So, we are now 8 months into PF2e without a replacement for the FAQ system and 4 months after Mark last mentioned the (I assume still in progress) next errata document.
Does anyone have any idea of what form it might take? I am not expecting them to go the twitter route like 5e did, I would love to see them implement a system where to request an answer tou have to move to the appropriate area.
As well as collecting the info in an easily filtered environment like with the easy action tools website (where custom output pdfs could be output)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is that the Starfinder FAQ/errata page got updated to a new page in early March, so maybe the new Pathfinder 2e page will be similar in format.
Given the current global situation, I have no idea when they'd have the chance to get any website design changes, unless their web design team have the ability to make those changes at home.
Given the current global situation, I have no idea when they'd have the chance to get any website design changes, unless their web design team have the ability to make those changes at home.
As an ex web developer myself I would hope so :p
Will check it out, never run starfinder so it completely escaped my notice.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd maybe expect some FAQ after B2 and APG are out and the design team will be able to slow down a bit - the way I see things, they're pushing things out at a faster pace to get people to be able to play their Tiefling Swashbuckler and will slow down with content later on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd maybe expect some FAQ after B2 and APG are out and the design team will be able to slow down a bit - the way I see things, they're pushing things out at a faster pace to get people to be able to play their Tiefling Swashbuckler and will slow down with content later on.
I mean, APG and B2 have already gone to the printer. I suspect that the Pathfinder Design Team is working on the Beginner Box and other projects (to be announced at PaizoCon, maybe?) Hopefully they can put some bandwidth into the next round of faq/errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That starfinder FAQ is sharp. I hope they do have a team working on something similar for PF2.
Whatever form it takes, I just hope that whoever is making the calls for what is or isn't an official ruling takes care to make sure their statements remain consistent... rather than appearing to make an offhand and inaccurate ruling and then make significant changes to the rules text to not have to say "I remembered that wrong."
That's literally my only concern.
did that happen at some point?
did that happen at some point?Whatever form it takes, I just hope that whoever is making the calls for what is or isn't an official ruling takes care to make sure their statements remain consistent... rather than appearing to make an offhand and inaccurate ruling and then make significant changes to the rules text to not have to say "I remembered that wrong."
That's literally my only concern.
Its an allusion to Jeremy Crawford of Dungeons and Dragons fame
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want patch notes.
With everything the statement implies. I want bug fixes and balance changes and much like a game, it will not be hard to just make a section or dedicate a webpage with details on when it was released and what is the version the game is in.
As I mentioned when this was being discussed: We live in the age of the internet. Everybody will have access to the changes in the tip of their fingers, but with the advantage of the changes being optional, unlike computer games. You don't want a nerf or buff? Just don't use it. It's great for everyone and so far it's been that way, I just hope it can be even better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am keen for more FAQs and Errata, but personally I would prefer getting everything in a single PDF, that would allow me to just do a word search.
Well a page like Lightning Raven mentioned would be easily searchable with ctrl F as would every document format I can think of so it wouldn't have to be a PDF.
I want patch notes.
With everything the statement implies. I want bug fixes and balance changes and much like a game, it will not be hard to just make a section or dedicate a webpage with details on when it was released and what is the version the game is in.
As I mentioned when this was being discussed: We live in the age of the internet. Everybody will have access to the changes in the tip of their fingers, but with the advantage of the changes being optional, unlike computer games. You don't want a nerf or buff? Just don't use it. It's great for everyone and so far it's been that way, I just hope it can be even better.
That is a good point, a wiki would be simple enough for them to implement.
But it would be a difficult place to track questions and the like. Personally I am of the opinion that there still needs to be a categorized issue submission tool.
I want patch notes.
With everything the statement implies. I want bug fixes and balance changes and much like a game, it will not be hard to just make a section or dedicate a webpage with details on when it was released and what is the version the game is in.
As I mentioned when this was being discussed: We live in the age of the internet. Everybody will have access to the changes in the tip of their fingers, but with the advantage of the changes being optional, unlike computer games. You don't want a nerf or buff? Just don't use it. It's great for everyone and so far it's been that way, I just hope it can be even better.
That is a good point, a wiki would be simple enough for them to implement.
But it would be a difficult place to track questions and the like. Personally I am of the opinion that there still needs to be a categorized issue submission tool.
An official wiki would be cool. But Archives of Nethys already provides this service, I don't think it would be too hard to use it for that as well. It could be cool to have a place with clear rules changes, rules interpretations and such.
One thing that would be very welcome is something that most games do nowadays: Along with mechanical changes the developers also add commentary on the design intent behind them.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Along with mechanical changes the developers also add commentary on the design intent behind them.
Yeah, feeding the invested, hyperactive 1% of community members with more ammunition for countless arguments about how they would make the change better while 99% of the customer base doesn't care about it at all seems like a great idea. Oh, wait.
Yeah, feeding the invested, hyperactive 1% of community members with more ammunition for countless arguments about how they would make the change better while 99% of the customer base doesn't care about it at all seems like a great idea. Oh, wait.Along with mechanical changes the developers also add commentary on the design intent behind them.
Or to simply contextualize why such a change was made, why the developers thought the feature was good, bad or wasn't working as intended.
Discussions are already happening and many times it's because of a lack of knowledge, confusion or simple misconception. I'm pretty sure that it would indeed rise a lot of new arguments, but it would also put a lot more to rest. Having a brief insight into what kind of Pathfinder the developers want in a more detailed manner would definitely change my perspective on some rules. We're not designers, so things that may seem like a constraint may be just the simplest way of avoiding a whole lot of problems (like the simplified economic system or why magic has so little real impact on the world of Golarion).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or to simply contextualize why such a change was made, why the developers thought the feature was good, bad or wasn't working as intended.
Discussions are already happening and many times it's because of a lack of knowledge, confusion or simple misconception. I'm pretty sure that it would indeed rise a lot of new arguments, but it would also put a lot more to rest. Having a brief insight into what kind of Pathfinder the developers want in a more detailed manner would definitely change my perspective on some rules. We're not designers, so things that may seem like a constraint may be just the simplest way of avoiding a whole lot of problems (like the simplified economic system or why magic has so little real impact on the world of Golarion).
That doesn't really address the hungry bag's point. It's a definite minority that wants that kind of commentary, is it necessary to include that to appease a small portion of fans?
Every time this debate comes up we all talk about what Paizo "should do" and that it "should be easy" and how other companies do it already so Paizo should follow suit.
All of these statements that we make are based on our expectations and desires not the actual needs of the errata system. The larger issue with that is that none of us work for Paizo, so we don't know what's easy for them and what isn't.
Whatever it is, if it indeed changes at all, needs to work best for their internal structure and communicating - not our desires.
If I go looking for clarifications on unclear rules or corrections to typos and what I have to do to see what I want to see is read through or scroll past paragraphs that try to explain a design philosophy or the designer's opinion/preference... I'd honestly just stop looking.
This, I suspect, would be the opinion of the majority of the players who care about errata and rules fixes. Let’s not forget that there are broad swaths of players who get a book, play it as written and never once touch the errata.
So we’re talking a service that needs to fit the needs of the broadest possible grouping of the subset of users who want to remain up to date with the most correct version of the game.
Starfinders FAQ is just a collapsible/expandable version of the errata that allows errata for all the books to live in one place. I think that would be fine for PF2 as well
If I go looking for clarifications on unclear rules or corrections to typos and what I have to do to see what I want to see is read through or scroll past paragraphs that try to explain a design philosophy or the designer's opinion/preference... I'd honestly just stop looking.
Spoiler text is an easy enough solution for this: look at it if you wish, skip over it if you don't.
And whatever "fluff text" happens to surround the errata gets treated as a legitimate indicator of how many errors there are in the product by some people which sours the reputation of the game with stuff like "It's got 10 pages of errata for just the core book, no way is that playable." so there's another good reason to keep the errata as short and to the point as possible.
IMO, this makes little sense: simple fixes can eat up a lot of space, like changing chart so simply looking at page numbers without looking at the content isn't super informative. I honestly wonder how many people there would be that wouldn't bother to actually look at the errata contents that would actually bother to look for the errata in the first place. I think it you went to the trouble of looking it up, you'd at least skim over the contents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, this makes little sense: simple fixes can eat up a lot of space, like changing chart so simply looking at page numbers without looking at the content isn't super informative. I honestly wonder how many people there would be that wouldn't bother to actually look at the errata contents that would actually bother to look for the errata in the first place. I think it you went to the trouble of looking it up, you'd at least skim over the contents.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I've likewise seen it in the form of game group discussing what game to play next - title comes up and one player says "Yeah but it's got a 16 page errata doc already and it's only been out a year."
The players who don't engage with rules in the way that we do think that means the game is broken and that is the end of that conversation.
|
Right on dirty- This is exactly one of the reasons why I refuse to play Shadowrun and take light jabs at my friends who want to play it. The writing is a mess and they spend more time issuing errata than actually creating new content for the system because it's needlessly complicated, contradictory and written in such a way that you literally need to understand the previous editions and how they work (which themselves are written in a way that requires even further previous edition knowledge) to be able to even create a starting level character let alone advance them beyond that.
Too much errata is a BIG problem but it's one borne of shoddy writing in the first place. That's one of the reasons I have so much respect for Paizo, they spend a LOT of time and effort to make things understandable, flow well within a book, and rarely NEED to issue errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or to simply contextualize why such a change was made, why the developers thought the feature was good, bad or wasn't working as intended.
Discussions are already happening and many times it's because of a lack of knowledge, confusion or simple misconception. I'm pretty sure that it would indeed rise a lot of new arguments, but it would also put a lot more to rest. Having a brief insight into what kind of Pathfinder the developers want in a more detailed manner would definitely change my perspective on some rules. We're not designers, so things that may seem like a constraint may be just the simplest way of avoiding a whole lot of problems (like the simplified economic system or why magic has so little real impact on the world of Golarion).
That doesn't really address the hungry bag's point. It's a definite minority that wants that kind of commentary, is it necessary to include that to appease a small portion of fans?
Every time this debate comes up we all talk about what Paizo "should do" and that it "should be easy" and how other companies do it already so Paizo should follow suit.
All of these statements that we make are based on our expectations and desires not the actual needs of the errata system. The larger issue with that is that none of us work for Paizo, so we don't know what's easy for them and what isn't.
Whatever it is, if it indeed changes at all, needs to work best for their internal structure and communicating - not our desires.
While I understand the point you guys are trying to make, it doesn't change the fact that things are already like this. What I mentioned is something that is a staple with most games out there and I don't see any kind of discourse that actually impacts anything negatively. People will talk what they want and discuss things whether they have the commentaries or not. It's not like Paizo will suddenly just start changing things because people will be vocal about it.
In the end, what I'm trying to say is that this is NOT an issue at all. If people start using it as argument, so what? The design intent is also optional. Much like the balance changes and fixes. Your group, your rules.But it is undeniable that having some developers insights on certain aspects of the game would help GM rule ambiguous situations or even guide some house-rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I go looking for clarifications on unclear rules or corrections to typos and what I have to do to see what I want to see is read through or scroll past paragraphs that try to explain a design philosophy or the designer's opinion/preference... I'd honestly just stop looking.
It's bad enough when an errata document produces the re-written paragraph instead of just telling me what parts to change.
And whatever "fluff text" happens to surround the errata gets treated as a legitimate indicator of how many errors there are in the product by some people which sours the reputation of the game with stuff like "It's got 10 pages of errata for just the core book, no way is that playable." so there's another good reason to keep the errata as short and to the point as possible.
Or you can live on the aforementioned age of the Internet and have toggle buttons for developer commentary. You know... Like the spoiler tags this very forum have?
You wanna your Path Notes to be direct and clean, just don't read the commentary. You don't even need to skim through blocks of texts, in case you really don't care.
This is a terrible argument by the way. Literally just a meaningless inconvenience.
While I understand the point you guys are trying to make, it doesn't change the fact that things are already like this. What I mentioned is something that is a staple with most games out there
What games is this a staple with?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It always strikes me as weird how actively hostile some people are to the idea of a game getting updates or fixes over time.
It always strikes me as weird how actively hostile some people are to the idea of a game getting updates or fixes over time.
I've never seen that happen. I've seen some spirited debates about the best way to get updates out, but never out and out hostility from someone refusing to support the notion of updates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I understand the point you guys are trying to make, it doesn't change the fact that things are already like this. What I mentioned is something that is a staple with most games out thereWhat games is this a staple with?
Some games do it on the patches themselves, like League of Legends (at least they used to, I can't be certain now that I've been away for years). Some others do it both in the patches, some dedicated posts and even videos, like Overwatch. Gwent had several streams with developers talking about upcoming content, changes and what they wanted to convey with the set of cards.
Not every game does that, but all of those that do are greatly appreciated by their community for doing so. I've never seen anybody saying about "we don't want your commentary" during the time I was involved with the community and it was mainly on reddit, which has the same type of people you can see here, dedicated fans.
I don't see why there's so much push back against something that clearly is beneficial to the game and the relationship between developers and customers.
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for some weekly or monthly updates like you would see in a computer game. What I'm advocating for is having these updates twice or more per year (depending on how big they are, which they're bound to get smaller) and mainly focusing on core material that are bound to get more editions later on.
Literally just a meaningless inconvenience.
A meaningless inconvenience, for you. For most. For some, having to interact with a scalable amount of text that requires toggle buttons to turn things on and off might be the difference between: "Oh cool that's two actions not three" and "Nope, not reading that"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the point that all the product lines, including ModulesAdventures, are completely on schedule, avatars from all released books are available on the forums, all the website bugs and errors are fixed, and moderators can remove flagged spam and posts that otherwise break the forum rules promptly, then I might be interested in a Developer Diary explaining why the rules are the way they are.
Until that day, there are many other things I'd rather the Paizo staff spend their time on. I've been here more than ten years, and I don't believe there has ever been a time that the staff hasn't been run ragged just trying to keep up with the stuff that should have been done yesterday.
League of Legends... Overwatch... Gwent..
Those are videogames. What TTRPG's do it? Your argument was that it is a "staple with most games" and from the video game industry you're absolutely correct. In the Tabletop gaming industry it is absolutely not the case.
An update that happens twice or more per year that fixes core material and happens less frequency over time is what we already have, it's the printed errata system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fixes, as in "we printed +1 instead of +3"? Sure.
Essays explaining why it's +3? Nope.
Official solving of people's problem with making decisions, rule calls or resolving conflitcts? Nope.
You're wildly misunderstanding the point. I can see why you're so adamant in arguing against.
Just so you know, the idea of developer commentary would be more like:
We wanted the Alchemist's Mutagenist Research Field to enhance the unarmed combat playstyle while retaining the core of the class, but given the Class's base proficiency and the penalties associated with mutagens, it became clear to us that this particular class path didn't fully realize our vision , specially at later levels. In order to address these issues we're making some changes to this Research Field.
Then proceeds to list the changes and buffs that the Field is in dire need.
That's more of my idea. Not commentary on how some feat or class feature was printed with error.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LoL, Gwent and Overwatch are games that are:
a) competitive, with real money moving around depending on game balance
b) table (or rather, computer) variance is supposed to be zero
c) stats and crunch are literally everything the game is about, and so is the engagement with the player base
They don't even exist on the same niveau as pnp RPGs. Not even addressing the fact that video games are money from a very different planet. They can literally afford somebody whose only job is engaging with playerbase and handling refuse thrown at them because Shadow Bolt has now cooldown of 0.22 instead of 0.17.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
League of Legends... Overwatch... Gwent..Those are videogames. What TTRPG's do it? Your argument was that it is a "staple with most games" and from the video game industry you're absolutely correct. In the Tabletop gaming industry it is absolutely not the case.
An update that happens twice or more per year that fixes core material and happens less frequency over time is what we already have, it's the printed errata system.
Sorry, I should have said I was talking about computer games once again. My mistake. My initial post had the clarification that video games do that very often. While I also mentioned that unlike videogames a patch for tabletop games would include the best of both worlds: Those that want the changes use them and those that are against it can simply ignore them, which is not the case for computer games and why there's a lot more iteration along with more debate whether the changes were good, bad, necessary or unnecessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LoL, Gwent and Overwatch are games that are:
a) competitive, with real money moving around depending on game balance
b) table (or rather, computer) variance is supposed to be zero
c) stats and crunch are literally everything the game is about, and so is the engagement with the player baseThey don't even exist on the same niveau as pnp RPGs. Not even addressing the fact that video games are money from a very different planet. They can literally afford somebody whose only job is engaging with playerbase and handling refuse thrown at them because Shadow Bolt has now cooldown of 0.22 instead of 0.17.
Sure, but these games also raise a lot of outrage because you can't opt out of changes made. Which you very much do in TTRPGs.
The idea is just that it is healthier for the game, since it will significantly cut down the amount of reprints. Or are we forget the amount of broken feats, archetypes and bad classes that needed to be remade? Such as Unchained classes, Lore Warden second reprint, etc.
Instead of having to deal with things for years until a reprint, we can now have a easily accessible path online with the designers hand behind to use in our home games.
|
|
Did you stop buying Paizo books because of broken feats, archetypes, bad classes? You didn't.
Did people less invested than you stop buying them? Heck, they likely never even noticed what you perceive as issues.
Will you stop buying Paizo books if they don't implement an easily accessible path online with the designers hand behind to use in your home games? Nope.
So, business-wise, what's the point of implementing that? "Well that would make me feel better" doesn't count.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you stop buying Paizo books because of broken feats, archetypes, bad classes? You didn't.
Did people less invested than you stop buying them? Heck, they likely never even noticed what you perceive as issues.
Will you stop buying Paizo books if they don't implement an easily accessible path online with the designers hand behind to use in your home games? Nope.
So, business-wise, what's the point of implementing that? "Well that would make me feel better" doesn't count.
Again, I don't understand what's the point of all this push back. It's not like Paizo will suddenly start doing my bidding. It's just my opinion.
It's just something I think would be healthier for the game in the long run, specially because ,unlike PF1e, this new edition was entirely designed by Paizo and has a stronger foundation to build upon. Having occasional "patches" (whatever you wanna call) would only benefit to Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I don't understand what's the point of all this push back. It's not like Paizo will suddenly start doing my bidding. It's just my opinion.
I think the pushback is because your opinion is that Paizo should deliver an unprecedented for the TTRPG version of something that they do to some extent already do, and that the justification for your opinion is that it works well in a different medium with more robust staffing.
It's just something I think would be healthier for the game in the long run, specially because ,unlike PF1e, this new edition was entirely designed by Paizo and has a stronger foundation to build upon. Having occasional "patches" (whatever you wanna call) would only benefit to Pathfinder.
No one is saying that there shouldn't be "patches." You're conflating resistance to the idea of robust dev journaling as resistance to game revision and that just isn't accurate. We're all for increased errata releases for this edition, even Paizo seems to be indicating that they'll be releasing more frequent errata.
I don't speak for the bagman, but I'm saying that the idea of holding Paizo's errata process to a standard set by a completely different industry is unfair to Paizo who already has one of the better errata systems in the TTRPG industry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't speak for the bagman, but I'm saying that the idea of holding Paizo's errata process to a standard set by a completely different industry is unfair to Paizo who already has one of the better errata systems in the TTRPG industry.
Then use a standard set by a similar industry? My flagship example would be Fantasy Flight Games who have always been brutal regarding speed, content and lifespan of any FAQ or errata for any of their boardgames or TTRPGs I ever played for as long as I can remember.
And while I don't think Paizo needs to tear themselves apart in this matter I also would appreciate regular FAQ and errata updates for PF2.
Just don't blame customers for wanting their product fixed before moving on to their next purchase, especially when the individual perception of the magnitude of any perceived or real flaw may greatly vary from person to person. As such there will always be "good is good enough, give me more content" and "please fix your base game before publishing additional content" camps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then use a standard set by a similar industry? My flagship example would be Fantasy Flight Games who have always been brutal regarding speed, content and lifespan of any FAQ or errata for any of their boardgames or TTRPGs I ever played for as long as I can remember.
Okay let’s look at that example. FFG’s Genesys was released in June of 2017, its first errata in November of 2018. PF2 was released in August of 2019, it’s first errata in October of 2019.
Just don't blame customers for wanting their product fixed before moving on to their next purchase
Your own example of FFG doesn’t meet that standard. Age of Rebellion was in stores before Edge of the Empire was errata’d. The aforementioned Genesys errata included both the core book and Realms of Terrinoth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you stop buying Paizo books because of broken feats, archetypes, bad classes? You didn't.
Did people less invested than you stop buying them? Heck, they likely never even noticed what you perceive as issues.
Will you stop buying Paizo books if they don't implement an easily accessible path online with the designers hand behind to use in your home games? Nope.
So, business-wise, what's the point of implementing that? "Well that would make me feel better" doesn't count.
I did! So did my whole normal group in fact. Or to clarify to a less absolute standpoint bought significantly less. Among my group probably a difference of 20-40 fewer books of various types. So not exactly breaking the business model but also I’m just one person who happened to be online, see this post, have had a change in purchasing, and also was willing to make a post. Please consider how small number 1, 2 & 4 as a percent of players before dismissing 3 as worth considering.
We play Pathfinder as a system for something like 60% of our games. We got much less willing to buy the products until we’d really reviewed them after running into too many problem products. There are some particularly infamous items like the advanced class guide(everything in it or related to it is considered banned without serious work), but even before that there were issues. And due to the need for review we don’t really have any duplicates among the group after a point.
Personally I find a reasonable level errata healthy. Too much of it is a sign that the publisher lacks someone doing a core piece of work like what happens with most shadowrun products. But it still shows that the publisher cares enough about their game to do the corrections when they realize they’re needed. Honestly if my group was looking at a game and the subject of errata was actually raised we’d be far more worried about none than ten pages.
I think the TTRPG sector could learn a decent lesson from the video game companies. We don’t need constant balance changes like some of the games mentioned, but there is obviously room for corrections and clarifications. And getting some of the thoughts behind that is something that some of us would obviously like. Take poison, there was some definite argument before the errata that you couldn’t poison an arrow, but that by RAW you had to poison the bow which then transferred to the arrow but somehow only if you hit. The errata corrected this and a bit more explanation could be helpful for those who care on judging edge cases. Not needed but useful. Honestly even just knowing that something is being reviewed for errata would be nice. It might not help with the debates because people like to argue, but on the other hand it might after all.
If I go looking for clarifications on unclear rules or corrections to typos and what I have to do to see what I want to see is read through or scroll past paragraphs that try to explain a design philosophy or the designer's opinion/preference... I'd honestly just stop looking.
It's bad enough when an errata document produces the re-written paragraph instead of just telling me what parts to change.
And whatever "fluff text" happens to surround the errata gets treated as a legitimate indicator of how many errors there are in the product by some people which sours the reputation of the game with stuff like "It's got 10 pages of errata for just the core book, no way is that playable." so there's another good reason to keep the errata as short and to the point as possible.
Or you can live on the aforementioned age of the Internet and have toggle buttons for developer commentary. You know... Like the spoiler tags this very forum have?
You wanna your Path Notes to be direct and clean, just don't read the commentary. You don't even need to skim through blocks of texts, in case you really don't care.
This is a terrible argument by the way. Literally just a meaningless inconvenience.
As a counter argument, the Paizo blog regularly crashes for me due to the very many spoiler tags that page carries. So the idea of an errata document with the same kind of constant script errors does not fill me with enthusiasm.
This IS the age of the internet. Which means uneven access and technology levels of consumers. You don't even have the baseline level of connection and computing power that a video game implies, a TTRPG has a customer base with a sizable portion that only connects to the web via social apps and netflix.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the TTRPG sector could learn a decent lesson from the video game companies.
I think you don't realise the fact that the money video game industry brings and capabilities of companies there exist on a different plant than the TTRPG industry. They're not even comparable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to Paizo fixing obvious errors (like forgetting to print a range of a spell), but I'd rather have them design new stuff than engage in lengthy explanations and debates aimed at a tiny segment of the playerbase which has a tendency to be unhappy no matter how hard you try to make them.
Okay let’s look at that example. FFG’s Genesys was released in June of 2017, its first errata in November of 2018. PF2 was released in August of 2019, it’s first errata in October of 2019.
Your own example of FFG doesn’t meet that standard. Age of Rebellion was in stores before Edge of the Empire was errata’d. The aforementioned Genesys errata included both the core book and Realms of Terrinoth.
I stand corrected then, thank you for looking up the facts for these games. It seems my memory is clouded either because we did simply not play some of the mentioned games or because our group does usually not pick up fresh from the mill products. And I have to admit that we also gave waiting for the 2nd printing of the PF2 CRB some serious consideration.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stand corrected then, thank you for looking up the facts for these games. It seems my memory is clouded either because we did simply not play some of the mentioned games or because our group does usually not pick up fresh from the mill products. And I have to admit that we also gave waiting for the 2nd printing of the PF2 CRB some serious consideration.
Even the companies we perceive as doing it well - don't always do it so well. Of FFG's 5 main RPG product lines only one had their first errata out within the same year as the release of the book, and that very small L5R errata was put out due to major misprints, an errata that addressed rules issues wasn't out for another year. Now that FFG's RPG staff has all been let go and the operation moved to the foreign subsidiary, I doubt they'll keep up with any regular pace.
WotC has more capital to dedicate to this than just about anyone and they went years between release and errata 1.
Paizo has both hit the mark and missed it.
How this speaks to my point is this: Threads like these often compare what we're getting from Paizo to other industries that are able to devote more resources to the kind of ongoing dev engagement some would like to see - or to our experience with another RPG companies dev engagement that was particularly well handled but not always the norm for that company.
The industry as a whole is inconsistent with errata because they're staffed by small dev teams that usually have to try to squeeze errata for product a into the time they're creating products b & c.
Rather than explaining how it should be easy for them to do something we'd like to see them do, and talking about what we expect of them - maybe we should start thinking about how much they're already doing and cut them a little slack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the TTRPG sector could learn a decent lesson from the video game companies.I think you don't realise the fact that the money video game industry brings and capabilities of companies there exist on a different plant than the TTRPG industry. They're not even comparable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to Paizo fixing obvious errors (like forgetting to print a range of a spell), but I'd rather have them design new stuff than engage in lengthy explanations and debates aimed at a tiny segment of the playerbase which has a tendency to be unhappy no matter how hard you try to make them.
I do realize, and I at least am not asking for anything particularly lengthy. A paragraph of explanation if that would fit the bill for most that I can think of.
Over all what I’m talking about is an increase in community engagement. Some way to get FAQ’s answered with a level of explanation that cements understanding. A tendency to tell players that something is actually being looked at for errata or balancing even if nothing is changed in the end. A short explanation as to why something isn’t being changed could even help settle people. An increase in engagement does two things. It increases the players interest and attachment to the product and thus should increase sales, and it it can help the developers know what’s working best and holds the most interest with a wider audience. These are both good things which would appear to provide more benifits than cost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think giving us Errata for the stuff that is causing disruptions at the table is an important thing that still needs to happen. However, as someone who loves getting the behind the scenes take on why decisions are made, I'd much rather that happen less formally in Twitch streams and blogs.