| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We wants dem ta listen.. but not 'nuff to put da boot ta us Goblinzes! if so we burns da playtest down we will!
In all seriousness I am one of the concerned ones. I really love most of what im reading and hearing about the new system. To me the game needs to be mechanically different enough to justify investment in a new system and hopefully refreshingly innovative enough to make that investment feel like a win. Gut to much and you end up with a wishy-washy half measure that pleases no one.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, the Playtest forum blew up this week.
I trust Paizo to listen, just like I trust them to build the game system that they believe will work best according to their vision. They may listen to us, and include some of our feedback, but ultimately they won’t let us rule by committee.
Hmm
BTW, the Playtest forums are so crazy that I have decided the best way to navigate them is to go through the Developer’s posts directly. Each day, I look at the posts of the three main 2e developers, and see what they’ve posted. Following them has turned out to be a more efficient way for me as a reader to skim for real information than wading through all the threads (many of which seem to be repetitive) on here.
#secretlibrarianresearchtricks
#stalkerhmm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a real question is how does Paizo handle what is emerging to be the case where we seem to get groups of people who vehemently oppose some change and would be annoyed with its inclusion, and people who are enthusiastic supporters of some change and would be annoyed if it were taken away after the playtest- particularly if these groups are in roughly equal proportions.
I feel like that's going to happen quite a bit going forward. After all some people very much want the new game to feel new and some want it very much to feel familiar.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally Vic and Owen's respective posts give me hope. As someone who believes from the information given that 2e is going to far, especially in reguards to the skill and magic system, being able to turn it back a notch or two would be great. I know a new edition is going to happen, but I would have preferred more of a revision with minor changes where necessary, then what I'm seeing so far. However, if the majority overrules me, so be it, I don't want another edition war.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the most interesting design insights that came during D&D 5E's development was that a given concept or mechanic had to meet a 70% favourable public feedback threshold to make the cut. Just under 70% and they would rework the idea and release another version for playtesting. Significantly less than 70%, and the idea would either get completely scrapped or sent back to the drawing board for a total redesign.
This is perhaps a gross exaggeration, but one could make the claim that 5E was an RPG designed by committee/focus group. Whether or not you like 5E might inform whether or not you think this is a good approach to game design.
Good design is not a democracy.
Wow, the Playtest forum blew up this week.
I trust Paizo to listen, just like I trust them to build the game system that they believe will work best according to their vision. They may listen to us, and include some of our feedback, but ultimately they won’t let us rule by committee.
Hmm
BTW, the Playtest forums are so crazy that I have decided the best way to navigate them is to go through the Developer’s posts directly. Each day, I look at the posts of the three main 2e developers, and see what they’ve posted. Following them has turned out to be a more efficient way for me as a reader to skim for real information than wading through all the threads (many of which seem to be repetitive) on here.
#secretlibrarianresearchtricks
#stalkerhmm
So...Jason, Mark, and Logan? Might be a good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good design is not a democracy.One of the most interesting design insights that came during D&D 5E's development was that a given concept or mechanic had to meet a 70% favourable public feedback threshold to make the cut. Just under 70% and they would rework the idea and release another version for playtesting. Significantly less than 70%, and the idea would either get completely scrapped or sent back to the drawing board for a total redesign.
This is perhaps a gross exaggeration, but one could make the claim that 5E was an RPG designed by committee/focus group. Whether or not you like 5E might inform whether or not you think this is a good approach to game design.
Good design might be defined by its end product being successful. And 5e has been.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between not fun because things are buggy/unbalanced/mathematically flawed and unfun because much of the premises upon which the game is being built are antithetical to what we enjoy and appreciate from an RPG.
Then why would you even bother? The point of a playtest isn't to completely scrap everything and rebuild it from the ground up. If you hate every single thing about it, and already have the game you actually want, why would you try to ruin something for other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between not fun because things are buggy/unbalanced/mathematically flawed and unfun because much of the premises upon which the game is being built are antithetical to what we enjoy and appreciate from an RPG.Then why would you even bother? The point of a playtest isn't to completely scrap everything and rebuild it from the ground up. If you hate every single thing about it, and already have the game you actually want, why would you try to ruin something for other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
The playtest ISN'T the final product and we've been told that things CAN change from playtest to finish, so why WOULDN'T those that dislike things they currently see try to get the end product shift into something they like? It's not to ruin your day but to make theirs.
The playtest ISN'T the final product and we've been told that things CAN change from playtest to finish, so why WOULDN'T those that dislike things they currently see try to get the end product shift into something they like? It's not to ruin your day but to make theirs.There's a difference between not fun because things are buggy/unbalanced/mathematically flawed and unfun because much of the premises upon which the game is being built are antithetical to what we enjoy and appreciate from an RPG.Then why would you even bother? The point of a playtest isn't to completely scrap everything and rebuild it from the ground up. If you hate every single thing about it, and already have the game you actually want, why would you try to ruin something for other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
Because those people are talking about having 1E. They don't want anything to change. Just a mildly revised PF1E core. This edition change is about trying new things that address some very longstanding issues with the core engine. If the game you want already exists (you might have to incorporate some sourcebooks that aren't folded into core, but that's minor), why would you deliberately try to ruin the new stuff for more of the same?
|
The playtest ISN'T the final product and we've been told that things CAN change from playtest to finish, so why WOULDN'T those that dislike things they currently see try to get the end product shift into something they like? It's not to ruin your day but to make theirs.There's a difference between not fun because things are buggy/unbalanced/mathematically flawed and unfun because much of the premises upon which the game is being built are antithetical to what we enjoy and appreciate from an RPG.Then why would you even bother? The point of a playtest isn't to completely scrap everything and rebuild it from the ground up. If you hate every single thing about it, and already have the game you actually want, why would you try to ruin something for other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
I have no problem with this, provided those people do in fact take the time and test out these systems. At least to some degree. If they don't bother to test how the using an action to raise their shield coupled with the other abilities, feats and class features works out in actual play but feedback that they hate the idea that isn't fair if it is found by people who do try it out in play that it does actually balance things out and works well in actual play.
Play the game, try it out, if something doesn't work for you houserule a change to it, play some more. Then use those houserule changes to provide constructive feedback. Tell Paizo what you tried, why it didn't work for you, and suggest a solution that does.
If you don't even try the rules it is hard to have criticism of it with founded, supportable reasons why it is a problem.
The Goblin ancestry is a hard one since MOST of the criticism against it is more conceptual than mechanical. In which case, sure give your opinion as to why it makes a good or bad choice as a core race. One can definitely back that up just by reading their entry and not needing actual play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
why would you deliberately try to ruin the new stuff for more of the same?
As far as I know, no one is out to ruin your stuff: it's not even your [or anyones] stuff yet. And it really doesn't matter where a persons starting point is. they have JUST as much right to input into the game as those with a different starting point. Both are entitled to try to shift the new game to where they want it. Myself I want a LOT, and I do mean a LOT, shifted. I doubt I'll get everything I want but if enough does I might play the new game when it comes out.
"This edition change is about trying new things": Maybe but too much or too radical of a change and they risk losing the old players to gain new ones. IMO they want to walk the line of keeping it close enough to the old game to keep the current players while adding new rules to bring in new ones. So IMO current players saying 'heck no' in and of itself is valuable as 'i'm not even playtesting it' is a potential customer not switching to the new game.
Things can change yeah. But some folk have hated 90% of whats been revealed. That isn't change, that is a new game.
True but I think they WANT to keep the old players as customers. If enough are turned off by 'it's a new game', it's not a winning proposition. Too much change is as bad as too little.
If you don't even try the rules it is hard to have criticism of it with founded, supportable reasons why it is a problem.
The Goblin ancestry is a hard one since MOST of the criticism against it is more conceptual than mechanical. In which case, sure give your opinion as to why it makes a good or bad choice as a core race. One can definitely back that up just by reading their entry and not needing actual play.
This a agree with: non-mechanical aspects don't need an actual playtest. If a sizable number of people say they aren't even trying the race, it makes as much impact as those that say they'd play JUST because it's now a core race.
|
|
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that I feel obligated to add to this thread:
If you really want Paizo to listen to you, I think that it helps to have a high signal to noise ratio. Be someone who’s worth reading. I’m not perfect in that respect, in that a lot of my posts include filks and other entertaining frivolity, but I do try to keep the signal up.
What do I mean by signal, over noise?
Noise:
- Personal attacks on other posters
- Repeating the same post / argument over and over in the same thread
- Inflammatory tone or baiting
- Being unwilling to consider or dismissive of other viewpoints / perspectives in a debate
Signal:
- Calm tone — even when expressing dismay
- Respectful and Considerate of other posters / points of view
- Include details of problems or issues
- Provide links, quotes, history, insights
- Helpfulness — answering newcomer’s questions patiently
- Offer potential solutions or ideas
- Fun analyses of the information from Paizo — acknowledging potential blindspots or missing information.
- Clear expression of thoughts
- Willingness to change your mind sometimes in light of new information.
- Being willing to listen yourself. If you want to be heard - listen.
What’s yours?
Hmm
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that I feel obligated to add to this thread:
If you really want Paizo to listen to you, I think that it helps to have a high signal to noise ratio. Be someone who’s worth reading. I’m not perfect in that respect, in that a lot of my posts include filks and other entertaining frivolity, but I do try to keep the signal up.
What do I mean by signal, over noise?
Noise:
- Personal attacks on other posters
- Repeating the same post / argument over and over in the same thread
- Inflammatory tone or baiting
- Being unwilling to consider or dismissive of other viewpoints / perspectives in a debate
Signal:That’s my list, so far.
- Calm tone — even when expressing dismay
- Respectful and Considerate of other posters / points of view
- Including details of problems or issues
- Providing links, quotes, history, insights
- Helpfulness — answering newcomer’s questions patiently
- Offering potential solutions or ideas
- Fun analyses of the information from Paizo — acknowledging potential blindspots or missing information.
- Clear expression of thoughts
- Willingness to change your mind sometimes in light of new information.
- Being willing to listen yourself. If you want to be heard - listen.
What’s yours?
Hmm
I really like and agree with this. I think to go with it, it helps to try and show you are trying to see things from multiple perspectives. Try to see and consider what Paizo might be trying to accomplish with this particular change. Then discuss how the change may not be succeeding in that goal.. or what IS good about the change along with what is bad about it and why, as a whole, it doesn't work out. Some might call this the "Feedback Sandwich" give some positive, some criticism, finish on a good note. Good note does not need to be saying good things about the change/feature/whatever.. just generally showing a positive attitude and positive outlook can do the trick. If the post is entirely doom and gloom and negative it is natural for people to feel less receptive to it's content.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that I feel obligated to add to this thread:
If you really want Paizo to listen to you, I think that it helps to have a high signal to noise ratio. Be someone who’s worth reading. I’m not perfect in that respect, in that a lot of my posts include filks and other entertaining frivolity, but I do try to keep the signal up.
What do I mean by signal, over noise?
Noise:
- Personal attacks on other posters
- Repeating the same post / argument over and over in the same thread
- Inflammatory tone or baiting
- Being unwilling to consider or dismissive of other viewpoints / perspectives in a debate
Signal:That’s my list, so far.
- Calm tone — even when expressing dismay
- Respectful and Considerate of other posters / points of view
- Include details of problems or issues
- Provide links, quotes, history, insights
- Helpfulness — answering newcomer’s questions patiently
- Offer potential solutions or ideas
- Fun analyses of the information from Paizo — acknowledging potential blindspots or missing information.
- Clear expression of thoughts
- Willingness to change your mind sometimes in light of new information.
- Being willing to listen yourself. If you want to be heard - listen.
What’s yours?
Hmm
That's how I try to approach the issue, pretty much verbatim.
I do put in the silly thread post from time to time (usually in my Master Pugwampi alias) to lighten the mood or express my frustrations in a non-confrontational way. If we can't enjoy these boards about gaming, why show up?
So please listen to Hmm everyone. Be understanding and realize that your perspective isn't going to work for everyone. Be kind and treat those who oppose your views with respect. Be humble and accept that you're not the designer and those who are the designers are working very hard on this and do not deserve to be insulted because you disagree with them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know, no one is out to ruin your stuff: it's not even your [or anyones] stuff yet. And it really doesn't matter where a persons starting point is. they have JUST as much right to input into the game as those with a different starting point. Both are entitled to try to shift the new game to where they want it. Myself I want a LOT, and I do mean a LOT, shifted. I doubt I'll get everything I want but if enough does I might play the new game when it comes out.
It does matter, and yes, if all you want is minor revisions done to PF1E, then that's a problem. Because PF2 is about more than that, and the game you want already exists. So at that point, from my perspective all you can try to do is hamper the development of something new until it ends up being the game that already exists. That is not cool.
"This edition change is about trying new things": Maybe but too much or too radical of a change and they risk losing the old players to gain new ones. IMO they want to walk the line of keeping it close enough to the old game to keep the current players while adding new rules to bring in new ones. So IMO current players saying 'heck no' in and of itself is valuable as 'i'm not even playtesting it' is a potential customer not switching to the new game.
All of the old players who have posted against every single change only want a slightly revised PF1E. That game already exists, even if you have to rely on a couple different books instead of one core that covers everything. So deliberately trying to hold back development for something that already exists is absurd, and it needs to be pushed back at every turn. This is a chance for a new game that fixes a lot of issues that objectively hamper the aging D20 core engine. Scrapping everything just to satisfy people who just want 1E anyway, with all its caster supremacy, skill wonkiness, lack of epic feats, and broken monster math, is pointless. They already have that game.
Refusing to playtest completely disqualifies any feedback, though. If you don't participate, obviously the game isn't for you. The playtest is specifically for engaging with; that's literally the entire concept. No one can force you to participate, but your input means nothing if you don't actually playtest anything. That's the way it works. It's a playtest.
Starfinder Design Lead
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder people:
Robert G. McCreary, Owen KC Stephens and Thurston Hillman
Just to be clear:
First, who is working on Starfinder right now may not be who worked on it before, or will work on it in the future. Everyone on the pathfinder Design team did a lot of design and development work on the Starfinder Core Rulebook, as did James Sutter, Amanda Hamon Kunz, and Jason Keeley. And all the editors listed in the book. And a LOT of other Paizo employees pitched in--the credits for that book's "Authors" is lengthy for a reason.
Second, Thurston is the Starfinder Society Developer, which means he has a LOT of concerns that I, for example, don't have to worry about.
Third, Joe Pasini and Chris Sims are currently on the main Starfinder team.
|
Starfinder Design Lead
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Owen has mentioned before, during the Starfinder design phase, a key disagreement was resolved via rock/paper/scissors.You're all dead to me now. REAL gamers resolve these sorts of things with random die rolls!
Hey, I respect the die. When i was a full-time freelance, I once got pick of projects from WotC for the next year because at a secret freelancer get-together, I was the first freelancer to pull a d20 from my pocket when we were told to roll for initiative.
But REAL game designers try all sorts of game rules. RPS. Flipping coins. Card hands. Electronic devices. Narrative devices.
We have to keep out hand in, you know?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then why would you even bother? The point of a playtest isn't to completely scrap everything and rebuild it from the ground up. If you hate every single thing about it, and already have the game you actually want, why would you try to ruin something for other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
Because 1e isn't perfect and there is room for improvement with a revision and a new edition. But changing everything so the game barely resembles what the game currently is, is most definitely not what I want. I'd love to get Pathfinder revised and updated and be able to play it with those improvements and additional support for another 10 years. Why the hell wouldn't I want to provide feedback to Paizo so (if sufficient people agree with me) they can change the product to be something that appeals to my group?
why would you deliberately try to ruin the new stuff for more of the same?As far as I know, no one is out to ruin your stuff
Lady Firebird (whether it's deliberate or not) is working pretty hard to make this subforum a very hostile place for anyone who doesn't embrace most of what has been revealed so far. This sort of language is what I've come to expect from her. She has made frequent posts quite strongly telling me to go away and stop trying to contribute my thoughts and feedback on the new edition (Lady firebird: If you feel this is a misrepresentation of your posts feel free to correct me. HOWEVER this is most definitely how I feel based on your posts so if this is NOT your intention I would seriously suggest a strong rethink in how you respond to me and other people who aren't embracing everything as much as you are).
Starfinder people:
Robert G. McCreary, Owen KC Stephens and Thurston Hillman
Just to be clear:
First, who is working on Starfinder right now may not be who worked on it before, or will work on it in the future. Everyone on the pathfinder Design team did a lot of design and development work on the Starfinder Core Rulebook, as did James Sutter, Amanda Hamon Kunz, and Jason Keeley. And all the editors listed in the book. And a LOT of other Paizo employees pitched in--the credits for that book's "Authors" is lengthy for a reason.
Second, Thurston is the Starfinder Society Developer, which means he has a LOT of concerns that I, for example, don't have to worry about.
Third, Joe Pasini and Chris Sims are currently on the main Starfinder team.
Thanks, Owen. I tried to include a disclaimer but it’s good to hear some of the behind-the-curtain connections.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does matter, and yes, if all you want is minor revisions done to PF1E, then that's a problem.
What if they want major changes but NOT the ones suggested? Are they cool then? What if they want one changed and not another? Still cool? I don't see how you can pick and choose who has a valid feeling about the new game and who doesn't.
All of the old players who have posted against every single change only want a slightly revised PF1E.
All? Please post you statistical proof. ;)
So deliberately trying to hold back development for something that already exists is absurd, and it needs to be pushed back at every turn.
So they are wrong for wanting something different from you?
This is a chance for a new game that fixes a lot of issues that objectively hamper the aging D20 core engine.
This MAY come as a shock but not everyone agrees that was an issue to be fixes and/or how to fix those issues. If I'm not seeing an issue but you are why am I in the wrong for advocating it not be changed?
Scrapping everything just to satisfy people who just want 1E anyway, with all its caster supremacy, skill wonkiness, lack of epic feats, and broken monster math, is pointless.
Flip that around. Scrapping everything just to satisfy people who just hate 1E anyway is pointless. And if you don't hate everything pathfinder then you must want some of it retained...
Refusing to playtest completely disqualifies any feedback, though.
I don't see why. there isn't much they can say on mechanics but background, fluff, art, ect don't require actual play. Saying x, y and z where why I didn't play is valuable as is saying you didn't play as they do want to retain players. It's not as valuable as testing the mechanics but there is more to a game than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So until then, we really don't have enough data to go on.
Yep, until the playtest hit its going to be a cage match fueled by the incomplete info we have and what we've extrapolated from it. It's pretty much that or or ignore the site until the playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the "Playtest Forum" is nothing but a PR forum designed to generate hype for the game.
I don't know how well that's working though. For everyone that loves what they see at least another seems to hate it and I think it may fester a bit as we have a LONG way to go. If it goes on long enough, some might think there is enough that's awful that they don't try out the playtest when they might have been nullified by the actual mechanics if they'd JUST been handed the playtest out of the blue. We'll see though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lady Firebird (whether it's deliberate or not) is working pretty hard to make this subforum a very hostile place for anyone who doesn't embrace most of what has been revealed so far.
Truth be told, I get that feeling from the majority of the forum at this point. Especially the heavyhanded moderation on the forums in the name of promoting a "welcoming" space, but is decidedly not welcoming to some, warranted or not.
I've invested what... 10 years into playing Pathfinder, and building my campaign setting over those 10 years. I'm having a serious rethink as to the next 10 years, due to what I'm seeing on the forums here.
I've already decided to stick with the PF2nd playtest pdfs instead of the print copies that I was originally intending to order.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
And a LOT of other Paizo employees pitched in--the credits for that book's "Authors" is lengthy for a reason.
Even people whose names are not listed under things like author, designer, developer, or editor contribute. I heard that the design team took a suggestion from Cosmo the other day. COSMO!
Especially the heavyhanded moderation on the forums...In my experience, the people who think our moderation is heavy-handed is roughly balanced by the people who think we don't moderate enough.
LOL I can see that.
For me, sometimes it seems a bit inconsistent. Sometimes I see a post removed and for the life of me I can't figure out why and other times I see one I'd remove and it stays after a round of removals. *shrug* I'm sure it's a variance in perspective and/or the specific moderator.
|
I could see a world where Goblins as a PC ancestry moved from the CRB to the Bestiary, and I think the level of tweaking to the critical success/failure system is likely to get puts it more in the first category than the second, but other than this I pretty much agree with this classification.Things I expect we won't see changed:
Global proficiency system
Level as a modifier to everything
Every class feature being a class feat
Non scaling spell's
Goblins as PCs
Alchemists in core.
The tone of legendary feats
The way martial attack powers (feats. Whatever you want to call them) are being designed.Things I expect will be up for tweaking:
Amount of HP dished out per level
Individual feats and spells
Resonance
Critical success/failure system ( tweaked. Not overhauled).I'd like to be wrong. But I am not very hopeful at this stage.
the goblin being moved would deny all of the goblin players who are excited by there addition to the book what 2.5 or 3 years before they could play them?
keeping them in costs what a few pages in the book that can be largly ignored?
not saying they would never take them out but it seems pretty unlikely.
which i am happy about my wife loves goblins characters and i am fond of them also.
i suspect that the more likely changes will be in math, feats and maybe resonance.
mechanical changes
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially the heavyhanded moderation on the forums in the name of promoting a "welcoming" space, but is decidedly not welcoming to some, warranted or not.
I actually disagree pretty strongly with this. I've faced the brunt of my fair share of hostility in the playtest forum, and I feel the moderation has been quite even handed. Anytime I've felt something went too far I've flagged it and almost always had the mods agree (it is extremely rare for me to flag a post. For example I don't think I've ever flagged a Lady Firebird post). I've also seen threads temporarily locked, posts removed and then feedback provided as to why certain posts were removed, gone and checked my own posts (as under the feedback I felt my posts would also have been removed) only to find them in tact.
I think the moderators do a really good job at being even handed. I've been at forums where any dissenting opinion was removed and these forums are not like that at all. There are some pretty big red flags as to what will get your post removed (I might not always agree with them, but they are quite clear). And I do think they do a good job at making this forum as welcoming as possible. Ultimately it is the posters themselves who have to take responsibility for creating a welcoming atmosphere. If the moderators were harsher than those who were sufficiently motivated would simply skirt around the new guidelines and make the atmosphere just as unwelcoming (if not more so) through more passive-aggressive posts.
TLDR: The mods do a damn good job and it is us posters who are ultimately responsible for the tone and feel of the forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I so wanted to find the Blackadder the Third clip about how "Real men duel with cannons!". Can't find it on Youtube though. Ah well. ;)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine the playtest will have traps. By which I mean, rules and elements they're unsure of are purposely made more extreme than planned to gauge how people feel about certain rules.
There's some overstatement here, though the foundation is correct. When the designers want to test how far they a system can be pushed, they might put an extreme version in the playtest. But they're not going to put out a version so extreme that they wouldn't actually use it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I think some things Paizo should just make a call on- there's no need for "What alignments should Paladins be? (select up to 9)."
*Tics all 9 boxes, and hands in the playtest suggestion together with a box of (probably poisoned) cupcakes*
What? I believe that every Paladin no matter his/her/it's/whatever's divine, philosophical or ethical outlook deserves a chance to be run through with my sword!
Why? because I consider myself the very pinnacle of inclusive and non-discriminating Evil!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we get the playtest and the monster math doesn't work and high level play is still broken or worse than PF1, that will be much harder to change as it requires adjusting the balance of ALL the classes and spells for half the game. There's probably not enough time for that.
We've already said that making the math work better at high levels is one of Jason's key goals for the new edition. We are very aware that it's among the things that needs the most playtesting, and among the things that are most likely to be affected by playtest feedback, and among the things that are most likely to go through iteration during the playtest. That time has been planned for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the goblin being moved would deny all of the goblin players who are excited by there addition to the book what 2.5 or 3 years before they could play them?
Not if they end up in PF2's first Bestiary, which I seem to recall is supposed to ship alongside the PF2 CRB.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
And a LOT of other Paizo employees pitched in--the credits for that book's "Authors" is lengthy for a reason.Even people whose names are not listed under things like author, designer, developer, or editor contribute. I heard that the design team took a suggestion from Cosmo the other day. COSMO!
Even Cosmo!
We actually do a great deal of listening to everyone around us. The reason we are doing this playtest is to put the thing out there and get information that will inform the design of the final game. Every post, every survey, every instant of play gives us more information toward making the best game possible--which is our only motivation, our one and only goal.
What are we willing to redesign? Anything that doesn't work toward that goal. Period.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a real question is how does Paizo handle what is emerging to be the case where we seem to get groups of people who vehemently oppose some change and would be annoyed with its inclusion, and people who are enthusiastic supporters of some change and would be annoyed if it were taken away after the playtest- particularly if these groups are in roughly equal proportions.
As has been said above, playtesting is not a democracy. Ultimately, your feedback is considered by our staff, who will determine what the outcome is. (This is also the answer to the "vocal minority/silent majority" issue.)
|
|
Like I said: If Paizo don't want my thoughts on what adds to the game (at least in so much as the goblin is concerned) so be it. If they want my thoughts as to how the goblin impacts enjoyment at the table due to the flavour of the race (not the mechanics) but require it be the result of playtesting, that's an issue.
If they only want feedback backed up with actual playtestkng and weight the feedback accordingly, this diminishes the ability for people who strongly dislike how 2nd edition appears to be getting designed to participate. In this situation I anticipate my ability to provide feedback on how the rules and flavour are impacting my group's enjoyment of the game to be greatly diminished. If that's what Paizo wants then it's what they will get. If it isn't what they want then they need to consider veey carefully how they judge feedback and evaluate it's worth to them.
Hopefully they make it clear before August what they want and value from their playerbase when it comes to providing feedback on the new edition.
the point of a playtest is to well...playtest.
sure they are giving us teasers but it does not seem particularly fair to ask them the playtest there playtest|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said: If Paizo don't want my thoughts on what adds to the game (at least in so much as the goblin is concerned) so be it. If they want my thoughts as to how the goblin impacts enjoyment at the table due to the flavour of the race (not the mechanics) but require it be the result of playtesting, that's an issue.
If they only want feedback backed up with actual playtestkng and weight the feedback accordingly, this diminishes the ability for people who strongly dislike how 2nd edition appears to be getting designed to participate. In this situation I anticipate my ability to provide feedback on how the rules and flavour are impacting my group's enjoyment of the game to be greatly diminished. If that's what Paizo wants then it's what they will get. If it isn't what they want then they need to consider veey carefully how they judge feedback and evaluate it's worth to them.
You're providing feedback now, and we're hearing it now—don't think it doesn't bear weight!
However, your feedback—like everyone's—will bear more weight after you've actually seen the game, and it will bear still more when you're actually playing the game during the playtest process.
If you choose not to do that, of course, that's fine, but don't be too surprised when we listen more to the people who do.
|
|
the goblin being moved would deny all of the goblin players who are excited by there addition to the book what 2.5 or 3 years before they could play them?Not if they end up in PF2's first Bestiary, which I seem to recall is supposed to ship alongside the PF2 CRB.
so only wait till 2019 and of course lose the amount of support that core races get?
still not a great option imho.
at the least very there being in the playtest is a good idea.
that will give a lot more time for goblins and other choices to be field tested.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said: If Paizo don't want my thoughts on what adds to the game (at least in so much as the goblin is concerned) so be it. If they want my thoughts as to how the goblin impacts enjoyment at the table due to the flavour of the race (not the mechanics) but require it be the result of playtesting, that's an issue.
If they only want feedback backed up with actual playtestkng and weight the feedback accordingly, this diminishes the ability for people who strongly dislike how 2nd edition appears to be getting designed to participate. In this situation I anticipate my ability to provide feedback on how the rules and flavour are impacting my group's enjoyment of the game to be greatly diminished. If that's what Paizo wants then it's what they will get. If it isn't what they want then they need to consider veey carefully how they judge feedback and evaluate it's worth to them.
You're providing feedback now, and we're hearing it now—don't think it doesn't bear weight!
However, your feedback—like everyone's—will bear more weight after you've actually seen the game, and it will bear still more when you're actually playing the game during the playtest process.
If you choose not to do that, of course, that's fine, but don't be too surprised when we listen more to the people who do.
Which is just one more reason why, even though I'm very skeptical about the new edition and honestly don't like the sound of at least half of what we've heard so far, I'm still going to give the playtest a try. I'm willing to admit my initial resistance probably has more to do with having nearly ten years and hundreds of dollars invested in PF1 than any real mechanical shortcomings. Pathfinder is my game of choice, and has remained so in spite of the near constant barrage of demands by others to switch to 5E that I've had to endure since the moment it was released. I would rather bite off a finger than play 5E again, so I definitely want Pathfinder to stay a game I play for years to come, and by participating in the playtest and giving feedback, I'm helping to make that happen.
That said, I still hope resonance, bulk, proficiency, and core goblins end up getting axed.