but honestly can't begrudge the developers not wanting to spend their weekend commenting on playtests. Probably the least fun part of writing the core rulebooks, and not something I would want to deal with while hanging out with family and friends. Also I question how absence of 2 days is really all that bad...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
* The designers seem to be fairly quiet so far. As I said in the above point, I see Mark Seifter, but haven't seen one post from any other designer. As was evident during the ACG playlets, availability (or lack thereof) of various designers led to some degree of frustration.I have actually seen posts by all but Logan and even then I might have simply missed the post, though admittedly Mark does post more often.
Mark is the "James Jacobs" of the rulebook team. The amount of time he spends posting on the site is ridiculous (but in a awesome way).
Contributor
|
Mark is the "James Jacobs" of the rulebook team. The amount of time he spends posting on the site is ridiculous (but in a awesome way).* The designers seem to be fairly quiet so far. As I said in the above point, I see Mark Seifter, but haven't seen one post from any other designer. As was evident during the ACG playlets, availability (or lack thereof) of various designers led to some degree of frustration.I have actually seen posts by all but Logan and even then I might have simply missed the post, though admittedly Mark does post more often.
Agreed. ^_^
* The designers seem to be fairly quiet so far. As I said in the above point, I see Mark Seifter, but haven't seen one post from any other designer. As was evident during the ACG playlets, availability (or lack thereof) of various designers led to some degree of frustration.I have actually seen posts by all but Logan and even then I might have simply missed the post, though admittedly Mark does post more often.
Yup, I'm not saying they haven't posted, but that I haven't seen them. Regardless, they aren't exactly present. Perhaps by design, perhaps not. I'm just saying the lack of presence contributes to a lot of undirected discussion. Which is fine if that's what the designers and devs want - a free for all of amazing ideas and insights. Except that isn't what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a lot of double ups and cul-de-sacs of concern that could easily be resolved.
In previous years, IIRC, there was a dedicated playtest thread...but tons of people still posted thoughts and comments here, and I think at points had to be told by mods to post them in the playtest thread. SO...not seeing a huge difference. If there was a separate thread some posters would still probably be commenting here exclusively.So this is not any feedback on the Vigilante Base Class per se, but rather how the Playtest has been run so far.
* Firstly, I think it a mistake to call or treat the Paizo Blog announcement post discussion "the main thread". Debating the minutiae and design nuances in the Paizo Blog just feels like the wrong place - feels like there should have been a dedicated "Vigilante Feedback" thread, and then folks could make their own threads from there, just as they have done.
Well it seems like it could avoid having the mods tell people to post elsewhere?
* I also think it was a mistake to release the playtest just before the weekend, when both posts of PbP's (where plenty of play testing could occur) drop way off, and the DESIGNERS and DEVELOPERS will be away? So many debates and discussions could have been nixed if the designers/devs stepped in to say: "we are definitely not going to change x.....", or "that's a good point, however....", or "what about the content leads you to think...." or "I can clarify that...." Mark Seifter has appeared here and there, but mostly there seems to be a storm of discontent or debate over/about a number of basic premises, but little from the designers to explain why things are the way they are, or what they are and aren't willing to change.Pluses and minuses are both apparent to me regarding release date. On the other hand the date when playtesting ends is fixed, so the sooner the better for many people. and releasing before the weekend increases the likelihood that people will thoroughly read it, rather than skimming it after a long day at work. Also a lot of groups only play on weekends, so at least they can potentially start playtesting it
Fair commentary, but I think perhaps we are both surmising here. It could also be that releasing mid-week would give weekend players more time to organise time for said playtests, or that people have other social activities that remove them from availability for playtest engagement.
* The designers seem to be fairly quiet so far. As I said in the above point, I see Mark Seifter, but haven't seen one post from any other designer. As was evident during the ACG playlets, availability (or lack thereof) of various designers led to some degree of frustration.A downside of a weekend release. but honestly can't begrudge the developers not wanting to spend their weekend commenting on playtests. Probably the least fun part of writing the core rulebooks, and not something I would want to deal with while hanging out with family and friends. Also I question how absence of 2 days is really all that bad...
Well, seeing as I've seen threads (outside of this playtest, but definitely in others) mushroom out to over a thousand posts in a day, it's not BAD per se, just makes for a ton of reading that may not be nmecessary. Sure, it's great to have all the opinions and debates and asides and links to cheery YouTube vid... (actually I could do without those) or pop-culture instagra.. (those too actually) but as I've commented upthread a little more direction would suit me. But then perhaps I'm the outlier. I did start the thread after all. ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of the points in the OP, designers have already commented on at least the following two (I am reiterating previous designer posts here):
1) The UI rules aren't designed yet (or even ordered). They are going to be very cool, and designed to make a really intrigue-heavy game with lots of roleplaying and social dynamics.
2) There will definitely be talents everyone can take; many will also offer fun options specifically for the social persona, though since many will likely be tied into (1), we'll be working on that list later.
As to "* I'd also really like the designers to comb the threads and see where the disparities and disagreements are occurring in the fans minds/feelings. ": We are definitely doing so. As an aside that's also relevant to all previous playtests, one thing you guys dont' see but we do is when Jason always does a binge reading of ideas from you guys after the playtest is closed but right before he works on the final iteration of the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to "* I'd also really like the designers to comb the threads and see where the disparities and disagreements are occurring in the fans minds/feelings. ": We are definitely doing so. As an aside that's also relevant to all previous playtests, one thing you guys dont' see but we do is when Jason always does a binge reading of ideas from you guys after the playtest is closed but right before he works on the final iteration of the class.
Ok, but what I'm saying is rather than keep such a list to yourselves, post it on the threads with some direction
- show the readers what you are and aren't interested in changing,
- and those things that you are interested in changing, indicate how you might proceed, and ask for feedback on that.
That way the playtest fans aren't spinning their wheels griping endlessly and harping on about the same couple of things across multiple threads, and could be more usefully engaged moving forward on what will be working. Those things you've decided are staying. Which, seems to be everything. Merely tweaked.
There is a huge engine of creativity at your disposal - it's one thing to siphon off eveyone's brainstorms and sell it back to them, but you could also take on the actual experience and ability of the fanbase too to make the end result the best it can be! I've seen a bunch of rational and well thought out mechanical tweaks to what you guys have presented, but without any engagement from the designers ("....great idea, and then maybe we could...." or "....well, that would work, but then we'd need to do [x] - what do you guys think of [y]...") such ideas will wait for Jason's binge read without any rigorous back and forth to refine and design with the community's input. Perhaps there isn't time. But let that be not the reason.
If you check Jason he's posted some of the very things you're asking for today.
I checked Jason's posts, but I don't see it.
If you mean THIS POST then that isn't really it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AND given that there are a few comments floating around that the developers are speaking - such as that mentions a Know Direction commentary on the playtest:
it's obvious from watching Know Direction that they are reading through all this feedback and it seems that the developers themselves agree on many issues that have been brought up.
- why wouldn't the designers and devs post such stuff here, on the Playlets forum? Why leave it to third party channels?
This is currently a very annoying echo chamber, that apparently holds many ideas and complaints the designers and developers agree with. Unfortunately there is a lot of folks saying the same things, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...
with almost no word from the designers and developers.
We have playtests saying the same things as the theorycrafters. We have theorycrafters pointing out stuff you don't need play testing for, regardless of in-game interactions, because it's stuff based on existing classes.
One thread post. From the designers. Saying stuff about the issues that seem to keep cropping up. That's all.
- why wouldn't the designers and devs post such stuff here, on the Playlets forum? Why leave it to third party channels?
...
One thread post. From the designers. Saying stuff about the issues that seem to keep cropping up. That's all.
They have been posting in the playtest forum, they do post here. All have them have made several replies in different places.
The reason they mentioned some of the stuff to a third party, is because it was an interview, and questions that were asked would be appropraitedly answered by mentioning stuff thats happening in the playtest and their views on the playtest, if they went to an interview and didn't say anything, it'd be really freaking weird.
1) The UI rules aren't designed yet (or even ordered). They are going to be very cool, and designed to make a really intrigue-heavy game with lots of roleplaying and social dynamics.
[snark] How can you know the rules are going to be very cool if they haven't even been designed yet? [/snark]
Honestly though, it does seem like it'd be rather hard to get a proper playtest done for the class if half its functions not only haven't been included in said playtest, but don't even exist yet.
1) The UI rules aren't designed yet (or even ordered). They are going to be very cool, and designed to make a really intrigue-heavy game with lots of roleplaying and social dynamics.[snark] How can you know the rules are going to be very cool if they haven't even been designed yet? [/snark]
Honestly though, it does seem like it'd be rather hard to get a proper playtest done for the class if half its functions not only haven't been included in said playtest, but don't even exist yet.
Because I know who the freelancers are writing those sections, and I've talked to (or in some cases been) them and am excited for the direction they are going.
Because I know who the freelancers are writing those sections, and I've talked to (or in some cases been) them and am excited for the direction they are going.1) The UI rules aren't designed yet (or even ordered). They are going to be very cool, and designed to make a really intrigue-heavy game with lots of roleplaying and social dynamics.[snark] How can you know the rules are going to be very cool if they haven't even been designed yet? [/snark]
Honestly though, it does seem like it'd be rather hard to get a proper playtest done for the class if half its functions not only haven't been included in said playtest, but don't even exist yet.
I hope it works out, but you'd have to admit it sounds a bit like putting the cart in front of the horse. ;)
- why wouldn't the designers and devs post such stuff here, on the Playlets forum? Why leave it to third party channels?
...
One thread post. From the designers. Saying stuff about the issues that seem to keep cropping up. That's all.
They have been posting in the playtest forum, they do post here. All have them have made several replies in different places.
The reason they mentioned some of the stuff to a third party, is because it was an interview, and questions that were asked would be appropraitedly answered by mentioning stuff thats happening in the playtest and their views on the playtest, if they went to an interview and didn't say anything, it'd be really freaking weird.
Sorry if I was unclear - my last paragraph is supposed to be a request. For a new thread, from the designers, wrapping up all the disparate issues, and their posts in numerous and various threads - a summation of what issues they see and what they think is fine.
As for your comments on the interview, I'm seeing no small amount of patronising going on. I wasn't talking about what happens in an interview or why words were spoken - I was questioning why what was said there was not said [concisely, simply] here. And I think you knew that.
Aaaaaaand still no concise word or thread regarding where the design is at, or how the designers feel about consensus or commentary.
Just more and more folks spelling out more and more perceived problems or how the Vigilante should actually be everything from an archetype, prestige class or multi-class applicable archetype/split-class.
Which is not going to happen.
Really wishing there were some word on how things will proceed.