This is all happening too fast!


General Discussion

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ancestries seem to be getting there; I have not seen much structural changes in classes, but maybe I missed something in that department.

It's less fundamental than the others, and not quite out yet, but they seem to be making the 'pick one of 3+ options ala Bard Muses or Druid Orders' thing a lot more common in 1.6. Rangers and Paladins are both getting that structural change, for example, and Rogues already have, which makes an option like that verge on ubiquitous (Monk and Fighter may be the only ones without such an option in one form or another). And it seems to be a pretty big change in how those classes function.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
The resonance/focus change, I mentioned; ditching Signature skills was minor, but welcome. As for +Level, that is dead easy to omit or play with (+1/4, +1/2, etc), and they even mentioned that as a potential option in a future product.

Signature Skills were minor in the sense of being easy to omit. They were not minor in their impact on characters or the game, though.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
I would like to see the whole UTEML thing getting a second look (I find it underwhelming and with no legacy/traction), and Item bonuses (I despise them), weapon damage (cannot stand that it mostly comes from your +X weapon). Also, Conditions, far too many of them. I was hoping for streamlining, this does not seem like a streamlined iteration of any RPG, so far.

I also have some issues with item bonuses, and think some of the rest of this could use adjustment. Item Bonuses specifically might be part of the math adjustment they've mentioned, though they also might not.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
I've not seen any indicator they're willing to change the fundamental issues I've seen. Threads made in good faith to engage Paizo in a discussion on those issues have also been met with either silence or silence followed by a single post to lock the thread. This might indicate to you that they're willing to completely overhaul the system. It does not indicate that for me.

Which fundamental issues are those? I've heard them at least talk about most of what I'd consider 'fundamental' issues.

And the only threads I've seen locked have sorta descended into pointless arguments, making locking them reasonable.

As for the folks at Paizo responding to such issues...they're busy. The number of posts from the design team on any one day tend to be in the single digits, expecting them to respond to posts on any specific issue is a weird expectation. I've brought up a bunch of stuff in various places and only been directly responded to...I think twice? Both early on. And I think at least one of those was because of the other.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
It's nice for you to have so much optimism. I've had Jason Buhlman flat out tell me he doesn't think the new edition will be for me. So it's a bit harder for me to share your optimism.

And it may well not be. I'm pretty sure our gaming styles and system preferences aren't quite the same. That said, I do think it will be a pretty good game for a lot of people.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
The people I personally know who've participated have all responded this is a fundamental issue they have with this game (my group didn't end up playtesting together but a couple of them did playtest with other groups) and is a big part of what they dislike about the new edition. Not a single one of them (despite my urgings) filled in surveys or posted on these forums. I don't think we have any way of knowing what is and isn't the majority opinion of the existing fanbase and I worry that Paizo doesn't know either. Ultimately we won't know for at least 12-36 months down the road. May Paizo live in interesting times.

I'm pretty sure that I'm the only one in my group doing surveys (despite my own urgings), and they're all pretty positive on this specific issue (and the game in general, though they have specific issues, as do I). And I think that the surveys are actually a pretty decent indicator. A lot of people don't take them, but I don't think we have any real evidence that it's skewed one way or the other opinion-wise.

pjrogers wrote:
As is all too common with discussions on the internet, I think that a lot of folks are sticking to comfortable spaces where most participants share a common POV. I'd agree that the majority of folks posting in the playtest forums are more-or-less on board the PF2e train.

I'm actually not sure I'd agree. I was honestly basing my conclusions more on what's been revealed in regards to survey data.

pjrogers wrote:
However, it's interesting to compare this optimism with comments elsewhere, this being one nearby example and a rather tame one compared to some discussions outside of the Paizo forums.

Given that the poll in question effectively lets you vote as much as you want (by clearing cookies)...I'm just gonna say I don't consider it meaningful.

As for internet discussion in general, the folks at Paizo have been discussing that in the Twitch streams, in a way I find pretty reasonable:

People talk about the things that bother them, rather than those they like, which means more people talk about the problems they have or the fact that they hate something rather than the fact they love it.

That's certainly true for me (what I perceive as inaccuracy and imprecision just make the list of 'things that bother me'). I mean, much as I may be coming off as a fan of PF2 in this thread, I've done zero threads singing it's praises and no less than four specifically complaining about my problems with it.

Likewise, threads where people say they're leaving the game forever exist, but almost nobody ever makes a thread saying they aren't leaving. Negative stuff just gets spoken about more than positive stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lyee wrote:
Ursus' claim isn't that outrageous. I've been in these forums, on reddit, on two Pf2 related discord servers, and on an entirely unrelated discord server that's had PF2 come up frequently in its RPG channel. Throw Facebook and a popular forum over the discord servers and you've got most the popular discussion forums covered

Not really, there are all sorts of conversations going on, not just on flagship websites.


Dire Ursus wrote:
I've been around pretty much all discussion outside the Paizo forums. I actually find this site to be the most negative (still not that negative compared to other playtests I've participated in). For example the facebook group is extremely positive. Reddit hasn't really been negative in a while (not too many people seem to post there though.)

If you're thinking of r/Pathfinder that's probably because there's a dedicated Pathfinder Playtest section (I think r/Pathfinder2e) that gets most of the attention.


Bluenose wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I've been around pretty much all discussion outside the Paizo forums. I actually find this site to be the most negative (still not that negative compared to other playtests I've participated in). For example the facebook group is extremely positive. Reddit hasn't really been negative in a while (not too many people seem to post there though.)
If you're thinking of r/Pathfinder that's probably because there's a dedicated Pathfinder Playtest section (I think r/Pathfinder2e) that gets most of the attention.

For reference, /r/Pathfinder is Pathfinder Society. /r/Pathfinder_RPG is the main Pathfinder subreddit. /r/Pathfinder2E is also a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
However, it's interesting to compare this optimism with comments elsewhere, this being one nearby example and a rather tame one compared to some discussions outside of the Paizo forums.
Given that the poll in question effectively lets you vote as much as you want (by clearing cookies)...I'm just gonna say I don't consider it meaningful.

I certainly share your concerns about the poll, but I think the generally negative views about PF2e in almost all the posts in that thread is noteworthy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
However, it's interesting to compare this optimism with comments elsewhere, this being one nearby example and a rather tame one compared to some discussions outside of the Paizo forums.
Given that the poll in question effectively lets you vote as much as you want (by clearing cookies)...I'm just gonna say I don't consider it meaningful.
I certainly share your concerns about the poll, but I think the generally negative views about PF2e in almost all the posts in that thread is noteworthy.

I genuinely feel there is a slight disconnect between what the Paizo people think we want, and what the DMs/players actually want.

This has happened before, but with more alienating marketing.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
However, it's interesting to compare this optimism with comments elsewhere, this being one nearby example and a rather tame one compared to some discussions outside of the Paizo forums.
Given that the poll in question effectively lets you vote as much as you want (by clearing cookies)...I'm just gonna say I don't consider it meaningful.
I certainly share your concerns about the poll, but I think the generally negative views about PF2e in almost all the posts in that thread is noteworthy.

I genuinely feel there is a slight disconnect between what the Paizo people think we want, and what the DMs/players actually want.

This has happened before, but with more alienating marketing.

Luckily, Paizo is basing their decisions upon hard feedback data from various sources and not feelings. Phew! Feelings, verily can they throw one off the hook, leave an opening for a dash, a jab, a quick dirty blow, ouch, right between the ribs that one went! En garde!


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I would like to see the whole UTEML thing getting a second look (I find it underwhelming and with no legacy/traction), and Item bonuses (I despise them), weapon damage (cannot stand that it mostly comes from your +X weapon). Also, Conditions, far too many of them. I was hoping for streamlining, this does not seem like a streamlined iteration of any RPG, so far.
I also have some issues with item bonuses, and think some of the rest of this could use adjustment. Item Bonuses specifically might be part of the math adjustment they've mentioned, though they also might not.

Yes, this is one change I actually have hope for, and as Andy Dufresne said: "...hope is the best of things...".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Luckily, Paizo is basing their decisions upon hard feedback data from various sources and not feelings. Phew! Feelings, verily can they throw one off the hook, leave an opening for a dash, a jab, a quick dirty blow, ouch, right between the ribs that one went! En garde!

Cranky social science methodology comment - feelings are data too, and "hard" data (quantitative) is not necessarily more or less useful than "soft" data (qualitative).


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I would like to see the whole UTEML thing getting a second look (I find it underwhelming and with no legacy/traction), and Item bonuses (I despise them), weapon damage (cannot stand that it mostly comes from your +X weapon). Also, Conditions, far too many of them. I was hoping for streamlining, this does not seem like a streamlined iteration of any RPG, so far.
I also have some issues with item bonuses, and think some of the rest of this could use adjustment. Item Bonuses specifically might be part of the math adjustment they've mentioned, though they also might not.
Yes, this is one change I actually have hope for, and as Andy Dufresne said: "...hope is the best of things...".

And as Bane once said, "There can be no true despair without hope."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
However, it's interesting to compare this optimism with comments elsewhere, this being one nearby example and a rather tame one compared to some discussions outside of the Paizo forums.
Given that the poll in question effectively lets you vote as much as you want (by clearing cookies)...I'm just gonna say I don't consider it meaningful.
I certainly share your concerns about the poll, but I think the generally negative views about PF2e in almost all the posts in that thread is noteworthy.

I genuinely feel there is a slight disconnect between what the Paizo people think we want, and what the DMs/players actually want.

This has happened before, but with more alienating marketing.

Luckily, Paizo is basing their decisions upon hard feedback data from various sources and not feelings.

Really, I thought they were definitely using the song, Feelings, as some sort of basis for the structure of the system.

Jokes and cheerleading aside, using scary words like "hard" (ooh!), and "feedback" (Hendrix mastered that), and "data" (best character on ST:NG) do not persuade one's feelings ("...nothing more than feelings...")/general sense of things, the vibe, motives, avengers, the outcome (how it's gonna go down), etc; we'll see.


Gorbacz wrote:
verily can they throw one off the hook, leave an opening for a dash, a jab, a quick dirty blow, ouch, right between the ribs that one went! En garde!

Ha, I gotta ask, what is with this ridiculous and embarrassing use of the word "verily"?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Luckily, Paizo is basing their decisions upon hard feedback data from various sources and not feelings. Phew! Feelings, verily can they throw one off the hook, leave an opening for a dash, a jab, a quick dirty blow, ouch, right between the ribs that one went! En garde!
Cranky social science methodology comment - feelings are data too, and "hard" data (quantitative) is not necessarily more or less useful than "soft" data (qualitative).

As well, the ability to plug data into a model will only give you results as good as that model. Figuring out a design that only varies the parameters you are looking to change is not only a pain to do right regardless of the data type, but also fails to account for changes in anything else. Whether the survey data is sufficiently accurate (i.e. a given situation leads to the expected answers for that situation), representative (how many people didn't last long enough to get data?), and complete (i.e. covers every reasonable factor) is up for debate, and there's still how you would go about interpreting that data.

There's a reason I stick to theory. Experiments are really freaking hard to do correctly.


The Sideromancer wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Luckily, Paizo is basing their decisions upon hard feedback data from various sources and not feelings. Phew! Feelings, verily can they throw one off the hook, leave an opening for a dash, a jab, a quick dirty blow, ouch, right between the ribs that one went! En garde!
Cranky social science methodology comment - feelings are data too, and "hard" data (quantitative) is not necessarily more or less useful than "soft" data (qualitative).

As well, the ability to plug data into a model will only give you results as good as that model. Figuring out a design that only varies the parameters you are looking to change is not only a pain to do right regardless of the data type, but also fails to account for changes in anything else. Whether the survey data is sufficiently accurate (i.e. a given situation leads to the expected answers for that situation), representative (how many people didn't last long enough to get data?), and complete (i.e. covers every reasonable factor) is up for debate, and there's still how you would go about interpreting that data.

There's a reason I stick to theory. Experiments are really freaking hard to do correctly.

Yet there is also the inherent problem with theory.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PsychicPixel wrote:

The numbers issue was identified quickly but as they have said it would have required an effective rewrite of the whole bestiary to fix it.

Paizo have said this several times but I still don't think that they're actually right

Oh, to FIX the problem would definitely require an effective rewrite of the whole bestiary.

But the problem could be significantly reduced by some very simple statement such as "All monsters should reduce their AC and saves by 2". That doesn't have to be correct, it just has to be significantly better than what we currently have.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:


I have to admit, I did get a bit of a "Well, this is the game we have decided upon, and if you don't like it, well, what can we say, I guess you are out of luck with this edition, and please do not discuss your issues further."-vibe.

As long as it is done politely (and the instances of this that I have seen HAVE been quite polite) this seems like a very reasonable response to me.

They're NOT crowd sourcing the production of a game, they're getting feedback on THEIR new game. They listen to the feedback (I think they really do) they look at the data and then THEY make the decision.

Unless you want a game decided by Crowd Sourcing with some kind of voting mechanism that is the ONLY way to actually create a game. SOMEBODY has to make the decision when reasonable people disagree.

And once a decision has been made it really IS time to move on. Further discussion on that decision just isn't constructive any longer.

Paizo KNEW going in that the second edition would lose them some of their customer base. Creating a game that everybody liked was literally an impossible goal. They're HOPING (and still hoping) to keep that loss to a minimum while drawing in new players and keeping other players.

And its not as if the current game isn't ALSO losing players (all games do). If the 2nd edition reduces that retention rate that also matters.

To use myself as an example, the power creep in PF1 was really getting me down. There is a higher chance that I'll still be playing Pathfinder post Gencon 2019 than there would have been without the second edition. And I say that as somebody who is quite unhappy with some aspects of PF2 as it currently stands (I expect the final product to be very different in totally unknowable ways from the current draft)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:


I have to admit, I did get a bit of a "Well, this is the game we have decided upon, and if you don't like it, well, what can we say, I guess you are out of luck with this edition, and please do not discuss your issues further."-vibe.

As long as it is done politely (and the instances of this that I have seen HAVE been quite polite) this seems like a very reasonable response to me.

They're NOT crowd sourcing the production of a game, they're getting feedback on THEIR new game.

Right, first off, the capitalisation comes across as yelling, and I was hoping for OUR GAME, not theirs.

A Playtest should be honestly collaborative, not justification, dismissiveness, and indignation.

Exo-Guardians

Vic Ferrari wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:


I have to admit, I did get a bit of a "Well, this is the game we have decided upon, and if you don't like it, well, what can we say, I guess you are out of luck with this edition, and please do not discuss your issues further."-vibe.

As long as it is done politely (and the instances of this that I have seen HAVE been quite polite) this seems like a very reasonable response to me.

They're NOT crowd sourcing the production of a game, they're getting feedback on THEIR new game.

Right, first off, the capitalisation comes across as yelling, and I was hoping for OUR GAME, not theirs.

A Playtest should be honestly collaborative, not justification, dismissiveness, and indignation.

At that point it is no longer a playtest. You want a public facing design phase by committee.

A playtest, or more accurately a Beta test, as that is what this actually is, is a phase intended to work out the bugs from a mostly complete product, in this case that would be a product that could actually go to print. Very rarely do Beta tests actually result in design shifts, making the Pathfinder 2e, and the first runs of Pathfinder unique in that core aspects were changed during the testing phase


-"This is our new game, how dou you like it?"

-"Honestly, it wasn't much fun and I have problems with this, this and that!"

-"Well,...we haven't made it for you, then!"

That dialogue is a very strange way to deal with feedback


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

-"This is our new game, how dou you like it?"

-"Honestly, it wasn't much fun and I have problems with this, this and that!"

-"Well,...we haven't made it for you, then!"

That dialogue is a very strange way to deal with feedback

"This is our new game, how do you like it?"

"Well I hate how this core mechanic works"

"Hmm well our survey feedback is telling us that the majority of players like that mechanic so we won't be changing it"

"Wow Paizo isn't listening to their customer's feedback! They are so out of touch."

This dialogue is equally strange right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:


I have to admit, I did get a bit of a "Well, this is the game we have decided upon, and if you don't like it, well, what can we say, I guess you are out of luck with this edition, and please do not discuss your issues further."-vibe.

As long as it is done politely (and the instances of this that I have seen HAVE been quite polite) this seems like a very reasonable response to me.

They're NOT crowd sourcing the production of a game, they're getting feedback on THEIR new game.

Right, first off, the capitalisation comes across as yelling, and I was hoping for OUR GAME, not theirs.

A Playtest should be honestly collaborative, not justification, dismissiveness, and indignation.

At that point it is no longer a playtest. You want a public facing design phase by committee.

Not at all, I just don't dig a niche game designed by few, and approved by few.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Not at all, I just don't dig a niche game designed by few, and approved by few.

Fortunately, all of our survey data, of which there is an awful lot at this point, is going to ensure that this scenario does not happen.

Will it be a game for you? I am not honestly sure. Will it be a game that the vast majority of our fanbase likes, I certainly hope so and all signs indicate that the changes we are in the process of making will lead us to that conclusion.

I think there are a few places here where I am being taken out of context a bit. I have told folks that this game might not be for them. That is the nature of releasing a new version of a game. You simply cannot make 100% of the people happy and I am trying to be very honest and upfront about that. For those that cannot come around on practically any decision we've made, there is a good chance they are in that group.

It's unfortunate.

And despite all of the hostility and negativity directed and me and my team, I still hope you will find something in this game for you to like. If not, I am sure that 1st edition will provide you with fun and good stories for years to come.

Finally, this thread has devolved into sniping and circular arguments, so I think it has served its purpose. This thread is locked.

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / This is all happening too fast! All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion