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


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I just want to be clear here: I'll be buying the playtest because I want to see what changes they've made and possibly try them out with my group IN ACTUAL PLAY and not theory craft before I declare AWESOME or SUCK.

Either way I won't be moving to 2E as ruleset nor will I probably be supporting it. It's a financial issue for me. I have over $4K of Pathfinder books that I can still use. I don't (nor will I ever) do society play so it'll just be a curated group of players that I play with.

Still the level of anxiety and venom I see on these boards and knife sharpening I see on other boards is ASTOUNDING. It's like the boards are filled with petulant 13-year-old boys with impulse control issues (is that redundant?). An edition change is imminent and we've learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the last one 10 years ago and it's meltdown city all over again?

Man, I've said this for a long time. I LOVE my hobbies but the fandom? Not so much...

Silver Crusade

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

Well, the D&D fandom may have its share of grumpy nerf-herding old farts and caustic anime kids, but it's still more level-headed, mature and progressive than the video gaming fandom.

Dark Archive

Things happen. People will get crappy no matter what. I think any feedback as long as its not outright crapping on them will be taken into account here.


Hythlodeus wrote:

the APs become uninteresting for those not changing editions.

Lot pf people, myself included, has played APs with 4e, 5e, and other rulesets, many of them way more different to PF than PF2-will be.

If convertimg the AP to a ruleset becomes an insurmontable task, that might tell us things about the ruleset needed prep time. Which may or may not be useful info for devs building the new edition.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
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?

I don't think I can, but I'll try to narrow it down.

Let's see..
The story part obviously stays the same, so that's nothing to worry about. Treasure/loot, unless something REALLY drastic is changed might not be a problem too. after all, WBL is a thing in PF, even though I prefer it more as a guideline. treasure can always be added. Antagonists are a big worry here. If CR work the same or at least similar enough, standard monsters can probably easily substituted. If CR works very different one would have to find workarounds which can work from 'complicated' to 'simple' the more complicated those workarounds get, the more time consuming they are it is obviously more work for the GM to convert those standard monsters. so best case scenario in this specific case: CR works the same way it does in PF and monster have the same CR they have in PF. The more we get away from that, the worse. Non-standard monsters and NPCs as antagonists/villains should be able to be transported without needing a university degree in math. Change a couple of skills, maybe a feat or two, adapt the spell list and good to go. That would be almost ideal (it doesn't look that way at the moment, it seems like I'd have to build every one of them from scratch and THAT is way too much work if it is just an edition change.
Then we have the gameplay. skill checks, trapfinding, saves and so on where, personally I'd hate to spend more than two to five minutes converting. I'm not sure I missed something, but I probably have. I hope that helps. All in all, I'd say 10-25 minutes (depending on the complexity) per encounter to convert is fine, everything longer is dangerously close to be really time consuming
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:


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.

See, I have to adapt the APs anyway for a larger, more powerful group than the AP usually expects. So that's work already. If you have - on top of that - invest more than the same amount of time to even get to the point where you can raise the difficulty, the time might be better spent writing your own adventure


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Well, the D&D fandom may have its share of grumpy nerf-herding old farts and caustic anime kids, but it's still more level-headed, mature and progressive than the video gaming fandom.

Honestly, I think the rot in tabletop goes deep, as deep as it does in video games. It's just that the awful people in this hobby are older, more established, and are better at maintaining a veneer of respectability.

So let's not dislocate any shoulders patting ourselves on the back.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Well, the D&D fandom may have its share of grumpy nerf-herding old farts and caustic anime kids, but it's still more level-headed, mature and progressive than the video gaming fandom.

Honestly, I think the rot in tabletop goes deep, as deep as it does in video games. It's just that the awful people in this hobby are older, more established, and are better at maintaining a veneer of respectability.

So let's not dislocate any shoulders patting ourselves on the back.

Oh man I hope Paizo doesn't share your wholesale destain for large segments of consumers. It's not easy to hide such hate and it's a great way to not make money.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The really important question is: who is going to be this playtest's Frank Trollman?

I'm seeing some contenders.

-Skeld

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

39 people marked this as a favorite.
Backpack wrote:

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.

1. Is abusive and will get removed and likely a warning email. Repeated posts like that will likely see the poster banned from paizo.com. Paizo employees are a part of the community and posts calling for them to lose their jobs, cussing them out, threatening physical violence is abusive. It is not only unhelpful but the presence of a post like that on our forums would be a negative drain on the community (both other fans and employees).

2. Isn't particularly helpful and I would consider it baiting. It's a post that provokes arguing–an insult wrapped with a hyperbolic bow. It might stay if people avoid starting a fight over it. It might be removed if it starts a chain of bickering.

Our goal with the paizo.com forums is to foster a welcoming environment for our community. That includes fans, customers, other gaming publishers, our licensees, retailers, GM's, players, people who like Starfinder, or Pathfinder (P1E included), or the Adventure Card Game or all of the above, and employees. If you think that demeaning, screaming at, insulting or threatening people over their preference in hobbies or calling their work trash is okay, take a moment to reflect on why that is and if you want to promote that as socially acceptable. I don't believe that an atmosphere where that is tacitly approved of is healthy for our forums and it is certainly unhealthy for the community.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
People that hate the new edition will see problems that Paizo can't, and they have no obligation to be kind.

This is why we can't have nice things..... (in other words: I completely disagree)


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

Empirical evidence here - I have been whiney, and negative about the new edition, but didn't have any of my posts removed. :)


Sara Marie wrote:
...calling their work trash is okay, take a moment to reflect on why that is and if you want to promote that as socially acceptable. I don't believe that an atmosphere where that is tacitly approved of is healthy for our forums and it is certainly unhealthy for the community.

If someone dislikes something enough that it doesn't have value to them, then no matter how politely they phrase that sentiment, they are calling that work trash to them.

I understand protecting people, but shielding work/ideas from insults sounds dangerously close to censorship of criticisms. Which seems to me something to be very careful about to have an effective playtest.

Now if you meant that as "the association of a particular person to shoddy work is toxic" then I completely understand and retract my concern.

Silver Crusade

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

It doesn’t sound dangerously close to censorship at all.
Remember we’re guests on these forums that Paizo hosts. If you walk into someone’s house, or place of business and act rude, entitled, insult the owner for their decor or product, they are under no obligation to listen to that. They are well within their rights to ask you to calm down and phrase your issue more politely, or even show you the door.

You’ve now had multiple paizo employees come here and make explicitly clear what is acceptable, and that they are watching and listening. These are human beings, real people working on this game and all members of this community should be shown at minimum basic respect, politeness and human decency.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Thing From Another World wrote:
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.

It's actually only one Paizo peep, He has buy in with the reverse vampires & saucer people, and His Most Supercalischadenfreudilcious isn't a dev. Yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
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.

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.

None of the three versions provide any direct perspective on whether the purported problem is important. (1) and (2) are more clear on how pissed off the writer is, but that's just a state of mind, nothing to do with the topic's importance.

(3) has the advantage of arguing why the writer has a problem. This allows critical thought, to assess whether or not many in the audience might have the same problem. (1) and (2) provide zero insight on that, and are therefore much less useful.

Anyway, based on the tone of many of these threads, I think I will submit comments during the playtest (after I have gotten the full book and have had a chance to actually test it as is)... but it seems likely that the forum will be too heated a place for me to spend much time on after that. Lots of debate rabbit holes out there...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:
...calling their work trash is okay, take a moment to reflect on why that is and if you want to promote that as socially acceptable. I don't believe that an atmosphere where that is tacitly approved of is healthy for our forums and it is certainly unhealthy for the community.

If someone dislikes something enough that it doesn't have value to them, then no matter how politely they phrase that sentiment, they are calling that work trash to them.

I understand protecting people, but shielding work/ideas from insults sounds dangerously close to censorship of criticisms. Which seems to me something to be very careful about to have an effective playtest.

Now if you meant that as "the association of a particular person to shoddy work is toxic" then I completely understand and retract my concern.

I think the problem is that when you don't word something kindly, you are implying that you don't have any respect for the person you are talking to. That's the key difference between well worded constrictive criticism and simply going out and calling someone's work trash and giving them a list of fixes. If Paizo ends up thinking that you don't respect them, then it becomes less likely they'll pay attention to you during the playtest.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
I think the problem is that when you don't word something kindly, you are implying that you don't have any respect for the person you are talking to. That's the key difference between well worded constrictive criticism and simply going out and calling someone's work trash and giving them a list of fixes. If Paizo ends up thinking that you don't respect them, then it becomes less likely they'll pay attention to you during the playtest.

You are conflating talking to a person unkindly and talking about an idea/work unkindly.

If people unkindly talking about an idea you had, makes you feel like they don't respect you, then I think that is a line of thinking to avoid.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I think the problem is that when you don't word something kindly, you are implying that you don't have any respect for the person you are talking to. That's the key difference between well worded constrictive criticism and simply going out and calling someone's work trash and giving them a list of fixes. If Paizo ends up thinking that you don't respect them, then it becomes less likely they'll pay attention to you during the playtest.

You are conflating talking to a person unkindly and talking about an idea/work unkindly.

If people unkindly talking about an idea you had, makes you feel like they don't respect you, then I think that is a line of thinking to avoid.

There is a very big difference between constructive and tearing down someone's work, trust me. I know this since I used to dabble in art and story writing. Constructive criticism shows you how you can improve your work and makes you *want* to improve your work. Blunt or flat out unkind criticism makes people defensive unless they're trying *very hard* to block out their emotions on the subject.

Edit: Sure, paizo is made up of professionals and they should be trying to hold back their emotions when reading the playtest forms, but honestly they're human beings and that sort of thing can be very draining for anyone. If we all managed to give Paizo only constructive criticism instead of our usual angry criticism we would end up getting a much better product in the long run since they'd have more energy for working on it.

Silver Crusade

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

If your criticism makes someone feel like they don’t want to keep creating then you’re bad at criticism. Please don’t do it.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Paizo people are still people. It's hard for anyone to separate harsh criticism of an idea from personal criticism. So let's make everyone's lives easier and treat ideas with respect even if we dislike or disagree with them.


12 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
MR. H wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I think the problem is that when you don't word something kindly, you are implying that you don't have any respect for the person you are talking to. That's the key difference between well worded constrictive criticism and simply going out and calling someone's work trash and giving them a list of fixes. If Paizo ends up thinking that you don't respect them, then it becomes less likely they'll pay attention to you during the playtest.

You are conflating talking to a person unkindly and talking about an idea/work unkindly.

If people unkindly talking about an idea you had, makes you feel like they don't respect you, then I think that is a line of thinking to avoid.

This is a private venue. The rules here are you have to speak kindly - whether it’s a person or an idea a person had that you’re critiquing. This isn’t a public forum protected by freedom of speech/expression. There are rules.

Posters should speak kindly. It isn’t hard.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
MR. H wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I think the problem is that when you don't word something kindly, you are implying that you don't have any respect for the person you are talking to. That's the key difference between well worded constrictive criticism and simply going out and calling someone's work trash and giving them a list of fixes. If Paizo ends up thinking that you don't respect them, then it becomes less likely they'll pay attention to you during the playtest.

You are conflating talking to a person unkindly and talking about an idea/work unkindly.

If people unkindly talking about an idea you had, makes you feel like they don't respect you, then I think that is a line of thinking to avoid.

This is a private venue. The rules here are you have to speak kindly - whether it’s a person or an idea a person had that you’re critiquing. This isn’t a public forum protected by freedom of speech/expression. There are rules.

Posters should speak kindly. It isn’t hard.

And if a poster stops for a moment to re-read what they just wrote to make sure it doesn't come across as fighty or abusive, there is also a non-zero chance they might find a way to make their disagreement/complaint more clear or more constructive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
MR. H wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I think the problem is that when you don't word something kindly, you are implying that you don't have any respect for the person you are talking to. That's the key difference between well worded constrictive criticism and simply going out and calling someone's work trash and giving them a list of fixes. If Paizo ends up thinking that you don't respect them, then it becomes less likely they'll pay attention to you during the playtest.

You are conflating talking to a person unkindly and talking about an idea/work unkindly.

If people unkindly talking about an idea you had, makes you feel like they don't respect you, then I think that is a line of thinking to avoid.

This is a private venue. The rules here are you have to speak kindly - whether it’s a person or an idea a person had that you’re critiquing. This isn’t a public forum protected by freedom of speech/expression. There are rules.

Posters should speak kindly. It isn’t hard.

AGREED. Yet apparently, it's harder for some than it is for others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Paizo people are still people. It's hard for anyone to separate harsh criticism of an idea from personal criticism. So let's make everyone's lives easier and treat ideas with respect even if we dislike or disagree with them.

We only control the actions of ourselves as individuals. I do not see anyone arguing about what people giving feedback ideally do.

I may be of the minority opinion here, but I believe less eloquent people have valid criticism and that PF 2e would be worse for ignoring them.

Negative opinions are more likely to draw ire or inspire less than satisfactory phrasing than positive opinions. Driving off those people feeds into "nurturing a cult of yes-men" as someone else mentioned up-thread. Which driving off those people is something the "nice" forum goers can also be guilty of. I've seen a lot of hate in this thread directed at anyone who is not careful with their phrasing. That's something I would be concerned about as well. Attacking ideas for their "tone" only seems to derail threads way off topic, which would also be less than ideal for a playtest.


13 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
MR. H wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Paizo people are still people. It's hard for anyone to separate harsh criticism of an idea from personal criticism. So let's make everyone's lives easier and treat ideas with respect even if we dislike or disagree with them.

We only control the actions of ourselves as individuals. I do not see anyone arguing about what people giving feedback ideally do.

I may be of the minority opinion here, but I believe less eloquent people have valid criticism and that PF 2e would be worse for ignoring them.

Negative opinions are more likely to draw ire or inspire less than satisfactory phrasing than positive opinions. Driving off those people feeds into "nurturing a cult of yes-men" as someone else mentioned up-thread. Which driving off those people is something the "nice" forum goers can also be guilty of. I've seen a lot of hate in this thread directed at anyone who is not careful with their phrasing. That's something I would be concerned about as well. Attacking ideas for their "tone" only seems to derail threads way off topic, which would also be less than ideal for a playtest.

Less eloquent people can be nice.

When people demand designers lose their job, or sink into sarcasm, or lapse into abuse (like calling designers “lazy”, “incompetent” or “clueless”) it’s rarely the less eloquent posters.

You’re defending something nobody is arguing against. Nobody is saying “stop people posting who don’t know how to express themselves well”. Those people aren’t the issue.

It’s nasty people that are the issue. People who think they should be allowed to post any way they like. That just isn’t true.

Your original post included this:

“People that hate the new edition will see problems that Paizo can't, and they have no obligation to be kind.”

and that is incorrect. If you’re posting here, you have to comply with the community guidelines and that means you DO have an obligation to be kind.

Dark Archive

The playtest serves at least two goals:

1. Stresstest the rules.
2. Create online community cohesion and enthusiasm around the game.

The 2008/09 playtest created a lot of dissatisfaction in some corners that (a) didn't realize that 2. was a value or (b) realized 2. was a thing but had zero social value to them ("pure marketing ploy").


24 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Negative opinions are more likely to draw ire or inspire less than satisfactory phrasing than positive opinions. Driving off those people feeds into "nurturing a cult of yes-men" as someone else mentioned up-thread.

A request: can you please stop implying that because I try to be polite, it means that I'm a "yes man," a suck-up, or otherwise incapable of having my own mind with my own opinions?

Just because I aim to be kind doesn't mean I agree with everyone around me. It doesn't mean that I don't have my own opinions, and it doesn't mean that I'm afraid to voice my own opinions. I just choose to try to voice my opinions in a respectful manner rather than a disrespectful one.

Thank you.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It doesn't take an English degree to be considerate to others. (But it helps!)


bookrat wrote:
MR. H wrote:
Negative opinions are more likely to draw ire or inspire less than satisfactory phrasing than positive opinions. Driving off those people feeds into "nurturing a cult of yes-men" as someone else mentioned up-thread.
A request: can you please stop implying that because I try to be polite, it means that I'm a "yes man," a suck-up, or otherwise incapable of having my own mind with my own opinions?

I will let you know if I ever start!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Inspired by this thread, I just went and reread some posts from the Alpha playtest of Pathfinder 1e made by a particular infamous commenter who I will not call out by name. It struck me that the admonition to not take criticism personally is something that critics of the rules need to remember as well as supporters, and conversely, "be kind" is something that supporters need to apply to critics too.

Imagine if you will a conversation that goes like this:

Valeros: I've done extensive playtesting under these conditions, and these are my results.
Merisiel: Your results are skewed because some of your assumptions are invalid.
Valeros: Would you kindly stop being a moron and ask Mommy if it's okay for you to be typing on the forums with the grown-ups?

Valeros' post is going to get removed and he himself will be banned, no matter whether he is critiquing or defending the rules - and more importantly, no matter whether he is right or not.

So please, let's not do that, okay?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
If people unkindly talking about an idea you had, makes you feel like they don't respect you, then I think that is a line of thinking to avoid.

This idea is a pile of garbage, unworthy of existing in a debate among intelligent creatures.

See what I did? This kind of beheaviour is what needs to be addressed.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skeld wrote:

The really important question is: who is going to be this playtest's Frank Trollman?

I'm seeing some contenders.

-Skeld

I hate you. Couldn't you have called for Pazuzu instead?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure we can deal with the play test given that we are several months out and are arguing on whether or not being actively rude, condescending, abusive and so on should be allowed because "less eloquent people have valid criticism."

Perhaps they do. Perhaps they should find someone more eloquent or tactful to post for them, however, rather than posting in what appears to be an inflammatory manner.

Regardless of if you are right or wrong you come across poorly and whatever point that was being made gets lost in the sea of attacks and counterattacks about the abuse rather than the perceived problem with the rule.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
Skeld wrote:

The really important question is: who is going to be this playtest's Frank Trollman?

I'm seeing some contenders.

-Skeld

I hate you. Couldn't you have called for Pazuzu instead?

At least we know who will be this playtests's Gorbacz.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Regardless of if you are right or wrong you come across poorly and whatever point that was being made gets lost in the sea of attacks and counterattacks about the abuse rather than the perceived problem with the rule.

Perhaps if we are addressing community behavior, we should address how disruptive taking offense is in addition to how disruptive being offensive is.

There really is no reason to ever criticize someone's tone or phrasing, there is a flagging system to mark such things and mods that clean it up. Someone's post being deleted does more to let them know they need to change their tone than 6-7 fellow posters letting them know and derailing the thread.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Regardless of if you are right or wrong you come across poorly and whatever point that was being made gets lost in the sea of attacks and counterattacks about the abuse rather than the perceived problem with the rule.

Perhaps if we are addressing community behavior, we should address how disruptive taking offense is in addition to how disruptive being offensive is.

There really is no reason to ever criticize someone's tone or phrasing, there is a flagging system to mark such things and mods that clean it up. Someone's post being deleted does more to let them know they need to change their tone than 6-7 fellow posters letting them know and derailing the thread.

Perhaps so. But then, we wouldn't have that sort of disruption if people on the internet spoke with one another in a more thoughtful manner. I mean, I've sat through my children's classes from Kindergarten on and they stress politeness rather than just blurting out whatever is on your mind.

The whole "I'm just being honest" bit that seems to permeate these and other forums is an excuse to put things in the worst possible way in order to provoke a reaction. It isn't passing on any information; rather, it is a mechanism for getting attention. Why not actually address the problem with the rules and save attention-grabbing banter for sites that enjoy that sort of thing?

Less work for the mods and makes it a little easier to actually work on the problems with the game than educate a user on how to speak to other people.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Skeld wrote:

The really important question is: who is going to be this playtest's Frank Trollman?

I'm seeing some contenders.

-Skeld

I hate you. Couldn't you have called for Pazuzu instead?
At least we know who will be this playtests's Gorbacz.

Don't worry, no one else is going to touch that position with a ten foot pole, so you're safe. ;-)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Paizo people are still people. It's hard for anyone to separate harsh criticism of an idea from personal criticism. So let's make everyone's lives easier and treat ideas with respect even if we dislike or disagree with them.

We only control the actions of ourselves as individuals. I do not see anyone arguing about what people giving feedback ideally do.

I may be of the minority opinion here, but I believe less eloquent people have valid criticism and that PF 2e would be worse for ignoring them.

Negative opinions are more likely to draw ire or inspire less than satisfactory phrasing than positive opinions. Driving off those people feeds into "nurturing a cult of yes-men" as someone else mentioned up-thread. Which driving off those people is something the "nice" forum goers can also be guilty of. I've seen a lot of hate in this thread directed at anyone who is not careful with their phrasing. That's something I would be concerned about as well. Attacking ideas for their "tone" only seems to derail threads way off topic, which would also be less than ideal for a playtest.

Less eloquent people?

If you can read the rules you have enough of a grasp of the English language that you should be able to compose a coherent and respectful piece of criticism, without devolving into profanity and insults.
Not doing so would then clearly be by choice and show that you (general you) aren't really interested in helping Paizo make the best PF2e.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MR. H wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Regardless of if you are right or wrong you come across poorly and whatever point that was being made gets lost in the sea of attacks and counterattacks about the abuse rather than the perceived problem with the rule.

Perhaps if we are addressing community behavior, we should address how disruptive taking offense is in addition to how disruptive being offensive is.

There really is no reason to ever criticize someone's tone or phrasing, there is a flagging system to mark such things and mods that clean it up. Someone's post being deleted does more to let them know they need to change their tone than 6-7 fellow posters letting them know and derailing the thread.

However, I a post gets deleted for tone there’s always the danger of people crying censorship for content.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:
Backpack wrote:

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.

1. Is abusive and will get removed and likely a warning email. Repeated posts like that will likely see the poster banned from paizo.com. Paizo employees are a part of the community and posts calling for them to lose their jobs, cussing them out, threatening physical violence is abusive. It is not only unhelpful but the presence of a post like that on our forums would be a negative drain on the community (both other fans and employees).

2. Isn't particularly helpful and I would consider it baiting. It's a post that provokes arguing–an insult wrapped with a hyperbolic bow. It might stay if people avoid starting a fight over it. It might be removed if it starts a chain of bickering.

Our goal with the paizo.com forums is to foster a welcoming environment for our community. That includes fans, customers, other gaming publishers, our licensees, retailers, GM's, players, people who like Starfinder, or Pathfinder (P1E included), or the Adventure Card Game or all of the above, and employees. If you think that demeaning, screaming at, insulting or threatening people over their preference in hobbies or calling their work trash is okay,...

I guess I just have a request for the mods along these lines: When someone has posted something expressing an opinion in a terrible way that needs deletion, would you please add a few words to the effect of "several posts were deleted. This behavior will not be tolerated. BY THE WAY, the posters liked drawing a weapon as part of a move action". That way, people who are interested in seeing the balance is shifting between different ways of looking at playtest rules questions will not see a skewed result.


1 person 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
MR. H wrote:
There really is no reason to ever criticize someone's tone or phrasing, there is a flagging system to mark such things and mods that clean it up. Someone's post being deleted does more to let them know they need to change their tone than 6-7 fellow posters letting them know and derailing the thread.

This is almost true. There are opportunities for experienced posters to explain the rules to newcomers from time to time.

I agree that the dogpiling we often see is equally bad for the community feel. Nonetheless, explaining why something is against the rules (also kindly) is not in itself harmful. Sadly it often doesn’t remain as a single, explanatory post.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

The problem with that is Depressive Realism is a thing

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A case can be made for proactively nipping some of this behavior in the bud as problem children self-identity early in the build up to playtest.

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
The problem with that is Depressive Realism is a thing

From that article

Quote:
Although depressed individuals make accurate judgments about having no control in situations where they in fact have no control, this appraisal also carries over to situations where they do have control, suggesting that the depressed perspective is not more accurate overall.[26]

Which is why kindness in pointing out that "resolve to be better than the baseline expectation (which is low)" is preferable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

All I can say is having been on both sides of this argument during different edition changes (as a consumer and as a freelancer working on developing the new rules for an upcoming edition) expect to hear a lot of noise.

From the consumer side: There will be people chanting to keep their sacred cows, others chanting to cut them to ribbons, and a wide majority questioning why people chose X as the most important change to fight about when clearly Y and Z are way bigger. Which doesn't include the silent ones who read the posts and nod occasionally or shake their head at all the sound and fury which ultimately signifies nothing.

On the Developer side: There's vitriol, often more so than the yes-men. Neither the irrational FRAKKING SHINY PIECE IS BROKEN GARBAGE nor the IT'S TOTALLY AWESOME, PASS THE KOOLAID, is terribly helpful, but you read through all of it because sometimes there is something you catch to help fix things. Many times the edge arguments, "Did you consider X with Y, when in situation A" get talked about with developers and gut checks are done to see how often that snowflake moment is going to come up.

All that said, nearly any system of rules can be broken if pushed hard enough. Systems that are designed to have wide open options clash when disparate choices are made (Our characters are an Arcane detective, a psychic, and a minor god in power armor using that one expansion book), others collapse in extremes of chance or opportunity. (1 orc with a great axe killed an entire party of 1st level characters, at 20th level we play rocket tag, etc)

I wish Paizo good fortune in the playtest and am really interested to see what they have in store for us. The previews have made me wonder how the whole puzzle is going to fit together given the pieces we've seen.

I wish the Community patience, luck in their dice, and a cup that never runs empty. By the end of this we're all going to need a drink of something, be it more caffeine, water, or something stronger to face the changes and each other when we wake up on the other side of this transition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its a fair question.... this is a massive moment for Paizo with real long term consequences.

Obviously the basic standards of forum etiquette apply but they should IMO embrace PF2 feedback to the fullest..... harsh and complementary alike!!

This is an opportunity they will only get once

There were several long term posters who sat in their ivory towers and looked down their noses when others were annoyed at the lack of a Shifter playtest.....

Those apples are not now tasting particularly good.....fairly terrible in fact.

If Paizo when they say Playtest, actually mean "Playtest"..... they will be making a terrible mistake and could well end up sitting in one of those ivory towers with a bag full of manky apples!!


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
doc roc wrote:
Obviously the basic standards of forum etiquette apply but they should IMO embrace PF2 feedback to the fullest..... harsh and complementary alike!!

In English, "harsh" and "complimentary" (I'm assuming you meant complimentary and not complementary) are not opposites.

One talks about the tone in which a statement is delivered, the other talks about the content of the statement.

You can discuss things you don't like or things you do like in a tone that is not harsh. I don't expect Paizo to moderate rude/abusive/hateful/harsh comments any differently just because they are posted in the Playtest forum.

The inability to respond in a thoughtful way doesn't give you any special permissions to post without penalty.

101 to 150 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