Does modern Paizo have thick enough skin to handle a playtest?


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I know that it seems to go out of style, but politeness with usually increase the chances of criticism being perceived as valid and followed.

Style 1 is not just impolite, it is actively abusive. You could be making the most valid point in the world, and it would disqualify you.

Style 2 is antagonistic. You are more likely to be challenged on how you said it than on the merits of the point you are trying to make.

Style 3 is very good. I don't think you really need to go that far, though. I for one would be pretty happy just with "We feel that handling drawing weapons as a move action is bogging us down. We've houseruled it to be a reaction for martial classes."

Paizo Employee Designer

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
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

For most of the places we went with an extreme version, it was something members of the team disagreed on, and the tiebreaker went, "Go with the more drastic change and see if it works."

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The original Pathfinder Beta was more experimental and drifted farther away from the 3.5 Rules than the final product did. I remember being faintly disappointed it didn’t adopt some of the cool stuff like Racial Hit Points in the game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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*.)

But that is again sidestepping where the actual concern seems to lie.

Namely when arguments are blocked or removed simply because they do not conform to the mindset of the Paizo devs or the community managers, no matter the actual construction of the argument in question.

Say the kibosh is put on discussing the negatives of the new action economy. Let's use the arguments from earlier as an example:

Backpack wrote:

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.

Of course #1 is the least constructive, however all three arguments express concern about negative aspects of the new action economy, thus they are all subject to being blocked or removed because people aren't supposed to talk about that.

This is what I feel the concern actually is, and as such, I think it's a valid concern. Opening up for community feedback is pointless if you're going to punish people for wrongthink. Note that this concern isn't just about right now, but also about the future when the actual playtest starts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The original Pathfinder Beta was more experimental and drifted farther away from the 3.5 Rules than the final product did. I remember being faintly disappointed it didn’t adopt some of the cool stuff like Racial Hit Points in the game.

We used the double 1st hit dice forever from back then.

Still kept some of the Cavalier playtest in ours too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But what's the point in allowing heated arguments to happen on the board over topics that, no matter what is said here, will not be changed in PS2.0? It seems like if they're 100% committed to "you have three actions of the same type, instead of one action each of 3 different types" then removing arguments about "bring back Swift actions" is a good idea just to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
LuZeke wrote:
This is what I feel the concern actually is, and as such, I think it's a valid concern. Opening up for community feedback is pointless if you're going to punish people for wrongthink. Note that this concern isn't just about right now, but also about the future when the actual playtest starts.

Do you have an example of this actually happening?

Or are you simply expressing your anxieties about something that could hypothetically happen once playtesting starts next August?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
But what's the point in allowing heated arguments to happen on the board over topics that, no matter what is said here, will not be changed in PS2.0? It seems like if they're 100% committed to "you have three actions of the same type, instead of one action each of 3 different types" then removing arguments about "bring back Swift actions" is a good idea just to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.

Is #3 an example of a "heated" argument? I wouldn't say so.

If you can talk about positive aspects of a rule, but you can't talk about negative aspects of a rule, then that cripples the discussion and increases the risk of catching problems with the rules. That's why I used the term "yes men" in my first post in the thread.

Weeding out arguments that are wholly redundant is not the issue here. A comment that is extremely positive but lack any actual contribution to the discussion is just as redundant as a seethingly negative tirade that also contributes nothing.

CrystalSeas wrote:

Do you have an example of this actually happening?

Or are you simply expressing your anxieties about something that could hypothetically happen once playtesting starts next August?

I'm pointing out that few, if any, posts in this thread actually addresses the concern raised in the opening post, and instead are running off blustering about people saying naughty and/or mean things.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
LuZeke wrote:
I'm pointing out that few, if any, posts in this thread actually addresses the concern raised in the opening post, and instead are running off blustering about people saying naughty and/or mean things.

Your desire to see this thread as expressing worthwhile concerns does you credit, but when the OP says this...

MR. H wrote:
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).

(emphasis added)

...it's not about groupthink, it's about wanting to get approval for saying naughty and mean things.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
LuZeke wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Do you have an example of this actually happening?

Or are you simply expressing your anxieties about something that could hypothetically happen once playtesting starts next August?

I'm pointing out that few, if any, posts in this thread actually addresses the concern raised in the opening post, and instead are running off blustering about people saying naughty and/or mean things.

For my part, it’s because I disagree with the OP’s diagnosis.

I don’t think Paizo are shutting down topics of discussion the way they suggest. I suspect any such moderation was due to tone, not content.

It’s very, very common for people to attack Paizo products, staff or other community members and then, when the post is moderated for being abusive, claim that it was censored due to being anti-groupthink.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
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.

And then there's the other thing that happens on the forums, which is accusing anyone whose opinion you don't like of "theorycrafting" and of not actually playtesting the game. That's a popular one.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Commenting on other posters’ motivations, rather than the rules you like and don’t like, will be an error.

Sadly, I suspect it’s one that will happen often.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the fear that many have is that we live in a world where criticism is less and less accepted. The arguments of "then why dont you (do, make, play, sing, write, draw, etc.) it yourself" or "Your just a hater, just don't play" are answers I've gotten to nearly any piece of criticism I've had with just about anything these last couple years.

If I and many others say, "We really don't like this thing, maybe do another thing" that warrants a discussion. Ultimately it's up to paizo to look and see what will be best financially as a decision for them.

For instance say that 15% of pathfinder players want to switch to nearly identical rules to 5e and a growth of new players both from switching from 5e and the easier access of the game brings that to a current player base of 25%. Paizo would need to judge whether or not they would lose more than 10% of existing players.

The reason I bring up the above is paizo with this new direction needs to give the players a reason to stick around. They in fact do need to do damage control to an extent to make sure they maintain enough of their player base as not to outway new growth. That reason is way they do need to pay attention to statements like "*blank* needs to change or I'm not playing this game." The idea likely starts with the "new player friendly stuff" and work out the dealbreakers with the existing playerbase.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Backpack wrote:

I think the fear that many have is that we live in a world where criticism is less and less accepted. The arguments of "then why dont you (do, make, play, sing, write, draw, etc.) it yourself" or "Your just a hater, just don't play" are answers I've gotten to nearly any piece of criticism I've had with just about anything these last couple years.

If I and many others say, "We really don't like this thing, maybe do another thing" that warrants a discussion. Ultimately it's up to paizo to look and see what will be best financially as a decision for them.

For instance say that 15% of pathfinder players want to switch to nearly identical rules to 5e and a growth of new players both from switching from 5e and the easier access of the game brings that to a current player base of 25%. Paizo would need to judge whether or not they would lose more than 10% of existing players.

The reason I bring up the above is paizo with this new direction needs to give the players a reason to stick around. They in fact do need to do damage control to an extent to make sure they maintain enough of their player base as not to outway new growth. That reason is way they do need to pay attention to statements like "*blank* needs to change or I'm not playing this game." The idea likely starts with the "new player friendly stuff" and work out the dealbreakers with the existing playerbase.

I am very confident Paizo won’t be moderating posts of the form “If you do [this] then I won’t play”. The posts they delete inevitably cross the line of criticising the system and begin criticising the designers.

I agree that “you’re just a hater” isn’t a useful response to criticism, but you won’t see that from Paizo employees either. That’s inevitably an overly aggressive fan.

Again, I think the key is to refrain from commenting on another poster’s motivations. If everyone followed that rule, I think the place would be much nicer.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:


I agree that “you’re just a hater” isn’t a useful response to criticism, but you won’t see that from Paizo employees either. That’s inevitably an overly aggressive fan.

Again, I think the key is to refrain from commenting on another poster’s motivations. If everyone followed that rule, I think the place would be much nicer.

No, you're right paizo employees don't say your a hater shut up. They say "this post has been delete blah blah constructive criticism." It's maybe 1/50 where I feel they over step.

I am mostly worried about a significant portion of paizo's fanbase that is already voicing the opinion of "how dare you imply something about this could be bad."


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While I am definitely on the side of "present your finding politely", there is also the side of "accept that math can help you design better". Paizo had a problem in the past with shunning theorycrafters' findings in favor of only accepting data from actual playtesting sessions. Since most playtesting naturally happens at lower levels that resulted in high level play not having been mathed out.

Hence, how Mythic Adventures put a lot of people's hair on fire when they got to actually experience high level play with it in Wrath of the Righteous. I hope that this experience stayed with the devs in a way which will make them grab their calculators (or sheets and papers and pencils if they prefer manual calculating) and math out what their feats and powers and spells do at level seventeen or eighteen to the monsters they designed. As someone who has run a lot of AP's to their conclusion, I hope the new edition has a lot less rocket tag gameplay at high levels.

It would be seriously nice if an encounter with a Balor at a challenge-appropiate level would feel suitably epic instead of "one round of full attacks! Next Balor, please!". High level monsters should have ways to deal with multiple characters appropiately.

Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

And the Kineticist still was pretty "Meh", which makes me sad as a fan of LOK, ATLA and the Codex Alera. Just saying. Playtests are good, but accepting fan feedback and making changes from it also is important.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Backpack wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


I agree that “you’re just a hater” isn’t a useful response to criticism, but you won’t see that from Paizo employees either. That’s inevitably an overly aggressive fan.

Again, I think the key is to refrain from commenting on another poster’s motivations. If everyone followed that rule, I think the place would be much nicer.

No, you're right paizo employees don't say your a hater shut up. They say "this post has been delete blah blah constructive criticism." It's maybe 1/50 where I feel they over step.

I am mostly worried about a significant portion of paizo's fanbase that is already voicing the opinion of "how dare you imply something about this could be bad."

I don’t think we disagree very much.

I really hope the naysayers can keep it constructive and that the yaysayers (?) can let people express not liking it in peace.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

19 people marked this as a favorite.
LuZeke wrote:

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.

If you have been reading the forums for the last day or so, I think you have more than sufficient evidence that that's not how we work around here.

Dark Archive

Vic Wertz wrote:
LuZeke wrote:

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.

If you have been reading the forums for the last day or so, I think you have more than sufficient evidence that that's not how we work around here.

Really? it seems for every one person who says I don't like this thing there is at least one saying how dare you not like this thing your wrong. Clearly one of them can quickly go into the unhelpful and toxic direction, but there are those who have voiced an opinion that paizo is the artist and that your art shouldn't be changed by us.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

18 people marked this as a favorite.
Skub wrote:
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.

Releasing a special edition signals no such thing. Presumably, you weren't here for the last time around, so allow me to provide some history.

The original Pathfinder Beta was large enough that having the PDF printed at.a copy shop would cost more than our standard books around the same size, so we decided we'd offer up a small run of print editions to make things cheaper and easier for people. We were very surprised when deman exceeded supply by a large factor. But since the product's usefulness was time-limited, we couldn't run a reprint before the end of the playtest. While I doubt there are many people who crack open their Beta much in the last nine years, we know that it occupies a pride of place on many bookshelves, because people tell us that..

This time, we're specifying a preorder period so that people who are interested don't miss out. And since we're printing to order, we figured we might as well give people the option to have something a little nicer for the shelf if they want. I don't expect a lot of people to be playing out of their Special Edition Playtest Rulebook two years from now, but I also think the people who buy them will be happy that they bought them.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Backpack wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
LuZeke wrote:

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.

If you have been reading the forums for the last day or so, I think you have more than sufficient evidence that that's not how we work around here.
Really? it seems for every one person who says I don't like this thing there is at least one saying how dare you not like this thing your wrong. Clearly one of them can quickly go into the unhelpful and toxic direction, but there are those who have voiced an opinion that paizo is the artist and that your art shouldn't be changed by us.

To be clear, the opening post said "I'm concerned that Paizo will block out feedback that doesn't adhere to a set of sensibilities."

If you've been reading our feedback, I think it's pretty clear that Paizo is listening to the entire discussion. Whether individual posters are doing so or not is a separate issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To the original question, no I don't think they do. When PF was starting, they were practicly nobodies in the RPG business(in the grand scheme of things.) They had to actually prove themselves, not count on past achievements or people assuming they know how to do things.

Lot of time has passed since then. Now they have an ego. Just look at some of the more infamous comments from devs. "Martial caster disparency is a myth, spread by people with agendas." or "Should waterballoons be a viable weapon" (Not direct quotes but the context is practicly the same.) And these weren't some one off freelancers making those comments either.

Someone shows off with math, that there is an issue, they are a theorycrafter. PFS thinks something is OP? Nerf it so hard it becomes useless. Massive screw up? Some minor damage control errata and then claim there was slight mistakes made.

Now I might be wrong, but I believe paizo grew too big for their egos to handle it, and now said ego must be protected. As the years have passed by I have seen the boards go more and more towards nurturing a culture of yes-men. Sure there are still people who critize and not like this is some totalirian regime in regards to moderation policy. But I at least have perceived(mistakenly or not) that is the general direction. Perhaps some of this is because it is paizos messageboards, honestly if they wanted truly valuable playtest results, look at other sites, they are not limited like here. There you will get the brutal honesty you actually need to improve. Of coarse these boards are important too, but to get the full picture you have to leave the echo chamber.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Backpack wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
LuZeke wrote:

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.

If you have been reading the forums for the last day or so, I think you have more than sufficient evidence that that's not how we work around here.
Really? it seems for every one person who says I don't like this thing there is at least one saying how dare you not like this thing your wrong. Clearly one of them can quickly go into the unhelpful and toxic direction, but there are those who have voiced an opinion that paizo is the artist and that your art shouldn't be changed by us.

To be clear, the opening post said "I'm concerned that Paizo will block out feedback that doesn't adhere to a set of sensibilities."

If you've been reading our feedback, I think it's pretty clear that Paizo is listening to the entire discussion. Whether individual posters are doing so or not is a separate issue.

Sorry for misunderstanding your post. But, I agree paizo has generally had a great history of not only listening but communicating with us consumers. What worries me is there is a growing minority of players shouting "everything paizo has put out is great and perfect how dare you imply otherwise" If 50% of consumers all start yelling that all criticism is bad, paizo is likely to listen to them. But therein lies the problem. Often things need tweaked and changed and while those people yell that paizo can and will do no wrong, when they sit down at the table they will be unhappy. Kind of the issue of the customer is always right, when in actuality it is usually the customers have no idea what they want until it's in front of them and what they thought they wanted is bad.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Backpack wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


I agree that “you’re just a hater” isn’t a useful response to criticism, but you won’t see that from Paizo employees either. That’s inevitably an overly aggressive fan.

Again, I think the key is to refrain from commenting on another poster’s motivations. If everyone followed that rule, I think the place would be much nicer.

No, you're right paizo employees don't say your a hater shut up. They say "this post has been delete blah blah constructive criticism." It's maybe 1/50 where I feel they over step.

I am mostly worried about a significant portion of paizo's fanbase that is already voicing the opinion of "how dare you imply something about this could be bad."

We do not remove posts simply because we disagree with them. We remove posts that cross the line into abusive. And frankly, when Paizo as a company is the sole target of the abuse, we often err on the side of leaving them up. (Again, you will find many examples of this over the last couple days.) When it becomes offensive to individuals, that's when they come down.

Dark Archive

Vic Wertz wrote:


We do not remove posts simply because we disagree with them. We remove posts that cross the line into abusive. And frankly, when Paizo as a company is the sole target of the abuse, we often err on the side of leaving them up. (Again, you will find many examples of this over the last couple days.) When it becomes offensive to individuals, that's when they come down.

I don't disagree that what you said is your statement and goal overall as a moderating body. I am saying that in my few years on the forums I've seen a few times something get deleted or a thread locked because it was just a bunch of people saying man this is bad, or man what were the writers thinking. There is obviously a difference between saying this idea is dumb and this person is dumb for having this idea. I've seen however that the former can be perceived as an insult to the devs and get deleted.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

17 people marked this as a favorite.
"Backpack wrote:
If 50% of consumers all start yelling that all criticism is bad, paizo is likely to listen to them.

Wow. You're crediting our intelligence remarkably little there.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
"Backpack wrote:
If 50% of consumers all start yelling that all criticism is bad, paizo is likely to listen to them.
Wow. You're crediting our intelligence remarkably little there.

Example, 50% are yelling the shifter is fine we like the shifter because the shifter is what it is and we should be glad we got anything. 50% say it is underpowered and generally worse at its shtick than the druid. As a company you are not likely to burn the cost or man-hours to change a thing that 50% of your fan base don't want to be changed. But say 10-20%ish of the people who dont want the shifter to be fixed, don't want anything ever to be fixed based on the principle that changes how the numbers should really fall.

I in no way am implying any of the paizo staff are less than excellent. All I am saying is that we are currently is a society where it is the cultural norm to yes-man anyone who is making something. whether it be art, movies, or in this case a game. As a result of that I expect to hear a lot of "this is great paizo don't listen to those guys, they just are haters who only want PF 1e" even if something truly would be better off changed.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

21 people marked this as a favorite.

Our playtests are not a democracy. Our designers will evaluate feedback in the context of their own experiences.

Believe me, we are well aware that the audience sometimes doesn't know what they really want. I was working on Magic: The Gathering before it was released, when 9 out of 10 people we talked to were insisting that nobody would ever buy a "trading card game."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

Believe me, we are well aware that the audience sometimes doesn't know what they really want.

Ouch. Just when I thought things start looking to get better.

I hope you all are also aware that the audience sometimes DO know what they want

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:

Believe me, we are well aware that the audience sometimes doesn't know what they really want.

Ouch. Just when I thought things start looking to get better.

I hope you all are also aware that the audience sometimes DO know what they want

That's why I used the word "sometimes."


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:

Believe me, we are well aware that the audience sometimes doesn't know what they really want.

Ouch. Just when I thought things start looking to get better.

I hope you all are also aware that the audience sometimes DO know what they want

It goes both ways. In my line of business, about 70% of the customer complaints I receive are based around the customer not knowing what they want and/or using the product wrong to get what they want (and then complaining that the product doesn't suit their needs).

If I offer up a different product for the same or cheaper price and explain how this other product will suit their needs much better than trying to improperly use the product they have, half of them will refuse to switch.

Part of our customer support roles involve trying to determine what it is the customer is actually trying to achieve (what it is they actually want), and then trying to convince them that they want the product that will actually help them acheive their goals, without making it look like the idea came from us (egos are a big factor in my field).

So yes, there are plenty of times where your customer base really doesn't know what they want, even as they complain. And there's plenty of times where your customers actually do know what they want. Part of being a developer and working with the public is parsing out those two groups, listening to the ones who know what they want, listening to the ones who don't and determining what they actually want, and then implementimg both ideas to create the product that will work the best for most people.

But also note that these two skills are not just regulated to developers; they're part of critical thinking and soft skills - two extremely important abilities that every adult should have, and sadly most of us do not. Critical thinking is about being able to determine the true root cause of any given topic, whether it's figuring out what's truly causing that rattle in your car engine or discovering the real reason a customers complaint in your product. Soft skills are about relaying that information in a professional manner while not getting angry at yourself and others during the struggles along the way of finding the root cause (and also being able to continue working despite the struggles and stress).

So what Vic is saying here is that he and his team *are* professionals. They posses both the critical thinking skills and the soft skills necessary to parse the difference between customers who have legitimate complaints and cuatomers who are slightly off Target with their complaints. And they have the skills to find the root cause and will do their best to address those, despite some struggles and missteps along the way. My own personal interactions with the Paizo staff can confirm this. Based on my own experiences, I trust them to do the right thing, even when I'm not always sure of what that is myself.

Our job as a community is to try and remain professional along with them as we go down this journey together. But we're all human and we all make mistakes, so let's try and give a little humility and a lot of forgiveness as we travel down this path together.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The real question is do modern gamers have enough self awareness to be thoughtful, kind and generous in their criticism?

** spoiler omitted **

NO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For example I have friends that think the change from "race" to "ancestry" is "dumb".

I personally don't care if term is changed. I would rephrase that complaint as, "I find this change unnecessary and that it further moves PF's flavor away from it's D&D roots, which is a big draw of this product for me."

I'm worried that Paizo requires too much from their feedback. I can be think for awhile, come to the root cause, and phrase something politely. Other people with perfectly valid criticisms may not. Sometimes all you will get is "this is dumb" because not everyone will be willing to tip toe around every sensibility to politely explain their free opinion.

And yes, I feel that pushing out the less eloquent only when they say something negative does "Foster a culture of yes-men". The positivity vitriol I've seen in this thread seems to showcase that.

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Simply saying something is "dumb" is not feedback, it's just a criticism that doesn't give the creator anything to go on. "I don't like this because [reason]" does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Simply saying something is "dumb" is not feedback, it's just a criticism that doesn't give the creator anything to go on. "I don't like this because [reason]" does.

And?

It highlights a potential problem that you may be unaware of.

As a consumer, well constructed feedback helps your feelings be heard. I don't see anyone arguing what a consumer ought to do, but whether the devs will work with less than ideal feedback.

Also if Paizo is in the business of simplifying things, that means they may have to deal with more simple people. People with money but maybe lacking in critical-thinking/willingness-of-effort to form an opinion beyond "I find this rule dumb."

Sure we all can help make the feelings of such people more clear, but it's on the devs not to shut down that conversation and maybe even probe deeper into an issue. Obviously things like "the concept of a new edition is dumb" can be disregarded but were entirely expected and the devs already know how to handle that perspective with conversion rules.

Other things like "the term proficiency triggers me!" (something I personally feel) really isn't obvious. How were they suppose to know how much of their consumer base would be ruffled by merely sharing a rules term with 5e and immediately jump to the conclusion that the sky is falling?


11 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Simply saying something is "dumb" is not feedback, it's just a criticism that doesn't give the creator anything to go on. "I don't like this because [reason]" does.

And?

It highlights a potential problem that you may be unaware of.

As a consumer, well constructed feedback helps your feelings be heard. I don't see anyone arguing what a consumer ought to do, but whether the devs will work with less than ideal feedback.

Also if Paizo is in the business of simplifying things, that means they may have to deal with more simple people. People with money but maybe lacking in critical-thinking/willingness-of-effort to form an opinion beyond "I find this rule dumb."

Sure we all can help make the feelings of such people more clear, but it's on the devs not to shut down that conversation and maybe even probe deeper into an issue. Obviously things like "the concept of a new edition is dumb" can be disregarded but were entirely expected and the devs already know how to handle that perspective with conversion rules.

Other things like "the term proficiency triggers me!" (something I personally feel) really isn't obvious. How were they suppose to know how much of their consumer base would be ruffled by merely sharing a rules term with 5e and immediately jump to the conclusion that the sky is falling?

How do you know that "this is dumb" is a legitimate critique of a rule and not a misunderstanding of the rule by the person in question, or perhaps even just a fear of something new even if they wouldn't otherwise have an issue with it?

Being able to distinguish between those three (and more) possibilities requires a deeper analysis and a longer conversation than "this is dumb."

For example, when Starfinder first came out, the largest vitriol came from those who misunderstood the rules. And as conversations went on and they discovered what the rules actually said, they lost their vitriol and were more comfortable with the rule set. Some people even changed their minds so much that they started arguing in favor of the rule. Imagine going from extreme agitation of a rule to arguing in favor of it, not because the rule was bad, but because the commenter in question simply misunderstood what was going on.

It happens more than you might imagine.

I for one know this happens, because I was such a person who was really pissed at how a certain rule worked in Starfinder only to discover I was wrong in my interpretation of the rule. And once I understood how it actually worked, it made a lot of sense.

If I were to just repeat over and over, "this is a stupid rule," I would have never been able to discover how it actually worked and I would have been providing illegitimate feedback.

This highlights the importance of polite and professional conversation as a way of communicating ideas and griefs. It also highlights the importance of being willing to accept that you and I may be the ones who are wrong.

Of course, some of my other complaints were valid, as it was discovered through continued conversation. This also highlights that sometimes developers do get it wrong, too. But we'd never know that if all we did was say, "this is dumb" without an explanation.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MR. H wrote:
How were they suppose to know how much of their consumer base would be ruffled by merely sharing a rules term with 5e and immediately jump to the conclusion that the sky is falling?

Oh, come on, man. This is an RPG discussion forum. Any rules change will have people screaming that the sky is falling.

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Cool, we’re already starting conspiracy theories. Cool cool cool.

The 2e devs are Lizardmen from a colony inside the sun, pass it on.


MR. H wrote:
the devs already know how to handle that perspective with conversion rules.

let's say, they at least put some thought in how to convert PF1 into PF2, that's 50% of the work. It's the other way round that's interesting. Fast and easy conversions of PF2 APs into PF1 content is deal breaker to me. If the new edition strays too far from its ancestry that this can't be done without investing lots of work in it, the APs become uninteresting for those not changing editions. I for one would hate to stumble over an AP in a couple of years, looking at it and thinking "Hey, thematically this looks great! Brilliant ideas in it, even for Paizo's standards. I really want to GM the hell out of that!" only to put it back in the shelf of my RPG shop, because I know I would have to invest significant work on top of the work I already have to invest to customize an AP to my group, just to make it playable in PF.

And that's where I have yet to read commitment from at least one of the devs. Yes, we were told conversion from PF to PF2 will be easy, but a simple mission statement of "we try our best to maintain easy, simple backwards compatibilty" would destroy a lot of anger about the new edition and would bring a lot of people on board.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

33 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the question of the op--if Paizo were as thin skinned as some here would imply, this thread would be gone. Certainly Vic Wertz wouldn't have come in to answer various questions (and taking a good bit of flack along the way). And for that matter--given anything like a playtest tends to draw a lot of negative flack no matter what is done or how alert the mods are, a thinskinned company wouldn't run a playtest, let alone announce it 5 months prior to the start of the playtest (giving all the Chicken Littles in the community plenty of time to start borrowing trouble about perceived concerns that are unlikely to ever come to pass).

So yes, they have thick enough skin.

If you don't believe this, and won't accept any commentary that doesn't validate your existing point of view; if you believe Paizo is out to undermine all of what you love about gaming and surround themselves only with people who never complain----why are you here? To find affirmation from total strangers? To stir s~!+? Or because you secretly believe Paizo really IS listening to this criticism and that you know you ARE in fact being heard, you just want to be angry about it for some reason? Because you really believe someone is going to read your post and go, "Oh, I see the light now, how you have saved me!"

I'd really like an actual answer to the question, because I truly, truly do not understand.

Personally, I am a firm believer in voting with my wallet. I do not buy products from companies whose business practices I disagree with (for example, even though they have some fun franchises, I have not purchased a video game from EA in 8 years)--nor do I participate in the communities a business I dislike runs (if they run any). I wouldn't be here if I were not a satisfied customer. I HAVE complained about things and argued with the devs plenty (I particularly miss the days of picking arguments with SKR sometimes ;) ) and I have always felt heard--they haven't always conceded, but concession is NOT in fact requisite to being heard (sometimes *gasp* I've even been wrong about stuff myself). I have always tried to be reasonable in the way I argue, but I certainly argue and disagree all the time. I had feedback about the website recently including stuff I really felt needed changing. I was thanked for the feedback. I have dealt with many thin skinned people before, and they NEVER thank you for feedback, no matter how kindly or not that you put it.

If you are not a satisfied customer, I suggest you do as I do with companies whose practices I find distasteful: stop buying their product and move on. There are plenty of other great games to play, and other hobbies to enjoy to boot. Why would you stay here if the way you think they run things makes you miserable and angry? Why would you buy products that make you miserable and angry? Do you just ENJOY being miserable and angry? (ETA and if that's true, I honestly do hope your life improves. I really do.)

((And that's all I'm going to say on this. I'm not here to argue. See you all at the playtest five months from now.))


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
If you are not a satisfied customer, I suggest you do as I do with companies whose practices I find distasteful: stop buying their product and move on

so, "If you're not liking where this is headed, just go away!"


7 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:

I'm sorry DeathQuaker but all this says about you is that you are a rational, empathic human being first and NOT a borderline sociopath.

Unfortunately, you seem to be an outlier when it comes to the TTRPG community so...

Nah, it's just that, like in all things, the audible minority shapes the perception of a group, no matter how much smaller than the silent majority it is.

Personally, I think it's wisest to reserve judgement for now. The details we have are so miniscule, and so devoid of context, that misinterpretation is easy. There'll be time for pitchforks later once we've seen the whole picture in all its playtest glory.

(Incidentally, I'd like to elect DeathQuaker as my spokesperson. I don't know how, but she always manages to write what I'm thinking way more eloquently than I would have myself.)

Hythlodeus wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
If you are not a satisfied customer, I suggest you do as I do with companies whose practices I find distasteful: stop buying their product and move on
so, "If you're not liking where this is headed, just go away!"

Alternately, "Wait until they've shown you a product before you declare it doesn't suit you."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ProximaC wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

I'm sorry DeathQuaker but all this says about you is that you are a rational, empathic human being first and NOT a borderline sociopath.

Unfortunately, you seem to be an outlier when it comes to the TTRPG community so...

Nah, it's just that, like in all things, the audible minority shapes the perception of a group, no matter how much smaller than the silent minority is.

Personally, I think it's wisest to reserve judgement for now. The details we have are so miniscule, and so devoid of context, that misinterpretation is easy. There'll be time for pitchforks later once we've seen the whole picture in all its playtest glory.

(Incidentally, I'd like to elect DeathQuaker as my spokesperson. I don't know how, but she always manages to write what I'm thinking way more eloquently than I would have myself.)

Agreed on that last part.

And you ALSO seem to be one of those rational, empathic human beings that's so rare to see in these parts. So that's at least two...


Hythlodeus wrote:


let's say, they at least put some thought in how to convert PF1 into PF2, that's 50% of the work. It's the other way round that's interesting. Fast and easy conversions of PF2 APs into PF1 content is deal breaker to me. If the new edition strays too far from its ancestry that this can't be done without investing lots of work in it, the APs become uninteresting for those not changing editions.

How are you defining "fast and easy" and "lots of work" here ? Could you put some qualitative measures on what's workable for you here and what would be too much?

Nothing I have seen about PF2 so far suggests that converting a PF2 AP to work in the contexts I am likely to run one is going to be any significantly greater amount of work than adapting a PF1 AP for the same contexts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TiwazBlackhand wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Cool, we’re already starting conspiracy theories. Cool cool cool.

The 2e devs are Lizardmen from a colony inside the sun, pass it on.

I think they really are Killer Klowns from Outer Space.


magnuskn wrote:
MR. H wrote:
How were they suppose to know how much of their consumer base would be ruffled by merely sharing a rules term with 5e and immediately jump to the conclusion that the sky is falling?
Oh, come on, man. This is an RPG discussion forum. Any rules change will have people screaming that the sky is falling.

I feel like "resolve to be better than the baseline expectation (which is low)"is a preferable course of action than "resign oneself to the probable unfortunate outcome" though.

Like what I do is any time I hear about a new rule, since we are only getting snippets, is stop to consider what other rules might exist in support of this and if at least one imagined framework makes whatever it is work, then I can wait until the actual book comes out before deciding if it's good or bad. Like instead of "using an action to raise your shield is worthless, since you'll break your shield" go with "well, I wonder how hard shields are to break, and how hard they are to repair and how expensive they are to replace". Like if you can just have "mending" cast on it once a day and be fine, then there is no issue.

51 to 100 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Does modern Paizo have thick enough skin to handle a playtest? All Messageboards