| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's any point in arguing in a separate thread about whether including goblins or not is a good thing. (So that should end that, right?)
However, I'm curious if this is the kind of thing which is 'part of the playtest' as in has the inclusion of Goblins-as-core been locked down as a done deal? Or is this the kind of thing that would be changed during the playtest (in the hypothetical case that the majority was opposed and not many were in favor)?
I believe the ancestries and the classes in the playtest are locked in and will not change.
People who are vehemently opposed to goblin PCs are encouraged to treat the ancestry like they treated the Leadership feat or the (Chained) Summoner or any number or other things commonly disallowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the ancestries and the classes in the playtest are locked in and will not change.
Cheers. I don't suppose you know where they said that do you? I'm as interested in the 'how is the playtest going to work' as I am in the mechanical changes actually being considered (well more interested, to be frank).
I haven't seen much talk on what the playtest will entail or what sorts of things are open to change and which are definite features of the final game. Any tidbits would be greatly appreciated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that they've used "goblins as part of core" for promotional use since the announcement of PF2, they've previewed the goblin alchemist iconic in several public playtests, there's art for the iconic and he's even got a name (which I don't think Jason has revealed yet, though) ... I'd say that points toward goblins being included in the core book as a done deal. Whether any of the mechanics for the goblin will change, that's up to the actual playtest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested in hearing what kind of territory is being marked out as 'not for changing' and what is 'this is what we want you to look at'.
FWIW, I don't take the art ordering as necessarily implying it's going to be in the final game, since I suspect very little of the playtest art is going to be recycled in the actual core rulebook of PF2 (so it's not wasted, even if it's never carried through).
Similarly, I don't see ruling out a goblin iconic as meaning that work is wasted - there are already a whole bunch of iconics being "benched" for PF2's release, so benching the goblin alchemist wouldn't seem a big deal to me.
However, you may well be right that goblins as a core race is effectively non-negotiable - hence the reason for this thread.
Perhaps the scope of the playtest is purely mechanical or perhaps it includes such things as flavor/mood/tone. I'm not really sure. Personally, I don't care that much if the mechanics of PF2 changes a lot from PF1. I'm much more concerned if the tone of the game changes.
I'd like to be directed to any comments from Paizo staff as to what exactly constitutes "The Playtest" (or rather, what sort of things are they going to be asking about). If it's purely a test of mechanical gizmos/approaches then there isn't much point in my participating, so it's kind of relevant. Hopefully there'll be at least one blog between now and August spelling this stuff out.
That might not be something they're willing to spell out in precise terms, until the actual playtest. And the playtest adventures should give a very good overview of the specific things they're looking to get tested extensively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe. For me it's going to be a significant factor in whether I suggest to my group that we participate or not. If I haven't heard anything about what's actually going to be "being playtested" my group will likely just keep doing what we're doing and wait for the final rules (we kind of plan out our campaigns a few months in advance - possibly we would change with a couple of weeks notice, but not if we have to wait for the first few surveys).
I appreciate I'm not owed a definition, but it might be something Paizo are willing to share but don't think anyone is interested in hearing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the ancestries and the classes in the playtest are locked in and will not change.Cheers. I don't suppose you know where they said that do you? I'm as interested in the 'how is the playtest going to work' as I am in the mechanical changes actually being considered (well more interested, to be frank).
I haven't seen much talk on what the playtest will entail or what sorts of things are open to change and which are definite features of the final game. Any tidbits would be greatly appreciated.
The willingness to jettison changes is something I've been very curious about too. I have a gut feeling that core goblins and alchemists are pretty close to set in stone. They're a design goal as opposed to a way of doing things. I'd guess the new action economy and proficiency are also going to be in no-mater what, but might be tweakable. Beyond that, I have no clue, but hope they're open to ditching changes entirely if they're badly received. But I don't have any official sources for any of this, other than in another thread someone said that in a podcast (Know Direction I think?) it was stated that they decided to go with extreme changes and then go back to the old way if needed. Which implies willingness to toss some of their changes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested in hearing what kind of territory is being marked out as 'not for changing' and what is 'this is what we want you to look at'.
They're unlikely to say. At this point they're going to try to string along existing fans as long as possible with the hope that by the time Pathfinder 2nd edition is published in August 2019 that as many of the existing fans who don't like what Pathfinder 2nd edition is doing will have "come around" or "resigned themselves to gritting their teeth and bearing the things they don't like" as much as possible. Anyone else who hasn't come around will be seen as acceptable losses and Paizo will hopefully make up their numbers with new fans.
Every change is a calculated risk. Just as WotC banked on certain marketing strategies for 4th ed (tieflings and dragonborn as core), so too are Paizo are banking on certain marketing strategies.
Similarly, I don't see ruling out a goblin iconic as meaning that work is wasted - there are already a whole bunch of iconics being "benched" for PF2's release, so benching the goblin alchemist wouldn't seem a big deal to me.
Goblins are tied up too much in Paizo's marketing strategy to be removed at this point. Accept it or move on is essentially what you'll be told (if not now then at some point before August 2019).
Perhaps the scope of the playtest is purely mechanical or perhaps it includes such things as flavor/mood/tone.
My guesses as to what is and isn't changeable are listed here. But it's just my guesses.
I'm pretty sure that most of the main stuff is decided, and they're just looking for a stress test of how those things work. Like, they're not going to remove Goblins, but they might tweak their ability scores. Alchemists are in, but they may change how their alchemy works if it proves to be a problem at a lot of tables. We're probably meant to be testing the numbers themselves, and how they all fit together, rather than any of the bigger picture decisions.
This is my belief too, but it occurs to me that I’ve never really heard Paizo articulate their view.
I think it matters since (for me at least) the answer determines if I even suggest playtesting to my group. Given their (presumed) desire to cast their net wide - I think a blog on the design and scope of the playtest might be of use. (Even if it might otherwise appear to be a dry, dull subject).
Oh I’ll be buying a copy too. It’s just that our group is planning the next campaign, so it’d be useful to know sooner rather than later if the playtest adventures are even an option.
I’m speaking as an “I wish they’d stuck with PF1” person, so I’m hardly the target market anyhow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if any one aspect of the game is largely hated, Paizo will probably take some time to reconsider it, no matter how much work went into it. If goblins as PCs was a massive dealbreaker that would keep most fans from buying into the 2nd edition, they'd be silly to stay the course just because they've already ordered art.
However, it's worth noting that even the controversial goblin stuff is far from universal - about as many people seem in favor of it (or neutral to it) as are opposed to it. And Paizo's not flying completely blind here - they have the experience of sales numbers, market research, and actual play around the world that help give them an idea as to what the reaction to certain changes will be.
I'm betting that there's little that is absolutely untouchable through playtesting, but the designers probably have an idea as to what areas will need the most change before the final product rolls around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the answer determines if I even suggest playtesting to my group.
At this point I expect I'll be able to convince 4 or 5 of my players to do a one shot for one day on the weekend. We'll make characters and play as much as we can in one day and then I expect they won't want to touch it with a 10 ft pole.
I think if any one aspect of the game is largely hated, Paizo will probably take some time to reconsider it, no matter how much work went into it.
The playtest groups are going to be comprised of:
1) Not fans of Pathfinder (seriously. They've already started posting on the forum)2) We'll play anything people
3) We are really, really, really tired of 3.5e people
4) We really want Pathfinder 1st ed with some minor revisions
5) We don't want any changes whatsoever
Groups #1-3 are definitely being well serviced with the previews thus far. Group #5 was never going to be serviced. Group #4 are not being serviced with the majority of what we've been shown.
My fear is that the previews are going to do a really good job at attracting people from groups #1-3, but they'll discourage people in groups #4-5 from being interested in Pathfinder 2nd edition in sufficient numbers that any survey results will be sufficiently mixed or slanted in favour of change that Paizo will be able to point to them as evidence to support their position and claim it's been supported by the playerbase. And hey, if their advertising and marketing campaign is sufficiently good then they might be able to be even more successful by appealing to groups #1-3 (and let's face it, group #5 was always going to be an outside chance to get them to move over to 2nd edition).
A lot of the disappointment for the Goblins comes from the fact that we all have one race we would have liked seeing in the Core book. And Goblin is not the most obvious one for a lot of people.
But yes we will probably just test the numbers, the balance and the « fun ». So for everything with Races/Classes/Core system there will be probably no changes.
One thing that could interest people is another new ancestry. I remember that they said they had pages left in the book, so why not take a sondage to the forums for another race? All the hate for the Goblins would go away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest groups are going to be comprised of:
1) Not fans of Pathfinder (seriously. They've already started posting on the forum)
2) We'll play anything people
3) We are really, really, really tired of 3.5e people
4) We really want Pathfinder 1st ed with some minor revisions
5) We don't want any changes whatsoeverGroups #1-3 are definitely being well serviced with the previews thus far. Group #5 was never going to be serviced. Group #4 are not being serviced with the majority of what we've been shown.
My fear is that the previews are going to do a really good job at attracting people from groups #1-3, but they'll discourage people in groups #4-5 from being interested in Pathfinder 2nd edition in sufficient numbers that any survey results will be sufficiently mixed or slanted in favour of change that Paizo will be able to point to them as evidence to support their position and claim it's been supported by the playerbase. And hey, if their advertising and marketing campaign is sufficiently good then they might be able to be even more successful by appealing to groups #1-3 (and let's face it, group #5 was always going to be an outside chance to get them to move over to 2nd edition).
My fear is that you have left out a huge swath of players in your overly simplistic (if not condescending) list of playtester groups. There is a lot of playtesting groups in-between 1-3 and 4-5 that are conspiciously absent from your list. There will also be fans of Pathfinder who are excited about PF2 changes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest groups are going to be comprised of:
1) Not fans of Pathfinder (seriously. They've already started posting on the forum)
2) We'll play anything people
3) We are really, really, really tired of 3.5e people
4) We really want Pathfinder 1st ed with some minor revisions
5) We don't want any changes whatsoeverGroups #1-3 are definitely being well serviced with the previews thus far. Group #5 was never going to be serviced. Group #4 are not being serviced with the majority of what we've been shown.
My fear is that the previews are going to do a really good job at attracting people from groups #1-3, but they'll discourage people in groups #4-5 from being interested in Pathfinder 2nd edition in sufficient numbers that any survey results will be sufficiently mixed or slanted in favour of change that Paizo will be able to point to them as evidence to support their position and claim it's been supported by the playerbase. And hey, if their advertising and marketing campaign is sufficiently good then they might be able to be even more successful by appealing to groups #1-3 (and let's face it, group #5 was always going to be an outside chance to get them to move over to 2nd edition).
I see where you're coming from, but this reasoning assumes the only divergence in the audience is along the axis of the amount of change vs PF1. I think it's going to be much more varied than that. In addition to legacy vs change, there will be simplicity vs complexity, simulationism vs gameism, along with countless quirks and preferences groups have developed over the years. Plus, those specific changes that certain folks were hoping for and aren't happening. That makes for multiple, complex, contradictory axes of thinking people with take stances on.
A lot of the disappointment for the Goblins comes from the fact that we all have one race we would have liked seeing in the Core book. And Goblin is not the most obvious one for a lot of people.
But yes we will probably just test the numbers, the balance and the « fun ». So for everything with Races/Classes/Core system there will be probably no changes.
One thing that could interest people is another new ancestry. I remember that they said they had pages left in the book, so why not take a sondage to the forums for another race? All the hate for the Goblins would go away.
Based on reading the comments - I don't think so. The rejection of the goblins goes much deeper. I'm pretty sure many of those posters would reject them even if the alternative was no new race at all and just a slimmer book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on reading the comments - I don't think so. The rejection of the goblins goes much deeper. I'm pretty sure many of those posters would reject them even if the alternative was no new race at all and just a slimmer book.
Its this for me, they're a generally evil race, other core races get(got) mechanical benefits to kill them. They don't fit in most adventuring companies, they have antisocial cultural traits that lead them to be problematic player characters (think writing and paintings steal your soul, arsonists). Sales of goblin only campaigns is a poor indicator about how players will feel about them as a standard race.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, it's exceptionally easy to kitbash a conversion of *any* current race into PF2. Goblins are part of Paizo's brand, so of course they're making them part of the game, but, eh, even if you don't like them, I don't see how their inclusion invalidates the rest of the game and setting as something fun and cool.
As I see it, Paizo has said, "Man, we love Goblins, and we're excited to find a niche for them in the core game. But that's just 1% of all the improvements we're making. We think you'll like the skeleton of the system, but we want to make sure all the options are balanced."
Do I think they'll suddenly include a dice pool system with weird pips like the Legend of the Five Rings RPG that I'm playtesting now? Nope. And as much as I love magic systems where spellcasters do weird crap to mess with reality but lack the ability to actually do damage, I doubt Paizo's going to get rid of magic missile and fireball.
I just want to help them make a game that plays well, and doesn't have the mechanical elements that get in the way of fun. It's easy to ignore the setting elements you don't like.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what Jason said in the Goblin preview thread:
1. NO decision in this game is final. We have ordered art, its true, but that does not mean that anything is set in stone. We playtest because we want your feedback, we want your ideas, and yes, we want your criticism. Anyone who played through the Alpha and Beta of the first version knows that the comments made significant changes to the game... the fighter got reworked from the ground up, the skill system got replaced. We take playtesting very seriously and we will be incorporating the feedback the surveys and these boards when making our final decisions. This includes feedback on the goblin.
It certainly sounds like they're open to not including the Goblin if the feedback is strong enough. I don't entirely buy that because of how prominantly "Goblin is Core!" featured in the initial rollout, but it's possible they could change their minds. *shrug*
-Skeld
Big disservice to Pathfinder if you don't even bother to playtest thoroughly based on prejudice towards the "changes".
By not thoroughly playtesting you're letting everyone else pick for you. It's like when people of 1 camp refuse to vote so that makes the opposition win easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am relatively certain that the playtest is about the mechanics of the game, not about the design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Big disservice to Pathfinder if you don't even bother to playtest thoroughly based on prejudice towards the "changes".
By not thoroughly playtesting you're letting everyone else pick for you. It's like when people of 1 camp refuse to vote so that makes the opposition win easily.
Presumably that was to me?
If so, you've misunderstood the reason we're probably not going to participate in the playtest.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, it's worth noting that even the controversial goblin stuff is far from universal - about as many people seem in favor of it (or neutral to it) as are opposed to it.
It's not as simple as a like it or hate it though. Many of us are totally fine with a playable goblin writeup. What we don't want is a CORE/common goblin that shifts the expectation of the world, making goblins in civilized locations an expected normal occurrence. There is a VAST difference between the special snowflake 1 in a million heroic goblin and the 'Do you want gobble, robble or storber? They are ALL heroic goblin fighters over there at that table... If you go down a block I think you'll find a few more goblin adventures too at the next tavern..." :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big disservice to Pathfinder if you don't even bother to playtest thoroughly based on prejudice towards the "changes".
By not thoroughly playtesting you're letting everyone else pick for you. It's like when people of 1 camp refuse to vote so that makes the opposition win easily.
My friends and I game because we find the activity enjoyable. Playing something we find unenjoyable is not how we ideally choose to spend our leisure time.
I get it. Informed feedback is the best feedback. But if the game is as unenjoyable for my group as all current information seems to indicate it's hard to justify spending hours each week performing an activity we don't enjoy just so we can try to get Paizo to maybe change it more to our liking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But John, you're playing with your friends, right? And your friends aren't d-bags. So whether goblins shift from "playable if you check d20pfsrd.com" to "playable if you have the core rule book," will that make your game unenjoyable? Will your friends suddenly become d-bags who make obnoxious characters that ruin your fun?
Or are your concerns about something more than just goblin PCs? Because there is some zany outrage about goblin PCs that I'm 100% convinced won't end up actually mattering in the long run.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@RangerWickett: Reread the quote I was responding to. I'm not saying goblins are going to stop us from play testing the new game. I was talking about the rules as a whole. Sorry if that caused confusion due to the thread we're in (the point I was responding to had nothing to do with goblins but the playtest as a whole).
And no. Golarion goblin PCs won't cause a problem because they simply won't be allowed. And yes, in the hands of some friends I've played with goblins would be a problem. Not from any maliciousness, but due to tendencies they have as players that goblins will excaberbate.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins will be an ancestry in the Playtest Rulebook; that much we are committed to.
We are going to ask for your feedback after playing with them during the playtest, and that feedback will contribute to how, when, and where they are presented in the Second Edition rule system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins will be an ancestry in the Playtest Rulebook; that much we are committed to.
We are going to ask for your feedback after playing with them during the playtest, and that feedback will contribute to how, when, and where they are presented in the Second Edition rule system.
Cool. I couldn't ask for more than that. This makes me happy.
I DO have to say, I find it hard to imagine what is hidden in the playtest that would shift my opinion on core goblins but I'd have playtested them anyway as I'd like to see goblin PC [just not core].
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins will be an ancestry in the Playtest Rulebook; that much we are committed to.
We are going to ask for your feedback after playing with them during the playtest, and that feedback will contribute to how, when, and where they are presented in the Second Edition rule system.
High hopes for the feedback during the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they have antisocial cultural traitsOh, like dwarves.
Well to be fair, dwarves don't list a preference for the flesh of 2 other core races...
Well to be fair, dwarves don't list a preference for the flesh of 2 other core races...
Are we sure they don't have one though? Dwarves might love the taste of human flesh, but they just have a cultural taboo against it and Dwarves are really good at following the rules.
Real issue is that goblins, as previously depicted, follow a strange set of rules (and do so inconsistently).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we sure they don't have one though? Dwarves might love the taste of human flesh, but they just have a cultural taboo against it and Dwarves are really good at following the rules.
LOL They might but as far as I know they don't have one listed. ;)
I must have missed that part of the PF2E ancestry blog. Thats a really interesting bit I'm sure they'll have in the CRB!
We've been told NOTHING is changing to alter the past and no earthshaking events are happening between classic and new pathfinder. Ergo, pathfinder lore and backgrounds are still quite valid.
PRD, bestiary [goblins]: "they prefer human and gnome flesh". So, unless they retroactively go back and remove that [which they've said they aren't], the race has a history of eating humans and gnomes: that's an immutable fact. So either they still have that trait or people just remember that they do: it's not much of a difference.
I am curious how the pro-Goblin side would feel about having goblins in a non-Core supplement but very soon after Core was released. Would this offer less value? How?
I am curious how the pro-Goblin side would feel about having goblins in a non-Core supplement but very soon after Core was released. Would this offer less value? How?
I do not recognize a distinction between "core" and "non-core" save for "what book do I have to open in order to look something up."
Im neither gobo nor nobo, but I remember when other RPG releases left out material folks expected. That was poor incentive to stick around even with promises of inclusion shortly to follow.
Now that gobos are out of the bag, they aint going back in. Paizo has to make the best presentation with the CRB they can. Paizo cant push things into the CRBII or ancestry guide etc. Just my opinion of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that being core or not makes zero difference to players who want them as a PC. I think being Core makes a huge difference to content implications as NPCs and presence in other supplements. That's why I think follow through adjacent to Core would be the closest to a win-win.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins will be an ancestry in the Playtest Rulebook; that much we are committed to.
We are going to ask for your feedback after playing with them during the playtest, and that feedback will contribute to how, when, and where they are presented in the Second Edition rule system.
Vic, how will you handle self selection bias from the playtest though? If the players who are pro-goblin in 2E core rules play goblins in the playtest, and report that they're a wonderful addition to the game, didn't cause problems, etc, and the players who are anti-goblin in 2E core rules don't play goblins, and therefore have nothing to report about them in their playtest games, that would skew your results pretty significantly.
I would say "the players who dislike goblins do not encounter goblins and thus have no problems" is a solution that can easily be ported to the finished version of the 2nd edition game.
Like if you're able to avoid the thing you dislike, just keep doing that. If something is controversial or an acquired taste, people who like it can indulge in it while people who dislike it can avoid it is a strength of the game.
I think that being core or not makes zero difference to players who want them as a PC. I think being Core makes a huge difference to content implications as NPCs and presence in other supplements. That's why I think follow through adjacent to Core would be the closest to a win-win.
This is where I'm at.
So long as it was available immediately I would have no issue whatsoever. Core means nothing to me. Having other people who don't want to play with x option delay x player option for those that do is the idea that upsets me.
If a majority of pro-goblin feel this way, then moving them to the bestiary or an optional section of the core book would be the solution that please most then.
Like if you're able to avoid the thing you dislike, just keep doing that.
I HOPE this is possible but with them in core it seems inevitable that they will be much more prominent in adventures, source books and PFS. It's simple to have a 'no PC goblin' rule but it's a bigger deal if you have to deal multiple NPC's.
We've been told NOTHING is changing to alter the past and no earthshaking events are happening between classic and new pathfinder. Ergo, pathfinder lore and backgrounds are still quite valid.
PRD, bestiary [goblins]: "they prefer human and gnome flesh". So, unless they retroactively go back and remove that [which they've said they aren't], the race has a history of eating humans and gnomes: that's an immutable fact. So either they still have that trait or people just remember that they do: it's not much of a difference.
I think you’re over-reading that undertaking. They meant things like continents disappearing, God’s dying, etcetera, etcetera.
They semi regularly retcon stuff like this all the time. I’m very sure they aren’t saying they’ll never make any changes to the lore if they end up unhappy with the way something is written.
We've been told NOTHING is changing to alter the past and no earthshaking events are happening between classic and new pathfinder. Ergo, pathfinder lore and backgrounds are still quite valid.
PRD, bestiary [goblins]: "they prefer human and gnome flesh". So, unless they retroactively go back and remove that [which they've said they aren't], the race has a history of eating humans and gnomes: that's an immutable fact. So either they still have that trait or people just remember that they do: it's not much of a difference.
I think you’re over-reading that undertaking. They meant things like continents disappearing, God’s dying, etcetera, etcetera.
They semi regularly retcon stuff like this all the time. I’m very sure they aren’t saying they’ll never make any changes to the lore if they end up unhappy with the way something is written.
Oh, I'm sure MINOR changes are possible. Removing all the CON's of the goblins wouldn't be that though. Neither would removing goblins being cannibals and eating other core races because they are tasty. It's written in multiple location and has been a base FACT since core. IMO that's a major change for the race and I think most would think so too.
So if they do go back and edit it, I'll see it as a failure of them comunitating what they were planning as opposed to over-reading. I wouldn't fine white washing the goblin a minor edit in the least.
They sometimes make major edits too. (Paladins of Asmodeus being one of the most obvious examples).
I’m obviously not trying to tell you what to like. I just think you’re wrong to read what they’ve said as:
“...NOTHING is changing to alter the past”. Things may well change and they may well be quite significant (as per the status quo).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think changing the nature of goblins as a whole would fall under the "things they are not changing" umbrella. I mean, a big part of the whole sale has been that these are iconic to Pathfinder and to Golarion. It is kinda hard to say "we brought in this iconic thing, but we also completely retconned it at the very same time." And they also said they will still be major bad guys in the bestiary. All indications are that the canon isn't changing and that the PC writeup will go to some length about how PC goblins are outliers.