|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin: I think Chris has tackled this.I don't think so, since similar things have been said in the past and little has come of those promises as of yet except more promises to do the thing they promised to do a while back.
Sometimes the answer doesn't change because the problems are still there.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I totally understand where all the frustration is coming from on all sides of this conversation. But, I'd really prefer to not resort to suppressing posts or have the discussion take a toxic turn which leads to us needing to lock it. Focus on the ideas here, not the other participants in the conversation, and try to keep it civil please.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I think I've got them all aggroed on me.
...guys?
'Aggroed'? Is that an MMO word? That completely invalidates everything you've ever said!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to point out that I have just as many problems with the recent errata as the next guy.
Crane Wing, Divine Protection, SWD, etc.
What I was trying to get across, and evidently failing to do so, was that the errata isn't concrete, it isn't final.
Everyone who knows the rules now should already have the book, or have access to it one way or another. This means it isn't that unbelievable for an individual to ignore the errata, or any FAQ, or any statement from anyone on here.
There are plenty of gaming groups composed of people without a Paizo account among them, who get their books at their local game store, and play their homegame at home.
They might not even know that an errata has come out until someone tells them, possibly weeks after.
And did ignoring the changes destroy their game? Of course not.
There isn't a single reason you can't completely ignore any parts you don't like, up to and including entire books of content.
Well, besides PFS. But you kinda sign up for that.
Rynjin: I think Chris has tackled this.I don't think so, since similar things have been said in the past and little has come of those promises as of yet except more promises to do the thing they promised to do a while back.
Really? I don't remember Paizo promising to look into posting blogs and try new methods of transparency about erratas. I'm not that into these discussions, though, so I may be about to eat some crow.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
N. Jolly: Comparing an RPG publisher to a manufacturer of huge metal objects that crush people like tissue paper is a little bit absurd. It kind of speaks of the attitude of your whole post: Technically accurate, but put in a way that's melodramatic and bizarrely hostile.
Hostile? How is that remotely hostile? I was using hyperbole to make a point of the fact that demanding better isn't a bad thing when you're comparing it to old standards. I used an example that employed humor in the over exaggerated nature of it, the point being to show that it's inane to hold a company to the standards that were acceptable before.
I'm seeing more talk about hostility than I am seeing of actual hostility.
This seems to be the exact situation here, criticism is being taken as hostility when that's not the intention. We can talk about something needing improvement without it being an attack, which is what is happening here. I didn't call anyone a jerk, I stated that this level of communication between content provider and their consumers, which seems like it's actually being considered by Chris Lambert.
Please, don't look for hostility where there's just civil discourse that has a particular leaning.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no "if" in this case. Even the organized play ends normally at level 12. There are a handful of special modules past that point.
Look at the Adventure Paths. Notice what levels they end at.
They include higher level content for those who want it but you notice those higher levels are rarely supported.
You obviously haven't paid attention to the 3PP offerings and support. Paizo doesn't make high-level stuff specifically because it doesn't sell as well as low-level stuff. Not because high-level is not meant to be played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, besides PFS. But you kinda sign up for that.
Boy did I ever.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
N. Jolly: Comparing an RPG publisher to a manufacturer of huge metal objects that crush people like tissue paper is a little bit absurd. It kind of speaks of the attitude of your whole post: Technically accurate, but put in a way that's melodramatic and bizarrely hostile.Hostile? How is that remotely hostile? I was using hyperbole to make a point of the fact that demanding better isn't a bad thing when you're comparing it to old standards. I used an example that employed humor in the over exaggerated nature of it, the point being to show that it's inane to hold a company to the standards that were acceptable before.
Comparing Paizo's defenders to people protesting seatbelts is a charged bit of rhetoric. The real hostility I saw, though, was in the oft-rehashed "we sure as hell don't owe Paizo anything if they're not willing to meet the standards we have for spending money on a hobby." Rynjin put it even more aggressively, of course (I really don't see how you can read the posts on this thread with a neutral eye and not see hostility on both sides).
I apologize if your intent wasn't to be hostile. Intent doesn't always transfer well through the internet, and Kobold Cleaver's mastery of interpretation transfers even worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I considered going back and digging up the posts that I saw as overly aggressive, but I don't think arguing about arguing is going to be very productive, on-topic, or conducive to my goals. I believe that the thread has bounced from melodrama to fallacies to contempt to intense lack of regard for the integrity of our benevolent overlords pretty eagerly up until now. If we can stop doing that bouncing, I'll be happy as a clam.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? I don't remember Paizo promising to look into posting blogs and try new methods of transparency about erratas. I'm not that into these discussions, though, so I may be about to eat some crow.Rynjin: I think Chris has tackled this.I don't think so, since similar things have been said in the past and little has come of those promises as of yet except more promises to do the thing they promised to do a while back.
It's been said a few times before that they're "trying" to be more transparent.
So far, however, the opposite has been true. Jason Buhlman is largely unseen, as is Stephen Radney McFarland.
Apparently they hired two new designers...who knew? I didn't until a while back when one of the new guys popped up to do his best amateur impression of SKR and then pop out again.
So really, the only "transparency" is via Mark, and he understandably can't reveal everything from behind the scenes without permission, so it's just his personal perspective on things.
Which is great, but not all of what we need right now.
Nobody said its not meant to be played but it isn't supported. Not supported means not intended.False.True.
When you can show me official support for it then you can say it is intended. As it stands... It clearly isn't.
You're creating a false equivalency. Intent and support are two different things.
Obviously the game is SUPPOSED to function at level 1, level 20, and all the levels in between.
Or the game wouldn't have been written with 20 levels, and all the classes ever released wouldn't have 20 levels.
Well, besides PFS. But you kinda sign up for that.Boy did I ever.Okay here's something I don't understand at all:
why do some of your posts as 'Steven Schopmeyer' show your name in purple as an alias, while others show your name in blue as a non-alias (but those redirect to your 'TriOmegaZero' profile)? The forum software is weird.Or maybe someone forgot to tell the forums that we're using blue laser swords now.
See the "Post As" dropdown menu to the left of the Preview/Cancel/Submit Post buttons? You can create aliases from My Account (not mine!). It's one of the forums' best features, in my opinion.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been contemplating making a thread titled, "Do you like this game?", mostly because of the threads, starting from 3.0 days apparently, about the same problems. All this doomsaying is happening while the system as a whole has been thriving for over a decade rocked the entire RPG market twice and spawning so many clones, all while similar games that supposedly don't have these problems exist in a huge number. It makes it hard to know how to feel when the fans of the game say that the developers don't know what they're doing. Especially when I'm over here happily playing my games without the system self destructing every FAQ update. In the meantime the people that refuse to play Pathfinder have 'hostile online community' as their #2 reason to stay away from the game.
I'm not saying that I'm thrilled with the ACG situation, and I'll say that caster/martial disparity exists (although stopped existing in my games a while ago) but I have no where near the anger and disappointment I see on these boards or reason to start accusing the developers of having some sort of agenda against us. Yeah the ACG is a mess and now post-eratta my book is pretty useless but I do think they're trying the best they can but made a lot of mistakes in that book. I'd like to turn in my book for a discount on the second printing but its not a jump ship situation for me. I haven't noticed any real glitches in Occult Adventures so far so I feel like the ACG is a bad blip on the track record and nothing more.
And its not like I don't have the tools to jump ship if I wanted to. On my shelf is 5th edition, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Fate, Fudge, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th age and True 20. In the case of 5th edition I know for a fact that its fairly easy to play adventure paths using 5th ed. I'm playing a game where that is happening right now. But I've been preferring Pathfinder and playing Pathfinder and liking Pathfinder, and buying Pathfinder.
We also have a very vocal developer base that communicate with us on a daily basis. Big names that have been around in the industry for years and yet we're not satisfied and need more so we can yell at them online as much as we want to.
|
|
When you can show me official support for it then you can say it is intended. As it stands... It clearly isn't.
What's false is your statement that a level range must be supported to be intended. You are simply wrong on that fact. But this is hardly on topic for the thread, so I'll stop arguing with you.
why do some of your posts as 'Steven Schopmeyer' show your name in purple as an alias, while others show your name in blue as a non-alias (but those redirect to your 'TriOmegaZero' profile)? The forum software is weird.
Partly this and partly because PFS venture officers get their username auto-replaced with their real name and title on the PFS forums.
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.You're right, we can communicate this better. I'm actively trying to see what my team can do on this front while everyone is at the show. This doesn't change previous issues, but rest assured it's not being ignored.
I want to be clear that no matter HOW upsetting the constant nerf-storm has been since crane-wing maybe, I really do appreciate people like you and Mark coming on and interacting with us. I just wish that the people that make the final decisions on these things would pop in once in a while.
And as others have said, I'd love to see some kind of poll put out for some of the more controversial changes. It would give a tangible view of how many people are for/against it before something radical gets done.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.You're right, we can communicate this better. I'm actively trying to see what my team can do on this front while everyone is at the show. This doesn't change previous issues, but rest assured it's not being ignored.I want to be clear that no matter HOW upsetting the constant nerf-storm has been since crane-wing maybe, I really do appreciate people like you and Mark coming on and interacting with us. I just wish that the people that make the final decisions on these things would pop in once in a while.
And as others have said, I'd love to see some kind of poll put out for some of the more controversial changes. It would give a tangible view of how many people are for/against it before something radical gets done.
Given that the forum goers are a tiny, and hardly representative, fraction of the playerbase, that wouldn't be in the slightest indicative of anything.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We also have a very vocal developer base that communicate with us on a daily basis. Big names that have been around in the industry for years and yet we're not satisfied and need more so we can yell at them online as much as we want to.
This overly generalized tone that we just want to yell at the devs is really disruptive to any actual discourse. No one here has said anything about wanting to 'yell' at devs, you're just deciding that this is the end game of these discussions, and it's not.
It's to get more insight into the design process. I mean big names get big from doing good work, and as this last year has shown us, this isn't what we've been getting. I won't crap on everything, there's been some good things, probably while I've been AWOL for MH4U, but if you want to keep being the best, you have to keep doing the best, or else you're just riding your old accomplishments by saying "we're big names!", a title that really doesn't mean a lot without others agreeing.
I like the mechanics of this game, hell I love them, you can literally google my name if you want to know HOW much I do. But I also like the game being treated with respect, and putting out a book that needs 10 pages of errata isn't respecting it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take a look at Arkalion sometime to see some of the things a level 20 caster is capable of.I wanna' SEEEE!!! Could you provide a link please?
I most certainly can!
Backstory and Link:
Arkalion dislikes the present management of the afterlife system so he is going around to Prime material planes so he can incorporate them in what he calls the "Grand Cycle". The Grand Cycle is endless loop of reincarnation governed by Arkalion himself. The main upside (in his opinion) is that by keeping souls endlessly within the cycle, it deprives the planes, outsiders (like devils and demons) and gods from gaining any power from those souls.
Arkalion, Ruler of the Grand Cycle
I'll try and contribute my thoughts to the thread here:
So... where to start. I think it's a bit unfair to attack the quality of the ACG at this point. Paizo owned up to the editting being subpar and while I have yet to acquire Occult Adventures my understanding is that this issue has been remedied. That being said, attacking the quality of the errata is fine, but I think criticism would be better framed as "I don't like X part of the errata, because it messes with Y, which is Z." Saying so-and-so did or didn't do this, or hyperbolic comparisons doesn't achieve much. Feedback is important and can be done without letting things get heated.
So my feedback on the errata was tricky to into writing. My big complaint is that rather then merely being subjected to errata some things were changed. Now obviously a line or two here, a line or two there can certainly change how something is perceived, what I'm talking about is changing the effect. Thus, I find errata like Animal Soul and Scarred Witch Doctor to be less errata and more of a rewrite. And I think rewrites are hurtful to the game and should only be implemented if absolutely necessary. In short, more Paragon Surge FAQ, less Animal Soul Errata.
Now obviously, in an ideal world what I would like to see is something like: Errata text: We decided that X ability was to strong for the opportunity cost and added in some limitations to bring it into line. However, I acknowledge that this is likely unfeasible. Something like it would certainly help to soothe the sting with major changes like the aforementioned Scarred Witch Doctor.
So if we could all refocus and make clinical statements of what parts of the errata are problematic and why I think this thread will be back on track.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all fairness that is a fact.Comparing Paizo's defenders to people protesting seatbelts is a charged bit of rhetoric. The real hostility I saw, though, was in the oft-rehashed "we sure as hell don't owe Paizo anything if they're not willing to meet the standards we have for spending money on a hobby." Rynjin put it even more aggressively, of course (I really don't see how you can read the posts on this thread with a neutral eye and not see hostility on both sides).
I apologize if your intent wasn't to be hostile. Intent doesn't always transfer well through the internet, and Kobold Cleaver's mastery of interpretation transfers even worse.
Like I said. Technically accurate, but so is the US saying to France, "You know, we could probably nuke you into oblivion and/or crush you economically if we really, really wanted to."
My point was that bringing it up should be done a bit more tactfully. Really, the "Paizo doesn't owe you anything" argument barely merits a serious follow-up. Its problems are pretty inherently obvious.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
Versioned PDFs would be excellent. (As a VO it would be great to have every version of the Guide to Organized Play as reference for how the campaign has evolved.)
I also like the idea mentioned upthread about having an option to view previous versions on the PRD, with the current version being default and a toggle to adjust between printings for each individual book.
@Chris: Is it possible to send you a PM on some of this and related topics? I can't find the SEND PM button on your user page.
I'm opted out of PMs (I find email easier to track personally), dropping a line to chris.lambertz@paizo.com or community@paizo.com works :)
|
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
I don't think I'd personally see much use in a 'profile' page for developers, if that's what you're talking about in that first part. As for something you can do to the forums...
Several MMOs I've followed have had a pretty interesting thing called a "dev tracker" link, which would show all posts made by developers on the forums. Something like that could maybe be considered, although there are lots of problems to think about (include off-topic posts etc.?).
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
I'd release them as a trickle, like FAQs, whenever the individual issue is decided upon, rather than as a monolithic dump.
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
Having different versions up on the PRD just complicates an already complex ruleset. Just update things when they are errataed and be done with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I think I've got them all aggroed on me. Now I can lead them out of the room so you guys can go in, get the treasure, then come back and bail me out!
...guys?
I'm happy to favorite, but this is the same as Pathfinder and D&D releases going a long way back. So I'm still not on board for having a conversation on what issues I have with this or things that I like.
I do think Paizo can do a better job.
This seems to be the exact situation here, criticism is being taken as hostility when that's not the intention. We can talk about something needing improvement without it being an attack, which is what is happening here. I didn't call anyone a jerk, I stated that this level of communication between content provider and their consumers, which seems like it's actually being considered by Chris Lambert.
Please, don't look for hostility where there's just civil discourse that has a particular leaning.
That implies that there is no hostility and that this is all just civil discourse. I do disagree with that and I do feel some people have stepped over that line. Which is to say the line I personally have defined and you may disagree with. I do see comments I would call reasonable and I would say that the majority of the posts are just that. Except the ones that are insulting to me are so much louder than anything else. As people support those posts, I don't care to even respond to their reasonable points. I just wish the thread to burn to the ground and a new one to rise in it's place with maybe a fraction of bile.
That wouldn't happen though. So I'm just going to stand at the sidelines and not bother giving my opinion on errata because I don't think this thread is worth that effort.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they wanted tactful responses from their consumers they probably should have looked into working in a different industry.
Role players and gamers in general are often not tactful and those who post on forums seem to be even less tactful than the average. Is that a good thing? No. But, at this point it's to be expected
Rude and/or insensitive behavior shouldn't be tolerated because it's common. If anything, it should be criticized all the more if it is common. The 'boys will be boys' defense is essentially victim blaming.
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
1. Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
2. How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
3. Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
4. Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invasion errata being notated here?
5. Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
6. Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invasion them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
1. Honestly, I'd like the staff to post as little or as often as they like. Introductions could be cool, but it's not an enormous priority for me.
2. As others have mentioned, if the FAQ is in response to a thread, link the FAQ on that thread so it's easily accessed. Otherwise, I'm not sure.
3. I'd like to get an idea of what's changing and why. I'd also like to know about it before it comes out. I know that's not easy, but even just a vague summary of what's incoming would be nice to let people critique it. Little slip-ups like the random age charts could be easily averted.
4. I would "invasion" errata Oh, god, that's such a mess, I wouldn't want to force you guys to make it work. Ideally, including the erratas on the PRD could be handy. Alternatively, including the original version on the page could be nice, though messy. Linking the errata, too. Or you could have a separate space for "original" abilities that people could link (so the url might look like, "http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/original/advancedRaceGuide/featuredRace s/orcs.html", or something).
5. If the PRD could be made more flexible, no, I don't think it would be necessary. Otherwise, yes, some sort of virtual means of accessing the originals should be available.
6. Now I feel bad for making fun of what must be your autocorrect. Anyways, I invasion polls being used for particularly major changes (like hardcore flattening out a powerful feat or ability, or outright changing, say, the casting stat for an archetype). Otherwise, feedback threads where the OP just lists all the changes and people respond as they like would be plenty.
|
|
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
I enjoy the new employee post, they humanize new staff to the board and make them feel more like people instead of random people.
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
Blog series works best for me, seeing blogs about mechanics is generally my favorite kind.
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
I feel like faith has been lost in the rules team. Before, I didn't mind the errata, it fixed things that needed fixing, and the amount of destroyed builds was minimal and for the best, even if it wasn't always handled in the best way (nerfing weapon cords instead of DB Pistols).
I'd personally like to see a list of things that are thinking about being errata'd with possible ideas for how to change them.
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you envision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
I feel like hitting something that IS going to be errata'd (Divine Protection) would validate it, something that there's a general consensus that is too strong. Although god help me, a fun poll might be "which option needs revisited?" where they occasionally take a sub par group of archetypes (again, generally regarded as poor, like Rage Chemist), and actually go back to them to try and give them some buffs.
Maybe not even an errata for that, just a "we looked at X archetype and decided to give it the following buffs", make the changes PFS legal too, it'd be super cool to see that poor decisions design wise from the past were actually being looked at rather than looking at the corpse pile of books past wondering what could have been.
We also have a very vocal developer base that communicate with us on a daily basis. Big names that have been around in the industry for years and yet we're not satisfied and need more so we can yell at them online as much as we want to.This overly generalized tone that we just want to yell at the devs is really disruptive to any actual discourse. No one here has said anything about wanting to 'yell' at devs, you're just deciding that this is the end game of these discussions, and it's not.
It is overly generalized but for a purpose, although admittedly a bad one. In general the desire for more dialog is to more understand the reasoning behind changes or mistakes. But subconsciously I made a statement that was a veiled way of saying that I don't see conversations going that way around here. I see more of the yelling and picking an out of context comment to repeat for about a year as evidence that 'Paizo don't care about us'. It is a bit cowardly, in that its definitely what I'm thinking but not that quick to say it or broadly apply it to as many forum goers as I can; Because it is a broad and hyperbolic statement but I'll be damned if it didn't cross my mind every single time it happens as opposed to actually gaining insight into the design process.
And sure, I like the game being treated with respect, at least by the developers, but the current ACG and eratta situation is more like 'Dudes you messed up big' than the doomsaying and hyperbole (I hope it's hyperbole) that I see on a regular basis.
Is that a good thing? No. But, at this point it's to be expected
I disagree on a fundamental level. ;)
Samy summed it up for me, though (sans victim blaming, which seems mostly out-of-place here).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a big fan of the idea of polling the online community and then allowing the most popularly voted items to become new rules/changes/errata/whatever. The online community seems to be weighted towards one play style that my own experience tells me is not the average play style.
Polling the online community and then not doing what the poll suggests would be even worse, as that would show that the poll is meaningless. As such, I don't think polls of the online community should be held on these kind of changes.
I take it for granted that the developers have good reasons for the decisions that they're making - making those reasons more transparent to the community would be a good way to go IMO. Especially if the PRD could list previous versions of things that have been changed, with developer notes accessible via a click or tab.
^ Polls serve a valuable purpose in allowing Paizo to see what the community things. They aren't beholden to do what the community tells them, but that doesn't make a poll meaningless: It's just an expedited means of communication.
Oh, a sidenote on polls: If you poll people on a proposed errata, make sure to include at least these three options:
- I like this change, and feel it was necessary.
- I don't like this change, but I do feel a change is necessary.
- I don't like this change, and I don't feel any change is necessary.
I don't know if this is already customary, but we really need to encourage that flexibility. A lot of people who argued about Crane Wing probably feel the same way.
EDIT: Maybe a fourth, "I like this change, but I don't feel it adequately resolves the original problems."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
Visibility and communication are always a good thing. I don't even think it really needs to be anything major, maybe just having a Design/Development person on hand after a release of a book or major errata would probably be enough. Even if it was contained to a single "Ask about X." thread. Though of course more interaction never hurts.
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
As to communicating FAQs, I think something like a blog post would be preferable. Maybe a "FAQ Round-up". It always feels nice to see them answered in the Rules Question threads though, so that should stay the same. Ideally the blog post would include the old text, the new text and a short explanation.
Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
So my feedback on the errata was tricky to into writing. My big complaint is that rather then merely being subjected to errata some things were changed. Now obviously a line or two here, a line or two there can certainly change how something is perceived, what I'm talking about is changing the effect. Thus, I find errata like Animal Soul and Scarred Witch Doctor to be less errata and more of a rewrite. And I think rewrites are hurtful to the game and should only be implemented if absolutely necessary. In short, more Paragon Surge FAQ, less Animal Soul Errata.
Now obviously, in an ideal world what I would like to see is something like:
(Errata text here): We decided that X ability was to strong for the opportunity cost and added in some limitations to bring it into line.
However, I acknowledge that this is likely unfeasible for absolutely everything. Something like it would certainly help to soothe the sting with major changes like the aforementioned Scarred Witch Doctor.
Much like the above FAQ "Round-up" Blog an Errata Blog would be ideal if it included the old text, the new text, and a short explanation.
Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
List the newest most up to date version at the top. Then a sort of "version history" beneath it.
Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
I still lug around physical books, but I'm sure people who use those would really like them.
Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invasion them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
I'm not a big poll person, but I think these could be valuable for playtests and other design work. Something like "Do you feel the Kineticist is: Easy to understand, Average Class Complexity, or Very Complicated" something like that for different topics would probably get great feedback. Honestly, I think is a question that might be better turned around. How can polls help Paizo to get feedback? Because I'm sure people would be happy to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invasion them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
-No. I know some people want more communication. I want the devs committed to making quality material and to realize that just because they nerf strong options that does not make weak options any better. Long blog posts from the devs trying to convey why a once per day ability to add cha to a save roll is a valid purposeful feat that adds to the game is a waste of both my time and theirs. I refuse to think that the devs do not know when they make unfun options.
- I want FAQs to answer questions. Using them as errata just means they aren't answering questions. You shouldn't have to explain an FAQ. It should be an explanation.
- I want errata to clarify rules and fix typos. Sweeping balance changes should simply be avoided. Errata like that devalues people's books and shows disrespect for both your costumer and product. Tweaks like that are what new editions are for. Editions normally do not mean "entirely different game" like how DnD trained us to think.
- PRD with a "view as of XX/XX/XXXX date" or "view as of inclusion of X book" would allow people to see the older material.
- Hmmmmm. I would tentatively say yes.
- Polls for FAQs. Polls to address problematic mechanics. Polls of praise like to show what people like and why they like it. Polls would be something you do before a feedback thread to decide what to give feedback on.
It would be nice if Paizo could start posting "updates" on the erratas so we know where they're at and where they're heading.You're right, we can communicate this better. I'm actively trying to see what my team can do on this front while everyone is at the show. This doesn't change previous issues, but rest assured it's not being ignored.I want to be clear that no matter HOW upsetting the constant nerf-storm has been since crane-wing maybe, I really do appreciate people like you and Mark coming on and interacting with us. I just wish that the people that make the final decisions on these things would pop in once in a while.
And as others have said, I'd love to see some kind of poll put out for some of the more controversial changes. It would give a tangible view of how many people are for/against it before something radical gets done.
Given that the forum goers are a tiny, and hardly representative, fraction of the playerbase, that wouldn't be in the slightest indicative of anything.
Neither of us knows how "representative" it is or isn't. It's would be an accurate representation of the more vocal part of it. They seem to care about our thought and opinions enough to ask us to playtest their upcoming products so why wouldn't asking us to 'playtest' FAQ/errata be a good idea?
|
|
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
Part of the pain with the current raft of errata Chris is that they were, as I mentioned in my OP, unexpected and unasked for (and consequently disruptive). In many cases the community has asked for FAQs where a feature appears erroneous or unclear; the FAQ system provides a tool to address those problem features. It is also reasonably straightforward to see where the playing community considers a particular option to be too strong or too weak, and yet what we've just had is a large number of rewrites of options that were not giving us problems, and those rewrites are giving us problems.
So, I would like to know when the development team is considering errata, and why, please. One possible way to do this would be through threads on the forum. Blogs signposting forum debate threads where possible errata are to be discussed would also be helpful. When it is accepted that errata are needed, as with the ACG for example, regular updates on progress towards release are helpful. Withholding or delaying errata publication because of print runs is not helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?
A few things that would personally make me happy.
1. One month after a product has been released open up a survey similar to the one after the ACG playtest. Questions like
"do you feel X class is competitive compared to other classes in its niche"
"If you could make any one change to this book, what would it be?"
Questions like that would be very helpful. That way we wouldn't get
stuff like nerfs to underpowered classes.
2. I want more Jason. This man is the lead designer and the arbiter for every scrap of content we see in the books. The fact that he interacts so little with the community is really saddening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To take this in a slightly different direction, I have some questions for you guys from purely a site structure/community team standpoint:
- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?
A blog post is sufficient. Perhaps posting credits when a product is announced is better.
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
If possible, a stickied thread if blog posts have a word limit.
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
Things can probably be a bit tamer if there was a blog post or long thread with blurbs about the changes and why. Most likely a blog post for visibility.
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
Probably some kind of sidebar describing what it got eratta'd from so we know to watch out for it in our hard copies.