So, About That Errata 2

[graystone]

dirtypool wrote:

No actually, you stated that the other people were complaining about the "glacially slow pace" and that Paizo was not communicating what the "problem" is.

Yep, they are complaining and it is a problem IMO.

dirtypool wrote:

When you define your opinion as the reason other people are expressing theirs, you are saying that your opinion is objectively true.

No, I've seen others complain about it and I agree with them. How is that stating an 'objective truth'?

dirtypool wrote:

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to get you to engage with this topic in a way that extends beyond you just b&&&!ing.

You seem to be engaging people JUST to prove them wrong. Is this something that has a right and wrong answer? Not IMO, as some are fine with how things are and some aren't. No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to make me feel better about the speed of the errata.

dirtypool wrote:

There is absolutely an objective metric to determine the pace of the release of errata

Not in relation to an individual consumer expectation. The metric varies depending lots of factors so it is meaningless unless it's an agreed upon metric and do you think we'll have that? It doesn't matter who does what when someplace else as expectations can differ even between individual products let alone different companies based on quality, quantity and lots of other factors.

dirtypool wrote:

"Slow in my opinion" isn't a "problem" that needs solving and yet you keep insisting that it is.

IMO slow is a problem: the issue is that we disagree on what it slow and we aren't going to agree from what I see.

dirtypool wrote:

If its just your opinion, then Paizo doesn't need to do anything to fix it and they aren't doing anything wrong because it is just your opinion.

Companies have to weigh how to make the most people happy as they can: that means taking people opinions into account. I'm not sure why you are trying to make things objective issues for everyone when it isn't: I've never framed my posts that way so I'm not sure why you insist on trying to do so.

[Squiggit]

dirtypool wrote:

If its just your opinion, then Paizo doesn't need to do anything to fix it and they aren't doing anything wrong because it is just your opinion.

Their opinion that Paizo is doing something wrong and should fix it. Just like how your opinion is that Paizo is doing fine and doesn't need to change anything.

This whole conversation is about opinions, so it's a little bizarre to suddenly try to frame it this way on your end.

[dirtypool]

graystone wrote:

You seem to be engaging people JUST to prove them wrong.

Cool, I'm not though.

graystone wrote:

Not in relation to an individual consumer expectation. The metric varies depending lots of factors so it is meaningless unless it's an agreed upon metric and do you think we'll have that? It doesn't matter who does what when someplace else as expectations can differ even between individual products let alone different companies based on quality, quantity and lots of other factors.

If the individual consumer expects that an errata will be released in 4 months, but an industry standard is 14 months, then the individual consumer expectation is an unrealistic expectation.

graystone wrote:

IMO slow is a problem: the issue is that we disagree on what it slow and we aren't going to agree from what I see.

We won't agree on it because you won't define a metric for speed. And if you won't define a metric for speed, then you can't prove that your interpretation of slow is actually slow for a.) the industry in a broad spectrum or b.) this company in particular.

If slow is subjective then problem can't be objective. Stating that you expect them to solve YOUR problem means that you are framing your statement as an objective one and not just a subjective opinion.

If it turns out that Paizo's errata schedule is fast compared with every other TTRPG, then there is no problem to be resolved and you're just howling in the dark.

[graystone]

dirtypool wrote:

Cool, I'm not though.

You SAY that but your actions say differently.

dirtypool wrote:

Yes but if you won't define a metric for speed, then you can't prove that your interpretation of slow

That's your mistake: I don't HAVE to prove anything. I have no obligation to you to prove my opinions.

dirtypool wrote:

If slow is subjective then problem can't be objective.

The objective problem is that people are having a subjective issue with it. and let me repeat this: ONLY YOU are framing this as an objective issue. ONLY. YOU.

dirtypool wrote:

Stating that you expect them to solve YOUR problem

When did I say this? I HOPE to see errata [and FAQ's] as soon as possible but I think most people do. I think everyone hopes that the game will fix the issue they see in it: what's wrong with that?

[Unicore]

I am interested to see if the FAQ/Errata page becomes a place where they post answers to frequently asked questions or if it will primarily be a page for hosting any and all Errata. Even if it didn't provide official answers, it would be interesting to see prominent PF2 GMs look at the Frequently asked questions and talk about how they handle it in game while we wait for Errata.

I think one unfortunate thing about the way that the process of FAQ and Errata have traditionally been handled by the TTRPG market is that rules variation has to be presented as a battle between sides that want it to break one way or another to be forced down all future tables throats, rather than a discussion about how that rules interpretation changes the game and why a GM might choose one way or another. Obviously PFS needs its own, more carefully consistent way for these discussions to lead to meaningful decisions for GMs, but the idea that the game itself needs to establish what the "real" rules are, versus how they are interpreted by different people is a really unfortunate way for hobbyists to interact with each other.

Honestly, I rather less future errata changing the wording in books and more FAQ that exists as a discussion about why people are confused about different rules and what the consequences are for interpreting them different ways, with the occasional "We really intended for x to work this way because..." where a common misinterpretation is leading to problems with actual game balance.

[dirtypool]

graystone wrote:

The objective problem is that people are having a subjective issue with it. and let me repeat this: ONLY YOU are framing this as an objective issue. ONLY. YOU.

No, it isn't ONLY. ME. You are using objective language to state your opinions so that you can justify your complaining.

I'm done. Complain away.

[Steve Geddes]

Unicore wrote:

I am interested to see if the FAQ/Errata page becomes a place where they post answers to frequently asked questions or if it will primarily be a page for hosting any and all Errata. Even if it didn't provide official answers, it would be interesting to see prominent PF2 GMs look at the Frequently asked questions and talk about how they handle it in game while we wait for Errata.

I think one unfortunate thing about the way that the process of FAQ and Errata have traditionally been handled by the TTRPG market is that rules variation has to be presented as a battle between sides that want it to break one way or another to be forced down all future tables throats, rather than a discussion about how that rules interpretation changes the game and why a GM might choose one way or another. Obviously PFS needs its own, more carefully consistent way for these discussions to lead to meaningful decisions for GMs, but the idea that the game itself needs to establish what the "real" rules are, versus how they are interpreted by different people is a really unfortunate way for hobbyists to interact with each other.

Honestly, I rather less future errata changing the wording in books and more FAQ that exists as a discussion about why people are confused about different rules and what the consequences are for interpreting them different ways, with the occasional "We really intended for x to work this way because..." where a common misinterpretation is leading to problems with actual game balance.

I can't remember where but Erik Mona commented before it's release that one of the hopes for PF2 was that it would require fewer errata than PF1 did.

My interpretation was that they were going to shift more towards a philosophical approach similar to what you outline here - that the rules are intended to be more fluid and malleable so that "what's the REAL answer?" is not a valid question in many cases.

I kind of figured theyd achieve that by moving back to "ask your GM" and leaning into the rare category for complicated/potentially synergistically overpowered options.

[dirtypool]

graystone wrote:

So point out who else has been complaining people have been objectively stating facts when they have instead been stating opinions... Let me know when you have that list made...

I’ll make it when you make the list of games that provide errata at a pace that makes PF2’s look glacial in comparison.

[graystone]

dirtypool wrote:

graystone wrote:

So point out who else has been complaining people have been objectively stating facts when they have instead been stating opinions... Let me know when you have that list made...

I’ll make it when you make the list of games that provide errata at a pace that makes PF2’s look glacial in comparison.

I didn't claim an objective fact while you did so it's not equivalent. You stated "No, it isn't ONLY. ME.": an objective fact you should be able to prove with quotes from this thread. I can feel the pace of errata in any way and it's subjectively correct to me. So I'll wait for your fact you claimed as you I can never prove an opinion that is by it's nature not an objective fact.

[Bast L.]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I can't remember where but Erik Mona commented before it's release that one of the hopes for PF2 was that it would require fewer errata than PF1 did.

My interpretation was that they were going to shift more towards a philosophical approach similar to what you outline here - that the rules are intended to be more fluid and malleable so that "what's the REAL answer?" is not a valid question in many cases.

I kind of figured theyd achieve that by moving back to "ask your GM" and leaning into the rare category for complicated/potentially synergistically overpowered options.

I hope not. Rules specificity is one of the best things PF2 has going for it, imo. Clear rules covering many situations. "Ask your GM" is just lazy. It puts more work on the GM, and makes it unclear what characters you can play, and how they'll work in a game where it's useful to plan your character out many levels in advance.

One example of PF2 being very good about rules specificity is the Prescient Planner feat. Someone wanted to take it in my game, and I was like, "ugh, I hate all those matter creation feats, they're always like, 'ask the GM if the item is okay,'" but then I read it, and PF2's version is not up to me at all. It's very clear what you can make, and no input is needed from the GM.

Of course, an arbiter is needed, as no finite rules set can cover every conceivable situation in an RPG, but clarifying what the ambiguous or confusing rules actually mean can help GMs out a lot, prevent table disagreements, and allow for better cross-group play.

[James Jacobs]

Bast L. wrote:

It's weird how this thread devolved. I was hoping a Paizo person would come in and say something, "delayed until blah, it'll cover a lot of rules, including these contentious topics: blah, blah blah."

Unfortunately, I don't find it weird how this thread developed. I'm not part of the team that's preparing or working on errata (but can confirm it's in the works), and so I can't give any estimates about when it might be available... but the toxicity in this thread's a good example why a Paizo person wouldn't want to come in and say something.

Normally I wouldn't either, but seeing as how I've mostly withdrawn from posting on these boards lately (with the sole exception of answering on my "ask James" thread elsewhere in these forums) specifically BECAUSE of toxic reactions (both before and after I tried to weigh in on the thread to provide what I had hoped would be helpful advice or to manage expectations), I felt the need to step in here and point out this thread as a perfect example.

Remember, we at Paizo are people too, and we're having a tough time with everything going on in the world as well. We're fortunate enough to mostly be able to work from home (with the exceptions of some folks in the tech department and everyone on the warehouse team), but it's still the most stressful time a lot of us have had the misfortune to live through. It's certainly the most stressful time of my life, and so I can certainly understand the mental health reasons why someone would want to hang back from taking part in a thread like this, when no matter what we might say would potentially result in vitriol, anger, frustration, or accusations.

So in closing, and before I slink back to lurking on these forums again (and grit my teeth to anticipate internet anger in response), please try to be patient and kind with us and with each other.

[Rysky]

*offers hugs*

[Pronate11]

James Jacobs wrote:

Bast L. wrote:

It's weird how this thread devolved. I was hoping a Paizo person would come in and say something, "delayed until blah, it'll cover a lot of rules, including these contentious topics: blah, blah blah."

Unfortunately, I don't find it weird how this thread developed. I'm not part of the team that's preparing or working on errata (but can confirm it's in the works), and so I can't give any estimates about when it might be available... but the toxicity in this thread's a good example why a Paizo person wouldn't want to come in and say something.

Normally I wouldn't either, but seeing as how I've mostly withdrawn from posting on these boards lately (with the sole exception of answering on my "ask James" thread elsewhere in these forums) specifically BECAUSE of toxic reactions (both before and after I tried to weigh in on the thread to provide what I had hoped would be helpful advice or to manage expectations), I felt the need to step in here and point out this thread as a perfect example.

Remember, we at Paizo are people too, and we're having a tough time with everything going on in the world as well. We're fortunate enough to mostly be able to work from home (with the exceptions of some folks in the tech department and everyone on the warehouse team), but it's still the most stressful time a lot of us have had the misfortune to live through. It's certainly the most stressful time of my life, and so I can certainly understand the mental health reasons why someone would want to hang back from taking part in a thread like this, when no matter what we might say would potentially result in vitriol, anger, frustration, or accusations.

So in closing, and before I slink back to lurking on these forums again (and grit my teeth to anticipate internet anger in response), please try to be patient and kind with us and with each other.

I for one wish to apologies for my fellow forum goers and for any actions of my own that may have caused you grief. You made a wonderful system, and I'm so sorry your own forums have become such a cesspool. I hope you have a wonderful day and keep up the good work.

[graystone]

Meh... I had a long post written up but since James Jacobs came in I'll just let it go. It's not really productive to keep posting back and forth with dirtypool.

[graystone]

James Jacobs wrote:

I'm not part of the team that's preparing or working on errata (but can confirm it's in the works), and so I can't give any estimates about when it might be available...

*thumbs up* I appreciate the drop in to say this.

James Jacobs wrote:

Remember, we at Paizo are people too, and we're having a tough time with everything going on in the world as well. We're fortunate enough to mostly be able to work from home (with the exceptions of some folks in the tech department and everyone on the warehouse team), but it's still the most stressful time a lot of us have had the misfortune to live through. It's certainly the most stressful time of my life, and so I can certainly understand the mental health reasons why someone would want to hang back from taking part in a thread like this, when no matter what we might say would potentially result in vitriol, anger, frustration, or accusations.

Oh I completely understand things are tough now and I appreciate the team [as I've said you guys are one of the reason I'm sticking around]. If direct interaction is stressful, would it be possible to set up an announcement thread to post updates that's locked to normal forum posters? That way you guys could get info out without direct reactions.

[Ravingdork]

graystone wrote:

If direct interaction is stressful, would it be possible to set up an announcement thread to post updates that's locked to normal forum posters? That way you guys could get info out without direct reactions.

As nice as that would be, someone would likely ruin it for the rest of us by starting a separate thread to "discuss" the announcement.

[dirtypool]

It is correct that this is not productive for either side

[Aricks]

Thanks James for the info. While I would personally prefer to get the 2nd round errata before the 2nd round printing, it's really great to get an update and expected timeline on this. You folks are busy with everything it takes to keep a gaming company going for us to enjoy and anything you all can do to keep is in the loop is appreciated.

Regarding the thread, here's my thought. People are going to have opinions that differ from yours, and that's just the way the world is. I've discovered that telling people "no your feeling are wrong" isn't really something that is going to change anything, because feelings are feelings.

Maybe try "I see your viewpoint is ______, personally mine is ______ and here's why". Will you change their mind? Maybe, maybe not, but talking about your own thoughts, experiences, and feelings instead of telling other people how they should think or feel goes a long way to keeping a thread a pleasant place to hang out.

[graystone]

Ravingdork wrote:

graystone wrote:

If direct interaction is stressful, would it be possible to set up an announcement thread to post updates that's locked to normal forum posters? That way you guys could get info out without direct reactions.

As nice as that would be, someone would likely ruin it for the rest of us by starting a separate thread to "discuss" the announcement.

Sure but the people that post in the locked thread don't have to be the ones checking out the "discuss" thread. I think the separation might make it feel less like it's about the poster that way, especially if they set up an anonymous account to post messages there like a Pathfinder Team account. Just trying to spitball ideas.

[Bast L.]

Ravingdork wrote:

graystone wrote:

If direct interaction is stressful, would it be possible to set up an announcement thread to post updates that's locked to normal forum posters? That way you guys could get info out without direct reactions.

As nice as that would be, someone would likely ruin it for the rest of us by starting a separate thread to "discuss" the announcement.

I was going to say, "they could always just not read that thread," but it's too tempting. You have to know what they're saying. Still, at least it's (kind of?) clear: there's not much intent from Paizo to post on these forums.

Internet hostility is such a difficult issue. One person might see one poster as belligerent, another might see the other as such. And moderators just make people mad when they delete carelessly. Sometimes a comment is made in jest, but it's not clear to every reader. It's easy to say, "grow thicker skin," but mine's pretty thin, so I can't say that.

It's too bad, but it looks like we won't get much back and forth on here with the devs. I'm not into twitch, so I guess that's about it for offering feedback and asking questions.

[Ruzza]

I'd really rather not be a part of a community that actively attacks the designers (or creative directors) of the game that they're fans of? This was a pretty terrible ride from start to finish, but can we just close this thread? This is awful.