| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PDFs aren't even out yet and the mods are already placing taboos about topics (topics I really don't have strong opinions about).
I'm concerned that Paizo will block out feedback that doesn't adhere to a set of sensibilities.
For example, when I loved 5e d&d, I didn't-notice/I-forgave the problems I have with it now. Paizo obviously loves their own game. People that hate the new edition will see problems that Paizo can't, and they have no obligation to be kind. I get the feeling that Paizo will disregard feedback like that because "well they won't play anyways" or "we don't want them in this hobby". Probably true, but they will see things your fans won't complain about for YEARS, long after the issue has become systemic.
I'm concerned that the playtest is doomed to fail with this culture hostile towards negativity.
| 36 people marked this as a favorite. |
People providing feedback do have an obligation to be kind.
You can provide negative comments without being nasty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to comeback to the "We go with the extreme rule versions for the playtest and if they fail, we have other rules already planned" line, but it's clear that the playtest are not intended to be taken seriously. They will throw us the bone of rejecting the 'extre rule versions', so that wewill feel like we achieved something and helped them, only to then implement the rules they always had in mind in the first place
|
| 64 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PDFs aren't even out yet and the mods are already placing taboos about topics (topics I really don't have strong opinions about).
I'm concerned that Paizo will block out feedback that doesn't adhere to a set of sensibilities.
For example, when I loved 5e d&d, I didn't-notice/I-forgave the problems I have with it now. Paizo obviously loves their own game. People that hate the new edition will see problems that Paizo can't, and they have no obligation to be kind. I get the feeling that Paizo will disregard feedback like that because "well they won't play anyways" or "we don't want them in this hobby". Probably true, but they will see things your fans won't complain about for YEARS, long after the issue has become systemic.
I'm concerned that the playtest is doomed to fail with this culture hostile towards negativity.
You misspelled the topic title, it should be "Do we have enough empathy, maturity and class to contribute to a playtest in a way that won't make us look like a bunch of immature twerps?".
|
| 34 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PDFs aren't even out yet and the mods are already placing taboos about topics (topics I really don't have strong opinions about).
Just because Paizo is running a playtest doesn't mean that their terms of use are suspended. They are still going to block posts that violate those terms, especially ones that involve personal attacks on Paizo staff, other editions of the d20 system, and/or other posters on the boards. They have also made most political statements off-limits, and frankly, if you can't take about game mechanics without bringing politics into the mix, then you probably shouldn't be giving feedback anyway.
People that hate the new edition will see problems that Paizo can't, and they have no obligation to be kind.
Of course they have an obligation to be kind. They're human beings. It's called Wheaton's Law, if you like the codified version, but I tend to think of it as simply a requirement for being allowed out in public spaces. Moreover, there are extremely practical reasons for being kind when you are saying important things that need to be addressed in a public feedback arrangement like this one. There are any number of management and pedagogy best-practices books out there that make it clear that criticism and negative feedback is a lot more likely to be heard and acted on by your audience if presented in a kind way.
That last part was a lesson that, truthfully, we should have all learned during the Beta playtest of PF 1e back in 2008. There were huge numbers of really strong and important points that were never addressed by the developers because the people making them seemed incapable of mastering the fine art of not being a ****head. I highly recommend we remember their example and avoid their mistakes this time around.
| 29 people marked this as a favorite. |
You misspelled the topic title, it should be "Do I have enough empathy, maturity and class to contribute to a playtest in a way that won't make me look like an immature twerp?".
Dear God, I hope I do.
And if I stray, I hope all you fellow play testers and PF fans correct me.
Sometimes I can't see my own folley, and I rely on you all to help me out. Just please try to remember to have empathy, maturity, and class when you correct me; just as I will try to remember to have those things if I an the one correcting you.
One thing the Paizo company has taught me is how to communicate online with those three traits in mind. And now, even on other sites, I have a reputation for polite disagreement. It's something I've come to cherish - but it's a community effort. We should all help each other as best as we're able.
On that note, I think it's also important to help each other convey our ideas. Let's say I'm having difficulty remaining mature (perhaps I'm sick or exhausted and quick to snap at someone) - we should help each other try and understand the issues at hand. So when I say, "This sucks, and here's why!" And I'm not conveying it in a professional manner, perhaps one of you can help and say, "Here's the argument I think bookrat is trying to convey. Here is why it is valid. And here is why it is not."
As a community, we can help each other not only become better people and better commenters, but we can improve the product even more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to comeback to the "We go with the extreme rule versions for the playtest and if they fail, we have other rules already planned" line, but it's clear that the playtest are not intended to be taken seriously. They will throw us the bone of rejecting the 'extre rule versions', so that wewill feel like we achieved something and helped them, only to then implement the rules they always had in mind in the first place
Playtest rules come out August 18
Product comes out August 19
So that means the product has to be at the printer, what? January of 19?
Is that enough time for a meaningful playtest?
Yes- art can be laid in regardless, ect. Big layouts can be done, but to have a playtest that reveals and corrects any but the most superficial issues would need a LOT more time.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cool, we’re already starting conspiracy theories. Cool cool cool.
Paizo invented fidget spinner to try to open a portal to the shadow plane.
*Puts on tin foil hat*
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's too damn early to get worked up into a frenzy or panic. It's also too damn early to get overly excited. Yeah, Paizo is going to preview bits in blogs and in the press/blogs, but we aren't going to know most of the system & changes definitely until the playtest starts.
Don't worry, there will be plenty of time to panic then. So relax. Don't be in a hurry. There's always time to panic.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I guess the question is "can the community police itself to the extent that we can have a playtest without just absurdly toxic behavior"?
Like if you lack the empathy, maturity, compassion, and class to contribute to the playtest constructively, maybe abstain?
Like it's possible that some of the topics that the mods are prohibiting discussion of are things that are non-negotiable and will not change so players railing against them is a waste of time that just adds unnecessary negativity. Like the "it's now called ancestry" thing isn't going to change, so complaining about it is pointless. If anybody really cares they can change it for their own games. Like it is a *play*test not a "crowd-sourced editing pass".
Playtest rules come out August 18
Product comes out August 19
So that means the product has to be at the printer, what? January of 19?
Is that enough time for a meaningful playtest?
Yes- art can be laid in regardless, ect. Big layouts can be done, but to have a playtest that reveals and corrects any but the most superficial issues would need a LOT more time.
I believe that it's more like they have to have it to the printer by March or such to get the initial setup and look over a proof, then have the order in by May... but this is just based on outside assumptions and what I've heard/seen before. I vaguely recall something like this being the case with the PF 1e Beta.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
The last playtest I remember participating in was the vigilante test, and I remember seeing them almost follow the results of my warlock playtest exactly when putting out the final release. It's open content, you can find it on the forums still.
If you give genuine informed opinions on the subjects you experience in your play through, you can expect results.
|
|
| 40 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you know that half-elves are immune to ghoul paralysis because of feedback from the original Pathfinder Beta? I was the person who provided that feedback, and that little piece of ownership makes me proud to this day.
You can absolutely provide feedback in a healthy, constructive manner that doesn’t rely on hyperbole, questioning competency or getting into weird political discourses because you don’t like they changed some nomenclature.
Before hitting submit post, read what you wrote, and if it seems like it wouldn’t be something you’d want someone to write about you then edit.
Here’s some handy tips:
Before providing negative feedback about a mechanic, try to understand it, try to defend it, see what about it does work and achieves goals.
After that look at what the mechanic doesn’t achieve.
Keep feedback about mechanics, unclear language and play experience.
Do not call out designers, developers or other members of the community.
Keep language formal, polite, and kind.
Don’t get into debates with other posters! Provide your feedback and assume it will be read and noted by developers. If someone disagrees with your assessment, that’s okay that feedback will be taken into consideration too. Paizo does not make design decisions based on who argued best or longest on a thread and it may cause valuable feedback to get lost in the noise.
But most of all be kind. Creating something, and showing it to the world before it’s ready is a vulnerable act, and while the people at Paizo are professionals, they are also people. People who invested time, energy, love and expertise to create something fun for you. All people deserve your respect especially those who are willing to engage with your ideas.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that they already have a print date of only a year from now tells me one thing.
The playtest feedback isn't going to be given much weight. It might revamp a skill or feat, or maybe get a class rewritten, but thats it. It tells me that they are hard set on the system as a whole and will not change it no matter what the feedback says.
If this 3 actions a round thing ends up pissing off exactly 100% of the tester base, a year is not enough to rewrite it (and by extension everything that relies on it, which is pretty much everything) and re-test.
For good or for ill, 90% of what they've got at this point is already locked in stone.
I'm not concerned if I can give feedback and have it heard.
I'm concerned Paizo will ignore feedback of others.
Franchise Manager
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
So that means the product has to be at the printer, what? January of 19?
Well, if it helps clarify the timelines any, we still have not sent the Pathfinder Playtest books off to the printer, and won't for some time. I see no reason why our production timeline would be significantly different a year from now.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they've seen that their decision to not playtest the Shifter was an unmitigated disaster, lol. Their past playtests were great; the Vigilante and Occultist stick out as classes that went from wastes of ink in the original iteration to great additions to the game in the final product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I recall, in the Pathfinder Beta they switched the skill system at least twice. Hit points underwent several revisions and versions. The core system remained d20, but different aspects of it changed.
Anything is on the table. If you want to change it... playtest the parts that you don't like, and give honest feedback on it and options to improve it. You could fix what you don't like.
| 37 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I guess the question is "can the community police itself to the extent that we can have a playtest without just absurdly toxic behavior"?
Like if you lack the empathy, maturity, compassion, and class to contribute to the playtest constructively, maybe abstain?
Unfortunately, people who lack these things usually also lack the self-awareness to realize they lack those things--let alone the impulse control to be able to stop and think a minute before posting.
Nor do they have the sense, whether due to brain glitch or poor upbringing, to truly understand the difference between, say:
Feedback 1: I'm really concerned about how this system will work in play because the rules on page X are ambiguously written.
and
Feedback 2: This is a pile of garbage and you have ruined my childhood.
And they either think Feedback 2 legitimately is capable of changing things as Feedback 1 (to be clear: it isn't), or just want to use Feedback 2's poor tone to distract from the helpfulness of Feedback 1 and spam the discussion with misery rather than helpful discussion, so the devs' efforts of getting helpful commentary and suggestions are undermined.
Unfortunately I am not sure there's a way to help these people do better for themselves and others.
We can only hope that the posters who DO possess empathy, maturity, compassion, and class will do as the admins ask: ignore the miserytrolls and flag their inappropriate comments. Where one must reply, reply with the same kindness you want them to learn to emulate.
I'd add that supporting positive feedback and commentary styles (by thanking people for them and or replying to say things like, "I may not agree but I really like how you said this") can help reinforce positive behaviors and constructive criticism (rather destructive complaining).
I have absolutely 100% faith that Paizo is doing what they need to do to separate the wheat (constructively worded concerns and suggestions) from the chaff (random complaining and negativity that seldom has bearing in reality let alone is helpful in creating an improved game in any way). After all, WE are the ones who lose out if the miserybrigade drowns out the useful criticism and feedback.
Furthermore, when I have had feedback to give, I have always felt heard (but I have usually made an effort to word it constructively), and I have absolutely seen no reason that will change whatsoever.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that they already have a print date of only a year from now tells me one thing.
The playtest feedback isn't going to be given much weight. It might revamp a skill or feat, or maybe get a class rewritten, but thats it. It tells me that they are hard set on the system as a whole and will not change it no matter what the feedback says.
If this 3 actions a round thing ends up pissing off exactly 100% of the tester base, a year is not enough to rewrite it (and by extension everything that relies on it, which is pretty much everything) and re-test.
For good or for ill, 90% of what they've got at this point is already locked in stone.
What you’re talking about isn’t playtesting, it’s crowdsourced design. It’s very important to calibrate your expectations that what’s happening is refining and improving the design. Much like the APG playtest there was no changing the name of the Oracle to anything else, even though the oracle had almost no divinatory power. There are likely to be some aspects of the game that have more flexibility than others.
|
|
| 33 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope that Paizo will be super-aggressive in their moderation and people who post feedback that goes along the lines of "this is a waste of ink that makes me physically ill, please revise this pile of garbage, fire the idiot who wrote it and let me know once the +1 bonus is changed to +2 so that I can actually verify if you're capable of fixing your own failures" will discover that sometimes, actions have consequences.
|
Franchise Manager
|
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that they already have a print date of only a year from now tells me one thing.
The playtest feedback isn't going to be given much weight. It might revamp a skill or feat, or maybe get a class rewritten, but thats it. It tells me that they are hard set on the system as a whole and will not change it no matter what the feedback says.
If this 3 actions a round thing ends up pissing off exactly 100% of the tester base, a year is not enough to rewrite it (and by extension everything that relies on it, which is pretty much everything) and re-test.
For good or for ill, 90% of what they've got at this point is already locked in stone.
It's not uncommon for us to have schedules for a year's worth of products done 12 to 18 months out, because we're a business, and to have no plan is folly. Just because there's a date we know we want to release a book (and thus a date by which we must send it to the printer), doesn't mean we don't also have time before that to write, develop, and edit that content.
We produce thousands of pages of material over the course of a year, so making even significant changes to a single book of 400+ pages isn't something we need to build years and years of work on into the schedule.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dudemeister, just wanted to say thanks for the half-elf ghoul immunity! It really let one of my players feel powerful and and protective in Strange Aeons, shielding other characters by taking the front line.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that they already have a print date of only a year from now tells me one thing.
The playtest feedback isn't going to be given much weight. It might revamp a skill or feat, or maybe get a class rewritten, but thats it. It tells me that they are hard set on the system as a whole and will not change it no matter what the feedback says.
If this 3 actions a round thing ends up pissing off exactly 100% of the tester base, a year is not enough to rewrite it (and by extension everything that relies on it, which is pretty much everything) and re-test.
For good or for ill, 90% of what they've got at this point is already locked in stone.
Unfortunately you are probably 100% correct in this assessment. Things like a special edition playtest book really tip their whole hand about this affair being a done deal and how this "playtest" will likely be little more than a great big preview.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The replies in this thread doesn't seem to address the concern raised.
Reading the opening post, it doesn't really seem like the concern is about blocking people saying naughty words or being mean, but about fostering a cult of yes men.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they've seen that their decision to not playtest the Shifter was an unmitigated disaster, lol. Their past playtests were great; the Vigilante and Occultist stick out as classes that went from wastes of ink in the original iteration to great additions to the game in the final product.
Not to mention Starfinder.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really just comes down to people participating in the playtest maintaining courtesy and recognizing that meaningful changes will come so long as they aren't hyper-aggressive about it. I have a lot of hope that the playtest will bring nothing but positive results for the final version of 2e, but it's an unfortunate inevitability that there will be people who participate that will forego objectivity because they can't keep their negativity in check.
I for one am excited to participate in the playtest with the players in my Discord group - a new edition is big news and I want to contribute to it in a way that will guarantee that it's as polished as it can be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PDFs aren't even out yet and the mods are already placing taboos about topics (topics I really don't have strong opinions about).
I'm concerned that Paizo will block out feedback that doesn't adhere to a set of sensibilities.
For example, when I loved 5e d&d, I didn't-notice/I-forgave the problems I have with it now. Paizo obviously loves their own game. People that hate the new edition will see problems that Paizo can't, and they have no obligation to be kind. I get the feeling that Paizo will disregard feedback like that because "well they won't play anyways" or "we don't want them in this hobby". Probably true, but they will see things your fans won't complain about for YEARS, long after the issue has become systemic.
I'm concerned that the playtest is doomed to fail with this culture hostile towards negativity.
You misspelled the topic title, it should be "Do we have enough empathy, maturity and class to contribute to a playtest in a way that won't make us look like a bunch of immature twerps?".
But we already know the answer to that is "No". The OP question, on the other hand, is something we don't really know. So there is that. :)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I plan to be part of the play test, but I am less clear if I want to read the boards during the play test. The last few major product threads haven't been exactly filling me with confidence that people can be less negative and excitable.
Anything is on the table. If you want to change it... playtest the parts that you don't like, and give honest feedback on it and options to improve it. You could fix what you don't like.
Alternatively, one can not playtest it, and give feedback based on prejudice and pressumptions to try to push an agenda to make the final game look like you want, without actually trying the new implementations.
I suspect this one will be a popular option, reading some guys in the forum today.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately you are probably 100% correct in this assessment. Things like a special edition playtest book really tip their whole hand about this affair being a done deal and how this "playtest" will likely be little more than a great big preview.The fact that they already have a print date of only a year from now tells me one thing.
The playtest feedback isn't going to be given much weight. It might revamp a skill or feat, or maybe get a class rewritten, but thats it. It tells me that they are hard set on the system as a whole and will not change it no matter what the feedback says.
If this 3 actions a round thing ends up pissing off exactly 100% of the tester base, a year is not enough to rewrite it (and by extension everything that relies on it, which is pretty much everything) and re-test.
For good or for ill, 90% of what they've got at this point is already locked in stone.
They offered print versions of the playtest version of the 1st Edition of Pathfinder and there were plenty of big changes made between the playtest version and the final version. Paizo has realized that they have a market of people that will purchase special edition collectible level material from them when it is offered. As a business, why not offer something like a Special Edition Playtest version of a book they are already sending to the printers? That is just leaving money on the table, since they are first and foremost a business not a charity looking to design and develop a game for us to enjoy.
I already know of a handful of people that plan on pre-ordering that Special Edition book and at least one other book. What does that mean for Paizo? They've now just sold 2 copies of the book, instead of 1. Is it a money grab? Maybe, but we all get to vote with our dollars and people that make the decision to buy both do so know that.
|
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
People providing feedback do have an obligation to be kind.
You can provide negative comments without being nasty.
There is a big difference between being polite and being kind.
Requiring kindness is an unreasonable and unrealistic standard for deeming something acceptable criticism instead of throwing it out.
I am sure some absurdly rude comments will still have their feedback taken into consideration even if it is to the overall detriment to the discourse the community is capable of.
However requiring kindness from yourself shouldn’t be an unrealistic expectation of being a human interacting with other humans. In any capacity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They offered print versions of the playtest version of the 1st Edition of Pathfinder and there were plenty of big changes made between the playtest version and the final version. Paizo has realized that they have a market of people that will purchase special edition collectible level material from them when it is offered. As a business, why not offer something like a Special Edition Playtest version of a book they are already sending to the printers? That is just leaving money on the table, since they are first and foremost a business not a charity looking to design and develop a game for us to enjoy.
I already know of a handful of people that plan on pre-ordering that Special Edition book and at least one other book. What does that mean for Paizo? They've now just sold 2 copies of the book, instead of 1. Is it a money grab? Maybe, but we all get to vote with our dollars and people that make the decision to buy both do so know that.
I make no judgement about people who want to purchase a special edition of the book, what they do with their money is for them to decide. What I do think is that by releasing a special edition of a product that will be inferior to the release game by default, signals that they will be unwilling to make sweeping changes to the game if they are required. It is a poor value proposition if you end up with a fancy book that is fundamentally flawed and nothing like the delivered game. I think its safe to say that 2e larger in the scope of its changes from 1e than 1e is from its beta. My fear and the fear of the OP is that Paizo won't have the fortitude required to gut most of their new edition if its what it needs to be great.
Customer Service Manager
|
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope that Paizo will be super-aggressive in their moderation and people who post feedback that goes along the lines of "this is a waste of ink that makes me physically ill, please revise this pile of garbage, fire the idiot who wrote it and let me know once the +1 bonus is changed to +2 so that I can actually verify if you're capable of fixing your own failures" will discover that sometimes, actions have consequences.
That will really depend on the community's use of the flagging system and ability to not rise to the bait.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The replies in this thread doesn't seem to address the concern raised.
Reading the opening post, it doesn't really seem like the concern is about blocking people saying naughty words or being mean, but about fostering a cult of yes men.
I mean, here's the thing. Outside of "I am concerned that this product exists, period" there simply is not a lot of criticism to have at this point, and the former is not constructive. Sure there are concerns about how specifically x, y, and z work but whether stuff like "the new action economy is good" is going to depend a lot on what sorts of actions different things take. Which is information that we should at least wait for the actual book before offering a lot of comment (ideally also "after actually playing with it", since it's a *playtest*.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately you are probably 100% correct in this assessment. Things like a special edition playtest book really tip their whole hand about this affair being a done deal and how this "playtest" will likely be little more than a great big preview.The fact that they already have a print date of only a year from now tells me one thing.
The playtest feedback isn't going to be given much weight. It might revamp a skill or feat, or maybe get a class rewritten, but thats it. It tells me that they are hard set on the system as a whole and will not change it no matter what the feedback says.
If this 3 actions a round thing ends up pissing off exactly 100% of the tester base, a year is not enough to rewrite it (and by extension everything that relies on it, which is pretty much everything) and re-test.
For good or for ill, 90% of what they've got at this point is already locked in stone.
They offered print versions of the playtest version of the 1st Edition of Pathfinder and there were plenty of big changes made between the playtest version and the final version. Paizo has realized that they have a market of people that will purchase special edition collectible level material from them when it is offered. As a business, why not offer something like a Special Edition Playtest version of a book they are already sending to the printers? That is just leaving money on the table, since they are first and foremost a business not a charity looking to design and develop a game for us to enjoy.
I already know of a handful of people that plan on pre-ordering that Special Edition book and at least one other book. What does that mean for Paizo? They've now just sold 2 copies of the book, instead of 1. Is it a money grab? Maybe, but we all get to vote with our dollars and people that make the decision to buy both do so know that.
Depending on the Cost I know I'm heavily considering buying ALL the playtest material offered as hardcopy. Unless it breaks the bank I'm considering going all in on it.
I just hope they show us what the maps look like during the pre-order period so we will know whether they offer anything new. Maps, after all, are mostly system agnostic.
But I will almost certainly buy multiple copies of the softcover rulebooks (one for myself and the others as gifts).
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume multiple avenues of playtesting are in play. But honestly I expect the playtest on the forums to be uh...a black hole of despair. With no rules out yet we already have hardcore partisans lined up against it, and so I expect (sadly) that for every one constructive comment (negative or positive), we're going to get two comments that are some combination of insulting/misinformed/off-target.
As a professor and scientist who teaches a very tough subject to students and also does peer review...let me state that you can absolutely be polite and kind to people while critiquing negatively. To not do so is to ensure that you are ignored or dismissed.
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are going to 100% be people on both sides that are both dismissive and rude. In the last couple years, I have seen an uptick in people who have the belief that all criticism is harassment and those who criticise deserve to be vilified. These forums haven't been free of that in my experience. Recently I think my favorite is the response to people saying that they don't like the direction of TTRPG's becoming "simplified for the masses" is that they "just shouldn't buy it and that we shouldn't complain about new material."
In response to the kind and polite criticism thing here are three posts with the same content and consider which would get something actually changed.
1. This game is f*****g broken and literal garbage, whoever decided I can't draw a weapon as part of my move should get his hands cut off so he can never write trash for garbagefinder 2.0
2. Wow, the new action economy seems dumb. Can't even draw a weapon as part of a move. Thanks a lot paizo. Ruined
3. I find that by not being able to draw a weapon as a non action on your turn it really bogs down combat and leads to the party walking with their weapons drawn everywhere as to not "waste" an action. I'm not sure it quite is helpful enough to warrant a feat, ala quickdraw, but perhaps whatever is replacing traits could be used. Even possibly a martial reaction that can be used at the start of combat.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are going to 100% be people on both sides that are both dismissive and rude. In the last couple years, I have seen an uptick in people who have the belief that all criticism is harassment and those who criticise deserve to be vilified. These forums haven't been free of that in my experience. Recently I think my favorite is the response to people saying that they don't like the direction of TTRPG's becoming "simplified for the masses" is that they "just shouldn't buy it and that we shouldn't complain about new material."
In response to the kind and polite criticism thing here are three posts with the same content and consider which would get something actually changed.
1. This game is f*****g broken and literal garbage, whoever decided I can't draw a weapon as part of my move should get his hands cut off so he can never write trash for garbagefinder 2.0
2. Wow, the new action economy seems dumb. Can't even draw a weapon as part of a move. Thanks a lot paizo. Ruined
3. I find that by not being able to draw a weapon as a non action on your turn it really bogs down combat and leads to the party walking with their weapons drawn everywhere as to not "waste" an action. I'm not sure it quite is helpful enough to warrant a feat, ala quickdraw, but perhaps whatever is replacing traits could be used. Even possibly a martial reaction that can be used at the start of combat.
Those are excellent examples of how to - and how not to - present a complaint of a system.
1. This game is f*****g broken and literal garbage, whoever decided I can't draw a weapon as part of my move should get his hands cut off so he can never write trash for garbagefinder 2.0
2. Wow, the new action economy seems dumb. Can't even draw a weapon as part of a move. Thanks a lot paizo. Ruined
3. I find that by not being able to draw a weapon as a non action on your turn it really bogs down combat and leads to the party walking with their weapons drawn everywhere as to not "waste" an action. I'm not sure it quite is helpful enough to warrant a feat, ala quickdraw, but perhaps whatever is replacing traits could be used. Even possibly a martial reaction that can be used at the start of combat.
All three of those make it very clear what the person in question has a problem with. As in all of them are useful in indicating what is a problem for some people. (3) is most clear as to why but in some ways its the least useful because it doesn't indicate that the issue is important. In a hypothetical universe where a good chunk of your play testers call for dismemberment of the devs because of something as minor as "baked in quickdraw" then maybe you would want to change that in the final product or at least give the matter a long think.
Getting your finger on the pulse of what people are irrationally passionate about, demands a tolerance for less than rational phrasing. The "feel" of an RPG is important and you won't get the raw emotional responses you need if you won't at least tolerate (2).
Obviously this is a hypothetical.
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting your finger on the pulse of what people are irrationally passionate about, demands a tolerance for less than rational phrasing. The "feel" of an RPG is important and you won't get the raw emotional responses you need if you won't at least tolerate (2).
I disagree entirely.
There isn't a need for "raw emotional responses", nor is there a need for tolerating abusive speech such as portrayed in Example 1.
Example 2 is self-destructive. Whether one likes it or not, expressing an idea with that level of hostility tends to diminish the perceived validity of the claim.
If you really want to see a change, don't use the styles of 1) or 2).
If you care about making Pathfinder 2.0 better, then it will be useful to practice giving feedback that achieves your purpose, rather than burying your perfectly valid critique in an overwrought paragraph of raw emotions.