Things that need to change

[Lorfigi]

Resonance for single use items is absolute nonsense.

The number of copypasted 5th Edition mechanics needs to shrink. I want to play Pathfinder not the gimpy current D&D game.

The general tune downs of character skills, spell and items are mostly without reason. It would have been enough to nerf single feats, abilities and spells to nullify overpowered combos and builds.

Rearrange the class abilities and feats, right now it seems that those were randomly distributed about the classes and the remaining ones were put in the feat category. Not a good base for a fresh edition.

The new edition has to improve substantially before I consider playing it.

[Curtoss]

So you haven't played it?

[MaxAstro]

Curtoss wrote:

So you haven't played it?

I can't upvote this enough. The amount of "I haven't played this system yet but I hate everything about it" on the playtest forums is mind boggling.

[Ghostwasp]

Not a great sign when people don't want to play the game after just looking at it. My group and I took a brief look and so far the opinion is meh. While play testing it and giving feed back sounds good in theory, I don't want to waste my time on the play test when I am so disinterested in it (i play in/run 3 adventure paths right now). This release should have captured people's imaginations to be successful, but it just doesn't for at least a vocal percentage. Gamers tend to be opinionated and dislike changes they don't feel are warranted (i know I am), so maybe it feels insulting that paizo is replacing the entire base system some of us have been playing for almost 15 years instead of refining and improving it.

[The Rot Grub]

Even if the OP wanted to have changes to the playtest, this gives virtually no guidance as to how a designer should respond. It's basically a smell test, it's different, and buh-bye.

[Phntm888]

Yeah, but it doesn't do anything to help make it better by just saying "I don't like this, change it before I'll even consider playing it." Paizo needs people to give them meaningful feedback about this to make changes - they don't have time to read over every post on the forums, let alone every "I don't like this and won't play it until changes are made" post (and there are many).

Plus, there's the question of whether or not they're the vocal minority to consider. They are getting an exact number of Playtest downloads and book sales due to the personalization and that the sale is a limited run, which means they know roughly how many people are play testing it. If those of us on this forum represent 10% of those who downloaded the playtest document, and half of us say, "We don't like it", are those people representative of 50% of the Playtest download, or are they just representative of that 5% of the total number of people who downloaded the PDF? 50% of the people don't like it and refuse to play it until changes are made? The changes are gonna get made. 5% of the people say that? Then maybe some minor tweaks get made, but nothing they wanted changes.

As gamers, this is one instance where we need to set aside being opinionated and disliking changes and give meaningful feedback. Even if it's "meh" after your first read through, I've seen some people say it didn't feel that different in actual play, and some people said they liked it more after a second read through.

I'll admit, I agree with some of the OP's statements, and there are things I want to see changed. But I also know that the best way to do that is to give feedback through Playtesting and to influence the process as best I can.

We'd all like it if they could just take our forum posts and use that as feedback, but they've said the playtest surveys hold more weight than forum posts. Want to make it something you're excited about? Playtest and give meaningful feedback. It's your best hope to shape the game in the direction you want it to go.

[Ghostwasp]

Unfortunately we are not game designers but we can say we don't like something in the play test and that it will not work for us. Silence on this does no one any good, even if we cannot provide more helpful advice\criticism because of time, interest or ability.

[Larz]

MaxAstro wrote:

Curtoss wrote:

So you haven't played it?

I can't upvote this enough. The amount of "I haven't played this system yet but I hate everything about it" on the playtest forums is mind boggling.

I know right!

I get that people will inevitably have negative opinions on the game, but rather than literally talking about how garbage a part of the game is, actually participate and give feedback or provide some actual critique on how to make a part better.
I doubt the game designers are going to cater the game to people that seem to love to post how much they won’t play it.
Especially when they provide no insight into how to create a better mechanic, build, etc.

[Ghostwasp]

The only other option from play testing should not be silence.

[Larz]

That is true, but then that assumes that all feedback is useful.
I think most of us that have issue with these posts are that they are not constructive in the least.
Telling someone you won’t play a game or aren’t interested isn’t going to elicite much of anything apart from create a rant forum much like this one just did.

[Phntm888]

I'm not saying the only other option is silence, but I am saying that the best way to shape the game is through playtesting and feedback. If time is an issue? That's understandable. There are finite hours in a day, and not enough to go around.

If interest is the reason you don't want to playtest? That's fine, too - it's your prerogative and your choice. You're welcome to say that, too. None of this is meant to shout you down or anything, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. I'm just saying that the best way to shape the game is through playtesting and the feedback surveys. Nothing more.

[Ghostwasp]

What should I tell them instead? I am not going to go through read every paragraph of the play test and write an essay detailing every change I do not like. What i do know is that Paizo most likely lost 6 players because we are that disinterested in the way the new edition is going. If that is not useful so be it, but I feel like it is important to share my experience and thoughts on my formerly favorite game since I don't want to waste my time play testing a game i do not like.

[Nathanael Love]

Testing.

[Ghostwasp]

Phntm888 wrote:

I'm not saying the only other option is silence, but I am saying that the best way to shape the game is through playtesting and feedback. If time is an issue? That's understandable. There are finite hours in a day, and not enough to go around.

If interest is the reason you don't want to playtest? That's fine, too - it's your prerogative and your choice. You're welcome to say that, too. None of this is meant to shout you down or anything, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. I'm just saying that the best way to shape the game is through playtesting and the feedback surveys. Nothing more.

Absolutely, but this is my feedback. Not the most helpful but it is what it is.

[Chance Wyvernspur]

MaxAstro wrote:

Curtoss wrote:

So you haven't played it?

I can't upvote this enough. The amount of "I haven't played this system yet but I hate everything about it" on the playtest forums is mind boggling.

Maybe, but it makes sense to me. I'll explain, but first let me get out of the way that I am playing PF2 as part of the playtest.

Ok, here's my view. I read game rules all the time to determine if I want to run them. There are lots of game systems to pick from. If I have an idea for a campaign and I'm trying to pick a rules set, there's no way I'm going to give each medieval fantasy game a 6-month playtest before I make my decision. I don't have the time.

It is reasonable for a person to read a set of rules and decide they don't like them. It is also reasonable for a person to be unable to articulate what they don't like. The bottom line is they're not buying the product.

Admittedly, it is tragic for those with a financial/emotional investment in the game but that's the way it is.

[SqueezeBox]

I think everyone has a right to say they have problems with a game even if they don't playtest. You can still be smart, gauge the content on it's concepts, and come up with educated theories and hypothesis. However, the OP really didn't do this, and only complained about things without providing any sort of interesting insight. Come to the table with more or else you do no one any good. You are just a seagull, swooping in, crapping all over everything, and then leaving.

[Ghostwasp]

Chance Wyvernspur wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Curtoss wrote:

So you haven't played it?

I can't upvote this enough. The amount of "I haven't played this system yet but I hate everything about it" on the playtest forums is mind boggling.

Maybe, but it makes sense to me. I'll explain, but first let me get out of the way that I am playing PF2 as part of the playtest.

Ok, here's my view. I read game rules all the time to determine if I want to run them. There are lots of game systems to pick from. If I have an idea for a campaign and I'm trying to pick a rules set, there's no way I'm going to give each medieval fantasy game a 6-month playtest before I make my decision. I don't have the time.

It is reasonable for a person to read a set of rules and decide they don't like them. It is also reasonable for a person to be unable to articulate what they don't like. The bottom line is they're not buying the product.

Admittedly, it is tragic for those with a financial/emotional investment in the game but that's the way it is.

Agree completely, I really wish pf2 was what I had hoped it would be and I could play it. Hopefully the play test works out and the game gets the refining it needs.

[Ghostwasp]

SqueezeBox wrote:

I think everyone has a right to say they have problems with a game even if they don't playtest. You can still be smart, gauge the content on it's concepts, and come up with educated theories and hypothesis. However, the OP really didn't do this, and only complained about things without providing any sort of interesting insight. Come to the table with more or else you do no one any good. You are just a seagull, swooping in, crapping all over everything, and then leaving.

Not at all true, dropping in and saying "don't like these things" is way more useful then not saying anything at all. Everyone who wants to contribute is required to do so only exactly as much as they want or can.

[magnuskn]

Well, I'll wait until my group has done The Mirrored Moon before my next big post, so I can give better structured feedback. But my firm resolve is try to make the devs reverse some of the big spellcasting/spellcaster nerfs before the playtest is over. Aside from the "10 minute adventuring day" problem that is my biggest bugbear with the rules as they stand.

[magnuskn]

Ugh, due to two of my players getting ill, I have to delay my playtest of the second adventure, which was planned for this Saturday. I will either have to skip it and go directly to part three to stay with the schedule or just accept the delay of two weeks.

[Greylurker]

Character creation

as far as my group is concearned that is pretty much the only thing that needs to change. All of character creation.

Game mechanics are working pretty well. Combat is nice, 4 degrees of skill check is nice, Spellcasting changes need a little work but acceptable. Bulk is fine, Resonence is mostly fine but still think it's dumb for potions and scrolls.

but our opinion is that Character creation is crap. None of us are enjoying the characters and they feel very limited in what choices we have available. It doesn't help that they largely feel like 4E in design.

our current plan is to adopt some of the system changes and keep playing PF1