|
Because there are some that are literally not frequently asked questions.
Such as?
The example cited as the basis for this thread actually WAS a frequently asked question... and I'm not aware of any on the various FAQ pages that Paizo just decided to put up there without anyone having asked.
Just because the answer is 'wrong' (from the perspective of some people) doesn't change the fact that the question WAS asked.
Because there are some that are literally not frequently asked questions. There are FAQ's that take clearly worded, not ambiguous rules and nerf them. If a rule is clear and you want to change it for balance reasons that is fine. But you need to publish it someplace people will actually go looking for it. But I'm not going to look up the FAQ for fireball to make sure they didn't decide to change it to d4's everytime I cast the spell. It is clear as day in the text that d6's are used and if they change it then it doesn't belong in the FAQ.
But that doesnt really help does it?
If they had a list of FAQs and "things we've changed despite not being asked to" are you now going to go look up fireball everytime you cast the spell?
It's true that they change things without being asked to as well as clarifying things which were ambiguous (or which needed changes based on subsequent rules coming out). The frustration of that first issue doesn't go away just because they put them in a second category (or third category - I'm sure you could subdivide the current "FAQ" list many ways, if you wanted).
The advantage of Paizo's approach is there's only one spot you need to go to check for changes/clarifications or anything else which alters or amends the rules.
Whether they should be doing the non-FAQ changes is a separate question, but if they are I think there's a definite advantage in putting them in one place.
EDIT: To put it another way - if you did decide to see if fireball had changed, as things stand currently you just go and check the FAQ list. Under a multi-category option, you have to go to the 'unrequested changes' list and then the FAQ (in case the change was unasked for or in response to frequent queries).
Man, oh man! This Christmas is gonna look like one of those Lexus commercials.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've regularly FAQ'd questions about rules that might have been clearly worded, but seemed unbalanced. Some have gotten errata. Sounds like the issue some have is they don't want FAQs to nerf things that are overpowered.
More than that... for some reason they insist on claiming that those things are NOT FAQs. Despite people having marked them as FAQs and requested that Paizo respond to them.
It would be fine for people to say, 'well I disagree with that answer' or 'I do not like it when FAQ responses change the rules', but the claims that the process is "deceitful" because some items are "literally not frequently asked questions" are, so far as I can tell, completely false. Unless someone can cite an item on the FAQ pages that was put there without people asking for it/marking it as a FAQ candidate... the FAQs are FAQs. FAQs some people greatly dislike/disagree with, but FAQs nonetheless. No 'deceit' involved... and this entire thread thus predicated on unjust insults.
I've regularly FAQ'd questions about rules that might have been clearly worded, but seemed unbalanced. Some have gotten errata. Sounds like the issue some have is they don't want FAQs to nerf things that are overpowered.More than that... for some reason they insist on claiming that those things are NOT FAQs. Despite people having marked them as FAQs and requested that Paizo respond to them.
It would be fine for people to say, 'well I disagree with that answer' or 'I do not like it when FAQ responses change the rules', but the claims that the process is "deceitful" because some items are "literally not frequently asked questions" are, so far as I can tell, completely false. Unless someone can cite an item on the FAQ pages that was put there without people asking for it/marking it as a FAQ candidate... the FAQs are FAQs. FAQs some people greatly dislike/disagree with, but FAQs nonetheless. No 'deceit' involved... and this entire thread thus predicated on unjust insults.
There have been a several times where Paizo has chosen to address FAQ requests that were relatively low impact. I believe even in those cases there was at least one FAQ request though.
Wish they prioritized FAQs better (Crane Wing gets a nerf bat, but Sacred Symmetry is A-OK)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've regularly FAQ'd questions about rules that might have been clearly worded, but seemed unbalanced. Some have gotten errata. Sounds like the issue some have is they don't want FAQs to nerf things that are overpowered.More than that... for some reason they insist on claiming that those things are NOT FAQs. Despite people having marked them as FAQs and requested that Paizo respond to them.
It would be fine for people to say, 'well I disagree with that answer' or 'I do not like it when FAQ responses change the rules', but the claims that the process is "deceitful" because some items are "literally not frequently asked questions" are, so far as I can tell, completely false. Unless someone can cite an item on the FAQ pages that was put there without people asking for it/marking it as a FAQ candidate... the FAQs are FAQs. FAQs some people greatly dislike/disagree with, but FAQs nonetheless. No 'deceit' involved... and this entire thread thus predicated on unjust insults.
There have been a several times where Paizo has chosen to address FAQ requests that were relatively low impact. I believe even in those cases there was at least one FAQ request though.
Wish they prioritized FAQs better (Crane Wing gets a nerf bat, but Sacred Symmetry is A-OK)
More to the point, there have been several times when an "FAQ" was posted without a reciprocal post from the PDT account, and when asked about it the response from PDT was, <paraphrase> there is no relevant thread to post the change in. </paraphrase>
|
|
More to the point, there have been several times when an "FAQ" was posted without a reciprocal post from the PDT account, and when asked about it the response from PDT was, <paraphrase> there is no relevant thread to post the change in. </paraphrase>
I'll say it again: Such as?
This is such a major problem as to inspire lengthy rants and angry denunciations... surely someone can come up with actual examples?
SLA as prerequisite reversal. Mark commented that there was no open discussion or requests they just felt like changing it.
It is interesting to note that when JoelF said he FAQ'd clear rules to encourage errata for balance reasons that you didn't question it nor demand examples. I'm willing to let JoelF's statement stand in proxy for further examples because that is exactly what I'm talking about.
It is interesting to note that when JoelF said he FAQ'd clear rules to encourage errata for balance reasons that you didn't question it nor demand examples. I'm willing to let JoelF's statement stand in proxy for further examples because that is exactly what I'm talking about.
Why would he need to demand examples of JoelF when he says he FAQ tags rules? He's not asserting that Paizo is putting in changes that aren't FAQed. Rather, he's raising questions to get things addressed in the FAQ list, and that's kind of the point of the FAQ list - to get questions answered.
|
|
SLA as prerequisite reversal. Mark commented that there was no open discussion or requests they just felt like changing it.
But... that was clearly a frequently asked question. They were asked about it... a lot. They gave an answer that broadly allowed it. There were more questions (e.g. how do you determine 'spell level' for SLAs that different classes cast at different levels). They added a note that they were reviewing it and would change things if it seemed to be overpowered. There continued to be questions. They changed how it works to a more limited version. 'ZOMG deceitful!'
Reality: No deceit involved. That absolutely was a frequently asked question. Completely proper to have it in the 'FAQ' section. Not liking the answer doesn't make it not a FAQ.
So that's zero for two on the examples of 'FAQs which are not FAQs'.
It is interesting to note that when JoelF said he FAQ'd clear rules to encourage errata for balance reasons that you didn't question it nor demand examples.
Why would I? Did I miss the part where JoelF was running around screaming that his having FAQ'd things was deceitful and going to cause people to stop playing Pathfinder? If not... why exactly would I care whether it is true that he has FAQ'd things or not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are certainly FAQs that I cannot fathom were frequently (or ever) asked questions. Take this one for example:
Weapon Cord: What kind of action is it to recover a weapon attached to your wrist with a weapon cord?
As originally published, this was a swift action. The design team has changed this to a move action. This will be updated in the next printing of the Advanced Player's Guide.
Reading the original text clearly answered the question -- it was a swift action. It was only listed in the FAQ because the design team wanted to nerf it for whatever reason. There were possibly threads or questions asking if it was meant to be "this powerful" but the question as posed in the FAQ I'm pretty confident was never actually something in need of a clarification due to the answer already being obvious.
That being said, I'm going to reiterate my previous stance: people's perceptions on what FAQ should contain or what it even means certainly differ. This thread has proved that in spades by largely turning into an echo chamber for people saying "me too" or "you're wrong, it's X" without actually providing any useful or constructive information to assist with a shift to something we can (mostly) agree on. I can't comment much more on it than that because I am not a psychic and as such cannot divine the reasons for why people are opposed to the "everything in one place" method. If someone would like to elucidate the reasons behind their stance, I'd be more than happy to discuss them in a reasonable fashion and ideally arrive at proposition that works for a good majority of people.
I'll start things off with mine. Having everything in one place helps players and GMs, since they can know that if something was changed, that change is in the FAQ, which greatly speeds up looking stuff up during gameplay. This also helps Paizo staff, as it means they don't need multiple mostly-the-same systems to manage changes/responses to the game rules and there is no risk of "misfiling" something in the wrong section. Terminology-wise, FAQ is (mostly) fine, because although there may be a few things on there that nobody would truly believe was frequently asked, the heading is generic enough to already encompass both clarifications of existing wording as well as wording changes in response to issues. While the FAQ for 3.5 was only used for clarifications, and I think that is maybe where people are associating that "FAQ = clarifications and never errata," Paizo is not WotC and does not need to keep to the same policy that WotC did.
In terms of actionable suggestions, I think the fix for the current system is quite simple: add a bit of text at the top of the FAQ pages explaining what the system is for and what types of content it contains. This should maybe take a few hours of someone's time and would ideally put to rest the debate on what FAQ actually means. As to whether or not that suggestion is the right one, that's why I made a call for other people to voice their own reasons so that an educated discussion can be had :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would he need to demand examples of JoelF when he says he FAQ tags rules? He's not asserting that Paizo is putting in changes that aren't FAQed. Rather, he's raising questions to get things addressed in the FAQ list, and that's kind of the point of the FAQ list - to get questions answered.
It is interesting to note that when JoelF said he FAQ'd clear rules to encourage errata for balance reasons that you didn't question it nor demand examples. I'm willing to let JoelF's statement stand in proxy for further examples because that is exactly what I'm talking about.
Because the FAQ is intended to clarify ambiguous rules, not for soliciting errata.
"Can we please change this clearly written rule I don't like?" isn't the 'frequently asked question' the FAQ was meant to answer.
Because the FAQ is intended to clarify ambiguous rules, not for soliciting errata."Can we please change this clearly written rule I don't like?" isn't the 'frequently asked question' the FAQ was meant to answer.
I don't see a point to the difference, frankly. It's a question - Paizo answered it. Why does a FAQ list need to make a distinction?
|
|
There are certainly FAQs that I cannot fathom were frequently (or ever) asked questions. Take this one for example:
Reading the original text clearly answered the question -- it was a swift action. It was only listed in the FAQ because the design team wanted to nerf it for whatever reason.Weapon Cord: What kind of action is it to recover a weapon attached to your wrist with a weapon cord?
As originally published, this was a swift action. The design team has changed this to a move action. This will be updated in the next printing of the Advanced Player's Guide.
Yes and no.
The question was not asked in exactly that way. Rather, people were posting FAQs saying, 'Weapon Cords are causing problems. What should we do about it?' The solution the design team came up with for these frequently asked questions was to make it a move action.
So that change really WAS due to FAQs. You could argue that the wording of the question was different, but they could have put up something like 'Should we ban weapon cords?' or some other exactly worded question and then given an answer with the same result (e.g. 'No, we will just make it a move action.'). Basically, they just reworded the question for ease in locating it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the dawn of the internet, the "Frequently" requirement of a FAQ has been fictional at best. But "Exhaustive List of Information" doesn't make nearly as good a TLA.
Everyone who is irritated at the process really is just being pedantic. Paizo has the best system their workflow allows. We have a place to get alterations between printings, and a place for all other clarifications and changes. It's not going to change. It's going to be called FAQ because people search for "Pathfinder FAQ" on google, they don't search for "Pathfinder Exhaustive List of Clarifications and Information".
|
|
Because the FAQ is intended to clarify ambiguous rules, not for soliciting errata.
This is something you would apparently like to be the case.
The fact that it is not the case does not make the FAQs "deceitful" or 'not FAQs'. The only requirement for FAQ status is that there be a question, which has been asked, at least somewhat frequently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calling them "deceitful" probably isn't going to make them get on it anytime soon.
Exept even as you yourself point out, they're not even answering the question that was asked when they make most of the FAQratas.
The question was not "What action is it to use a weapon cord?" the question was "Can we ban weapon cords?".
If they were really answering the question the answer would be either "Yes" or "No" not "We changed how it works".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the FAQ is intended to clarify ambiguous rules, not for soliciting errata.
Intended by who? I think Paizo's intention is to use it for both.
Because the FAQ is intended to clarify ambiguous rules, not for soliciting errata.This is something you would apparently like to be the case.
The fact that it is not the case does not make the FAQs "deceitful" or 'not FAQs'. The only requirement for FAQ status is that there be a question, which has been asked, at least somewhat frequently.
Intended by who? I think Paizo's intention is to use it for both.
This is a tool that will benefit us all if used correctly to identify issues with the rules that are unclear.
And you don't think they also use it to propagate errata?
I'll note he also said "This is going to be an organic process I think, one way or another."
And you don't think they also use it to propagate errata?
I think that Jason said that the correct use for the system is to identify rules which are unclear.
And you don't think it may have expanded since then? Or that he was referring to how we (the fans) can utilise the system rather than placing some set-in-stone limit on the kinds of things Paizo will use it for?
Last word on it was they also didn't want to introduce "incremental change" via Errata and FAQ, last seen about a year ago (about the last time Buhlman ever posted on these forums, actually).
Which is partly where "deceitful" comes from, since they've started doing that full on recently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or "organic".
And you don't think it may have expanded since then?
The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.
The FAQ is not to be used to get rules changed.
And you don't think it may have expanded since then?The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.The FAQ is not to be used to get rules changed.
And you think that, by that he meant "we won't change the rules via the FAQ process"?
I think he was trying to stop people using the FAQ process to lobby for changes to the rules, not to place some kind of limit on what Paizo might use it for.
And sometimes the answer to unclear rules is 'change them'.And you don't think they also use it to propagate errata?I think that Jason said that the correct use for the system is to identify rules which are unclear.
Thats fine. The problem happens when the FAQ is used to change rules which were not unclear. Which you would have known had you read this thread before jumping in with snark at the end.
I still don't see why that's a problem? (Or at least how the problem would be resolved by having a second list - I can see the problem of a fluid ruleset).
And you don't think it may have expanded since then?The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.The FAQ is not to be used to get rules changed.And you think that, by that he meant "we won't change the rules via the FAQ process"?
I think he was trying to stop people using the FAQ process to lobby for changes to the rules, not to place some kind of limit on what Paizo might use it for.
If that is the case then it is a terrible process but for that reason instead of the other reason.
Sure. There are people who don't like it - no argument with preferences. It may not suit everybody. I don't think its deceitful though.
I still don't see why that's a problem? (Or at least how the problem would be resolved by having a second list - I can see the problem of a fluid ruleset).
Because the "second list" is official errata that happens rarely, in bulk, and is publicized. Vs the FAQ which happens more frequently, one-off, and flies under the radar.
Changing the rules should be an obvious process that only requires occasional reconciliation. Having to scour FAQ's all the time for rules changes is an asinine proposal.
|
Which you would have known had you read this thread before jumping in with snark at the end.
It's always difficult to respond honestly when you're known for snark. Everything gets colored that way. Your implication that I haven't been reading this thread, simply because I haven't been posting, is unfortunate.
I still don't see why that's a problem? (Or at least how the problem would be resolved by having a second list - I can see the problem of a fluid ruleset).Because the "other list" is official errata that happens rarely, in bulk, and is publicized. Vs the FAQ which happens more frequently, one-off, and flies under the radar.
Changing the rules should be an obvious process that only requires occasional reconciliation. Having to scour FAQ's all the time for rules changes is an asinine proposal.
Am I understanding correctly that you're not objecting to putting these errata in the FAQ list - you're objecting to the 'incremental' errata existing at all (outside of the big updates to the PDFs, presumably)?
Which you would have known had you read this thread before jumping in with snark at the end.It's always difficult to respond honestly when you're known for snark. Everything gets colored that way. Your implication that I haven't been reading this thread, simply because I haven't been posting, is unfortunate.
I didn't imply that because you haven't been posting, I implied that because of your mischaracterization of the topic in discussion.
Am I understanding correctly that you're not objecting to putting these errata in the FAQ list - you're objecting to the 'incremental' errata existing at all (outside of the big updates to the PDFs, presumably)?I still don't see why that's a problem? (Or at least how the problem would be resolved by having a second list - I can see the problem of a fluid ruleset).Because the "other list" is official errata that happens rarely, in bulk, and is publicized. Vs the FAQ which happens more frequently, one-off, and flies under the radar.
Changing the rules should be an obvious process that only requires occasional reconciliation. Having to scour FAQ's all the time for rules changes is an asinine proposal.
I object to it because of convenience. But it also happens to be the way Paizo tells us they deliver errata. If they intend to deliver errata in another fashion then they should let us know.
I object to it because of convenience. But it also happens to be the way Paizo tells us they deliver errata. If they intend to deliver errata in another fashion then they should let us know.
Yeah, I agree. I don't think they've been particularly coy about it though (definitely not deceitful). They don't have to explicitly spell out the obvious, in my view.
I didn't imply that because you haven't been posting, I implied that because of your mischaracterization of the topic in discussion.Mischaracterize? I commented on your statement. I don't see how I characterized anything. You even agreed with my comment.
Then I apologize for misreading your comment. I thought you were getting in a jab about changing rules that were unclear. Which I had already mentioned was a fine approach to truly ambiguous rules. Thus I thought you were ignoring the context of my reply to another poster.
I see now how you intended your post to be read.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
And you don't think it may have expanded since then?The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.The FAQ is not to be used to get rules changed.
Emphasis mine. It's clearly stated in the quote you provided that the FAQ is intended to account for incorrect parts of the game. Therefore, to fix things that are incorrect would require a change to rules to make them correct. It's for the players/forum posters to post FAQ candidates which they think may be incorrect, and for Paizo to determine which ones of those are actually incorrect and fix them (i.e. rules changes) and which ones are not incorrect and to keep as is.
The FAQ is not to be used to get rules changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ is not to be used to get rules changed.
Because selective quoting out of context to prove a point that wasn't originally being made by the author is a great strategy and should always be employed. Alternatively, let's actually look at the context:
I want a rule changed. Should I start a thread and ask people to FAQ-click it?
No. The FAQ is not to be used to get rules changed. Posts attempting to use the FAQ for this purpose will be cleared from the FAQ queue.
That ban is not on the PDT changing the rules with an FAQ entry, but rather on people attempting to use the FAQ system to change a rule that they don't like. In other words, FAQ-flagging a post that says "xxxx is overpowered, please nerf" is not kosher by that rule, but PDT can most certainly change a rule in response to an actual question about the rules.
Justification: the fact that the PDT has on numerous occasions used the FAQ system to introduce rules changes indicates that your reading of that out-of-context quote does not match up with their intent for writing it.