"Its just playtest, not finished" is not a good argument please stop making it.


General Discussion


23 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone knows its just playtest and not a finished product. Making the statement convinces no one and is just a restatement of something that literally everyone involved already knows.

Look, people judge a game by whats available, not what will be available in future books years from now. If what they're presented with doesn't scratch whatever itch they have that causes them to play TTRPGs, they aren't going to spend their leisure time on it.

Which brings me to the other pointless argument I keep seeing. "If you quit playtest you'll lose your opportunity to give input". Its a condescending statement, of course they will, everyone quitting playtest knows they're done giving input. Playtesting is work and time and tbh the risk of losing input on a game you've lost interest in playing is a negligible consequence.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we add "noone is going to take your 1ed books" to the list of dumb statements?


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

Ok can we agree then comparing the playtest to 1e including 10 years of content is also not a good argument? And that comparing the playtest to just the core rulebook of 1e is a much more apt comparison?


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't consider a game like this finished until the totality of splatbooks cannot be carried up a flight of stairs in a single box.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the most useful comparison is the emerging PF2e we see before us versus a counterfactual "what might have been." What if two years ago Paizo actively asked current players and a sample of potential customers what they would want in a second edition/revision of Pathfinder? I think we'd see something very different what exists currently.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Ryan Freire:

Excellent points. To be fair though, a number of threads that reference quitting the playtest should be looked at by Paizo. Those who have shown dedication to Pathfinder (be it 1 ed. or the PT)have given one last bit of feedback by dropping out. Paizo needs to acknowledge the loss - at least internally - of their dedicated base; something that their PT has done to alienate core customers & subscribers.

@Dire Ursus: Fantastic point that a more accurate analysis involves comparing 1E to 2E PT core.

@PossibleCabbage: I was highly amused by the old school reference to lugging splat-books. That was the most exercise many gamers would get. Too bad PDF has stolen that.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

While we're here, let's keep going down this recursive rabbit hole to nowhere and agree that making pointless arguments about not wanting others to make pointless arguments is equally (and obviously, don't forget) without merit.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed, OP. I was actually relatively vocal in my dissatisfaction with available playstyles for a long time. The revamping of Dedication feats stemmed that a little bit, but I still feel like there is work to do: not because Pathfinder is so broad, but because there were things PF1's core rulebook didn't do that I want PF2 to learn from.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Ok can we agree then comparing the playtest to 1e including 10 years of content is also not a good argument? And that comparing the playtest to just the core rulebook of 1e is a much more apt comparison?

The difference there is that when 2e hits the market, it's not competing against the CRB. It's competing to draw in existing 1e players (with their 10 years of content), 5e players (with several years of content, albeit on a pretty leisurely release schedule), and all the other game systems and all their content.

That's just the market reality. If 2e offers something better than 1e, all that content won't matter because it's a clear improvement despite it. If it doesn't, then that's a problem.


Ikos wrote:
While we're here, let's keep going down this recursive rabbit hole to nowhere and agree that making pointless arguments about not wanting others to make pointless arguments is equally (and obviously, don't forget) without merit.

I disagree and will argue with you pointlessly for all eternity until you admit I’m right.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's a good argument in some situations.

For example, if someone's #1 complaint about the playtest is "not enough class feats", then it's a great argument, because the final book will certainly have more class feats and as the product line continues the number of class feats will only grow.

But if your core complaint is about the system itself then unless it's something that the devs have said they are working on addressing and we just haven't seen it yet, it is a bad argument, because obviously during the playtest is the time to address and fix system issues.


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

One issue I have seen with the threads about quitting the playtest is that too many of them were started here in General Discussion rather than in the feedback forums. Since presumably more people read the General Discussion forum, those threads spark more arguments here than they would in the appropriate feedback forum, which are read only by people who actually care to see the feedback given by other groups of playtesters.

Quitting is feedback. Stating clearly what aspects of the playtest rules were dealbreakers for you is better feedback -- especially in the event that the dealbreakers are addressed in a later playtest rules update.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about we just stop arguing altogether? I think that would probably result in fewer closed threads and MIGHT even be helpful to the end-product.

This post has just a tad bit too much sass for my tastes, it seems like someone is trying to pick a fight. Maybe we should water this down with some smurfs up in here?


David knott 242 wrote:

One issue I have seen with the threads about quitting the playtest is that too many of them were started here in General Discussion rather than in the feedback forums. Since presumably more people read the General Discussion forum, those threads spark more arguments here than they would in the appropriate feedback forum, which are read only by people who actually care to see the feedback given by other groups of playtesters.

Quitting is feedback. Stating clearly what aspects of the playtest rules were dealbreakers for you is better feedback -- especially in the event that the dealbreakers are addressed in a later playtest rules update.

I think that might be, partially, due to there not being a general playtest feed back area. There is a players and a gm, but not a general one.

I think more subdivisions would help to some extent as well.

The Resounance Playest needs its own subdivision. While some posts comments specify Res Playtest. There are several posts not marked Res playtest that are drawing confusion or aguements.
(I can think of one alchemist one that has just devolved into fruitless argument-despite the fact that that mini playtest is testing something very specific and not made to alter alchs yet).

I think there needs to be more granularity in some spots to help guide people


Jokey the Unfunny Comedian wrote:
Ikos wrote:
While we're here, let's keep going down this recursive rabbit hole to nowhere and agree that making pointless arguments about not wanting others to make pointless arguments is equally (and obviously, don't forget) without merit.
I disagree and will argue with you pointlessly for all eternity until you admit I’m right.

You're flat out wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Jokey the Unfunny Comedian wrote:
Ikos wrote:
While we're here, let's keep going down this recursive rabbit hole to nowhere and agree that making pointless arguments about not wanting others to make pointless arguments is equally (and obviously, don't forget) without merit.
I disagree and will argue with you pointlessly for all eternity until you admit I’m right.
You're flat out wrong.

I completely agree with everyone in this quote chain.


Zwordsman wrote:
I think that might be, partially, due to there not being a general playtest feedback area. There is a players and a gm, but not a general one.

Yes! I wholeheartedly agree with this.


MaxAstro wrote:
But if your core complaint is about the system itself then unless it's something that the devs have said they are working on addressing and we just haven't seen it yet, it is a bad argument, because obviously during the playtest is the time to address and fix system issues.

Why is it a bad argument to complain about the system itself, or aspect of it, unless a dev has said they are working on it?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
But if your core complaint is about the system itself then unless it's something that the devs have said they are working on addressing and we just haven't seen it yet, it is a bad argument, because obviously during the playtest is the time to address and fix system issues.
Why is it a bad argument to complain about the system itself, or aspect of it, unless a dev has said they are working on it?

He's not saying it's bad to bring up your problems with the system, he's saying "It's just a playtest and not finished" is a bad response to bringing up such problems.

That is a good distinction. Obviously there will be more feats, more archetypes, more etc over time. The corebook size is finite, even if I would be happy for it to be the size of something like the Ptolus book. :) But the core system really, really, REALLY needs to be hammered out and working right, to make the game more enjoyable; that way, people are willing to buy in and be patient for that extra content.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, but if people didn't want to slog thru a playtest, they shouldn't have got started.
A lot of the gripes people said they were quitting over have since been fixed.
I think it's perfectly valid to say this to someone. When the devs say, "We have the workings of a new game, but it's completely raw and not fully developed. A lot of it is experimental. Please help us see what you like and don't like." And then you try it out, and make a dramatic post about how we'll never see you on the boards again (Bye, Felicia) because the game is not what you would buy as a finished product.... it's a little silly and I can see how some people would make fun.

The one comment on this thread I would agree with is that- instead of developing a game completely in secret, and then waiting to see what people liked... they might have put out a survey: If we ever changed the game, what would you like to see?
Of course, then they'd have had to field all the comments of, "Omg. 2E? But I just recently bought 1E! Aaiieee!!!"
So who knows.


Ryan Freire wrote:

Everyone knows its just playtest and not a finished product. Making the statement convinces no one and is just a restatement of something that literally everyone involved already knows.

Look, people judge a game by whats available, not what will be available in future books years from now. If what they're presented with doesn't scratch whatever itch they have that causes them to play TTRPGs, they aren't going to spend their leisure time on it.

Which brings me to the other pointless argument I keep seeing. "If you quit playtest you'll lose your opportunity to give input". Its a condescending statement, of course they will, everyone quitting playtest knows they're done giving input. Playtesting is work and time and tbh the risk of losing input on a game you've lost interest in playing is a negligible consequence.

It's still important to know because people are still going to compare what is present now to what is already available at other full-fledged systems. And people do, in fact, lose sight of the big picture, just because of what's seen in front of their faces. It's actually a common story-telling trope.

Even then, just because people know it's a playtest doesn't mean much anyway. Literally, the only playerbase that Paizo should expect to attract are new players looking for an RPG game, and PF1 players. 5E players have no reason to stop playing 5E, and most other players won't see a point in changing systems to a radically different genre of gaming. Or if they are, they're 5 times more likely to go to the brand-name 5E than any other product that's effectively a no-name product. So while it's true that it's "condescending" to those sorts of players, it's also true that if they weren't really vested with the potential of PF2, they probably weren't going to buy into it as a full product anyway, in which case, why did they waste their time trying to understand this new system?

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... this thread is Locked and everyone knows why.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / "Its just playtest, not finished" is not a good argument please stop making it. All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion