PF2 Remastered - Formal or Informal Community Involvement - Yes or No?

[Red Griffyn]

There is a lot of really great community engagement, energy, thoughts, point outs of fixes. But we have cover designs and are ~6-7 months out from the first book. So can someone from Paizo let the community know if there are elements of the remaster editions that we can or cannot get involved in? Some questions:

1.) What books/content are set in stone? What elements, classes, etc. aren't?

2.) Will the community be engaged in a formal way to either playtest or to provide survey feedback on changes?

3.) Are the new threads/forum discussions about what should be changed being culled by Paizo Game Designers for these changes or is it only legacy Forums/Threads that may have driven any changes?

4.) If there are surveys or playtests will we get a post-engagement breakdown on the results and lessons learned?

Some management of expectations is needed here or you're going to end up with people who takeaway a negative impression of whether Paizo listens to its player base or not. Should we keep pumping energy and thoughts into ideas/suggestions or just sit back for the next 12 months as Paizo reveals the already pre-decided changes to the community.

[Dancing Wind]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Some management of expectations is needed here

There is nothing to playtest. The material is, for the most part, already published in the Core Rulebook, Advanced Players Guide, Bestiary, and Gamemastery Guide. It's just being re-sorted into a different set of books that pull together related rules so they are presented in a more comprehensive manner.

Staff have repeatedly said that the changes are no more significant than the standard errata + minor rules changes that normally occur when there is a new printing of the CRB.

The only major shift is that instead of alignment being a hard-and-fast rule, it will become an alternative rule. Right now, 'no alignment' is an alternative rule in the GMG.

Much like the tweak of removing mandatory Ancestry Flaws from character creation didn't require any community input or playtesting, removing alingment isn't going to have any community input or playtesting.

If you didn't expect to have input and playtest the changes from CRB (first printing) to CRB (2nd printing) or the changes from CRB (3rd printing) to CRB (4th printing), then you shouldn't expect that level of involvement now.

They aren't putting out a new edition. If you didn't buy a new CRB every time they printed a new version with errata and rules tweaks in the past, then there's no need to buy the new version now.

They aren't even changing the 'edition' designation on the cover of the books. They will still only be marked "Second Edition", not "Second Edition Remastered".

They've already done their "expectation management": the tweaks aren't significant enough to call for community input. Some people are upset by the changes, but then, some people were upset when mandatory ancestry flaws were dropped. If you're upset, you're free to give your feedback in the forums. But very little is actually changing. It's a reshuffling and reorganizing of the material, not a change to the game.

[Saedar]

Pretty sure we are pretty far past the point of providing feedback-that-will-lead-to-direct-change for the books coming out this year (GM, PC1) if they even had enough people with capacity to manage a playtest. May even be too late for M1.

PC2 is far enough out that it could be possible, but I dunno if the changes-as-characterized will need all the much external playtesting. If they're going really ham on Alchemist, I could maybe see that. Honestly, tho: I think we just vibe for now.

[QuidEst]

It's not like folks have been quiet over the last couple of years about what their concerns regarding Witch, Oracle, or Alchemist have been.

Playtesting is expensive. That's fine for helping ensure a new class comes out well, but for providing a new set of errata for a class that people have been playing for years? The remaster is already a long-term investment in the game that costs a lot up front. Delaying everything by months and putting devs on reviewing a bunch of playtest surveys would just mean Paizo would have to go a year without releasing any new content. I have trouble seeing a reason to publicly playtest tweaks to existing classes.

If somebody wants to speculate about what could be done in PC2, which is a ways down the road, there's a chance it could be incorporated. But this isn't a complete overhaul of the game, either. Most of the stuff will be remaining the same, after all.

[NielsenE]

I think Jason had a post somewhere saying there was no new playtest planned.

And feels like the list of books and the rough division of content is already set.

Honestly, I think the expectation should be "the books are mostly done" Sure PC2 is further out and that might still have some time, but that's because those are the classes that need the most rework to fit (champions w/o alignment, all the classes with stronger draconic ties, heavier focus point mechanics). Its best viewed as larger already-decided errata pass, coupled with a re-arrangement of content between books.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Put it this way, it took 3.5 months for a CRB 4th printing rush to be done, shipped and back in stock. (This lines up with what paizo staff have said in the past for prints, if a little faster)

We have 5 months before the first 2 books come out. Don't expect feedback or playtests.

If we get a playtest it will be for player core 2.

Which means core rules will not be changed or publicly playtested before the book releases.

[Henro]

A lot of the data you would get from a playtest already exists given these rules have been out in the wild for four years at this point.

[breithauptclan]

My interpretation and take on it:

1.) What books/content are set in stone? What elements, classes, etc. aren't?

What content is going in which book has been decided on and won't be changed.

Many of the new concepts and ideas are sketched out, but are still being finalized - such as the replacement system for alignment and the details of Witch and Oracle changes. But with the basic ideas already decided on, proposing something wild and completely different is not going to make an impact for these books.

2.) Will the community be engaged in a formal way to either playtest or to provide survey feedback on changes?

Probably not. The changes aren't big enough to need that.

3.) Are the new threads/forum discussions about what should be changed being culled by Paizo Game Designers for these changes or is it only legacy Forums/Threads that may have driven any changes?

Mostly existing complaints for the class changes. We have been complaining about Witch and Alchemist for a while. So while the changes for these books are mostly determined already - at least in vague terms - that isn't because the dev team doesn't listen to the community.

However, having those types of threads now is still useful for future additions and changes. Errata still does happen. And there may be things in the current book changes that are still being decided on that our recent discussions over will influence.

[GM OfAnything]

Haven't we all been participating in a live playtest for the past several years? I think the designers have plenty of feedback to work from.

[YuriP]

I also think there's no need and won't have a playtest even for PC2. The playtest was currently made! It's was 4 years of gameplay and feedback from many different players along last 4 years. They only need ear and analise the players provided data along this time and made the changes that they thing is needed.

I also think that we will have something bigger than just a single errata + minor changes because with redraw of a new book they now have more "space" to do bigger changes and they already pointed that will do some changes in many classes like witches and alchemists.

In the end they won't do a new playtest because it's not needed if they need to fix some new changes they can do in a future errata.

[Karmagator]

I don't see a need for a playtest or anything of the sort either. This is mostly a QoL update with 4-ish years of feedback we've already given. What actual changes there are don't justify the effort.

[Red Griffyn]

Dancing Wind wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Some management of expectations is needed here

There is nothing to playtest. The material is, for the most part, already published in the Core Rulebook, Advanced Players Guide, Bestiary, and Gamemastery Guide. It's just being re-sorted into a different set of books that pull together related rules so they are presented in a more comprehensive manner.

Staff have repeatedly said that the changes are no more significant than the standard errata + minor rules changes that normally occur when there is a new printing of the CRB.
...
If you didn't expect to have input and playtest the changes from CRB (first printing) to CRB (2nd printing) or the changes from CRB (3rd printing) to CRB (4th printing), then you shouldn't expect that level of involvement now.

Their messaging isn't consistent since I didn't get the sense that all changes are minor/errata after listening to both interviews. Obviously I'm not looking for community input on minor CRB tweaks/errata. But clearly there is a mountain of discussion and opportunity for PC2 to address changes to Oracles, Witches, Alchemists, and Champions (i.e., the 4 classes they've identified are getting more substantial changes). Beyond that, I think that some of the errata could really have used some community feedback because some of the changes (e.g., alchemist) don't actually achieve the end desired result and the community would have pointed that out prior to publication. So I don't think they've managed expectations at all here.

'QuidEst' wrote:

It's not like folks have been quiet over the last couple of years about what their concerns regarding Witch, Oracle, or Alchemist have been.

Play testing is expensive. That's fine for helping ensure a new class comes out well, but for providing a new set of errata for a class that people have been playing for years? The remaster is already a long-term investment in the game that costs a lot up front. Delaying everything by months and putting devs on reviewing a bunch of playtest surveys would just mean Paizo would have to go a year without releasing any new content.

Sure lots of folks have provided input, but you'll be missing key data if you only rely on legacy threads/forum posts:

1.) You won't know the real community popularity of a change without some kind of survey. Disparate forum posts over years likely biases your view as most people who want change won't advocate for it since its already published material and 'the likelihood of paizo doing a major revision is low'.

2.) You will miss out on targeted solutions that can be substantiated within the system math now that the community knows there is a thing to be changed. New player posts about 'is the x weak' aren't paragons of high quality ideas/testing and I hope as a community we've moved past 'Paizo Game Designers are infallible and only make perfect changes' mentalities.

3.) Structured consistent means of collecting input is much more productive and provides a level set consistent format for answering questions. Folks keep saying we've been playtesting for years, but if that was true where is my survey that will collect people's input in a standardized/scientific way?

I challenge you on the timeframe and cost. They wouldn't be able to put out the remastered books for the length of a playtest, but they can still publish other stuff. Kineticist is coming out before everything else so clearly that isn't a choke point. If history is any indicator we should expect a new class announcement in August and a September playtest so you can consolidate 'cost' here just bundling them. At that point its just delay for PC2 and I don't think a a 1-2 month delay is going to break the bank here vs. waiting 5 more years for PF3. They're already 'opening up the hood to tinker' so why not squeeze as much in as they can.

'NielsenE' wrote:

Honestly, I think the expectation should be "the books are mostly done" Sure PC2 is further out and that might still have some time, but that's because those are the classes that need the most rework

I agree that PC1 is likely minor tweaks as they've indicated. But imagine if they had opened up PC1 to community involvement/discussion. I would have been the first to advocate for new Bard/Druid/Cleric sublcasses that convert the chassis to a bounded spellcaster magus basis (i.e., a skald/shaman/warpriest or inquisitor). Now THAT would have been really exciting and cool. But we missed that opportunity and are now back hoping some random lost omens book makes those options available or that a random 1 new class per year stab from Paizo finally covers those mechanical/thematic niches.

I think that PC2 will really benefit from community engagement. The post is intended for Paizo's consideration to include the community, but also its for the community that is all over the place talking about what changes they could be making.

[QuidEst]

Or, put another way, if Paizo is going to carve out the time for a playtest, I would really like that to go towards a new class or two rather than Alchemist adjustments.

[Red Griffyn]

QuidEst wrote:

Or, put another way, if Paizo is going to carve out the time for a playtest, I would really like that to go towards a new class or two rather than Alchemist adjustments.

I disagree. I loved PF1e alchemists. The original CRB didn't do them justice, neither did the many errata we were promised would or Treasure Vault. Its almost meme worthy at this point how many times they've tried to fix the alchemist and haven't moved the needle. Its a problem with the chassis. Give me Master Proficiency in unarmed/bombs and KAS selection of STR/DEX in the context of weaker alchemical items. For everyone saying that isn't the solution... thats what a playtest would prove out.

I don't think its that hard to combine them honestly. A new class + edits to 4 classes in September would be fine. We used to playtest 2 whole new classes at once in the first 3 years.

[QuidEst]

I don't think community suggestions are gonna be super helpful here? The value of a playtest isn't really a bunch of people offering ways to fix something; it's a bunch of people talking about what works and doesn't work. Which is what they already have.

They've heard the calls for increased Alchemist proficiency. Either that is or isn't what they're doing for the overhaul. If it's not what they're planning on doing, then it's not what they'd playtest.

It seems like your interest is stuff like a massive overhaul of how subclasses work. That's more than they want to do here, and that would be pretty incompatible with the CRB. I don't think the community would be happy if Paizo announced a giant playtest to completely revamp the game. They're introducing something on par with most sets of houserules and people are calling it "a slap in the face", etc.

This is something Paizo is probably best doing quickly and smoothly. If they opened it up for suggestions, it would take longer, and a lot of people would be more upset when their personal changes weren't picked because they're out of scope.

[Red Griffyn]

A playtest provides:
- Real play testing the mechanics
- Structured feedback forum to standardize people's comments, ratings, or focus feedback on specific mechanics.
- Stimulates general discussion of solutions that would be better in a less structured format in a targeted play test sub.
- Collects a snapshot of the play base actual rating of the solution you have provided (e.g., this prevents us from having yet another iteration of the alchemist that will continue to not satisfy the community).

I, like many, have my own personal laundry list of things I'd like in the system. Some of them are major and some are minor. Things I've wanted for years since the original playtest, then through initial publication, then through 4 rounds of errata, etc. They're revising a lot of stuff and this feels like its a rare opportunity to get more value out of this effort being put in then simply descoping OGL stuff, reorganizing content, etc. Otherwise we need to wait years until a 2.5e (if that ever happens) or a 3e. Its a missed opportunity.

Its hard to argue it'll do anything to compatibility when PF1e had unchained classes that were essentially better and achieved the same thing needed here (i.e., better rules/better chassis that interacts with all the same stuff without issue). No one felt slapped in the face when unchained classes were added and the scope of the revisions can be boxed in (we don't have to review every class for example) so its relatively easy to avoid the optics of 'a playtest to completely revamp the game'.

I don't agree that this is something that should just be pushed through at rapid pace. Making unilateral changes is pretty antithetical to the way PF2e and all subsequent classes have been added to the game. That is one of the big reasons people like PF2e, so avoiding that is IMO more harmful. Typically they offer a post playtest results debrief to describe what the community liked or didn't and that diffuses 'personal changes not being picked' pretty well.

[Rysky]

Red Gryffin wrote:

I don't agree that this is something that should just be pushed through at rapid pace.

Please forward all complaints to WotC and their Pinkertons.

[Ezekieru]

Red Griffyn wrote:

I don't agree that this is something that should just be pushed through at rapid pace.

The problem is that the situation Paizo is in forces them to have to push this out at a rapid pace, regardless of what we as a community think. January's events from WotC proved that WotC can't be trusted with the OGL, and Paizo as a company needed to push this out much sooner than they'd like as a response.

The sooner Paizo can fully divorce themselves from the OGL/SRD, the safer and more secure they can be. So as much as it'd be nice to have a playtest for changes, I can fully understand why they simply do not have the time to do that.

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't think there's a need for a playtest, since the rules changes will be on the order of "errata" rather than anything fundamentally new.

Like there's no actual need to playtest "rogues have martial weapon proficiency" like there was no need to playtest "alchemists have medium armor proficiency."

[Ashbourne]

The biggest game rule change is dropping alignment. Paizo has already said where alignment really matters, they will replace it with something. Be it holy vs unholy or with edicts and anathema. I don't see a need to play test a new version of a vs b

The one thing they need to play test the most is the ORC license. There's only one chance to get that right.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I'm so excited for us all to start our own hundreds of tiny TTRPG companies when the ORC License Beta starts and it's time to playtest.

[Dancing Wind]

Count me in the "no need to playtest minor tweaks" category.

These changes are no more significant than the other minor rules changes that they've introduced with each new printing of the CRB. That's three sets of changes that never got formal playtests.

I think the devs have listened to all the feedback on all the social media channels that they engage in. They aren't just reading these forum posts in a vacuum

[Vardoc Bloodstone]

Thank Aroden they aren’t doing a playtest. It would take another year for anything to come out!

Playtests are good for when new classes, ancestries, or rule systems come out, but I’d agree it is a waste of time for the types of rules modifications they are proposing here.

[James Jacobs]

You can think of everyone playing the game for the past 4 years as the playtest for the remastered rules if you want, I guess.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

I think that we are well past the time of a formal playtest. Smurfy as one might be, Paizo hasn't the time.

[Red Griffyn]

Rysky wrote:

Red Gryffin wrote:

I don't agree that this is something that should just be pushed through at rapid pace.

Please forward all complaints to WotC and their Pinkertons.

That is a non-sequitor. Last I checked the US still falls under the rule of law and you have literal creators of the OGL willing to provide testimony (in addition to the recent videos they all provided in January as interviews) as to the intention/language of the OGL, literal D&D FAQ historical record/interviews/spokespeople stating the same, and twenty years of precedent. The game rules are literally online for free, Paizo just got a massive windfall by blowing through ~8 months of stock of the CRB/etc. in 1 month, the stuff comes up on fundraisers for ~$10.00 about twice a year, and they're still publishing new content/books to the new format/ORC licence (i.e., majority of their money aren't coming from these books). So I challenge your assertion that 12 months vs. 14-15 months is going to 'break the bank here' or that WOTC truly imposes some global existential threat to Paizo when, in truth its short term actions driving all this customer base to Paizo have likely funded the remaster efforts and allowed them to start it now vs. in x years time.

[Rysky]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Last I checked the US still falls under the rule of law

Laws don’t really mean much when you can hire thugs to threaten, rough up, and dispose of people you don’t like.

[Ed Reppert]

Rysky wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Last I checked the US still falls under the rule of law

Laws don’t really mean much when you can hire thugs to threaten, rough up, and dispose of people you don’t like.

True. But when has it *not* been true?

[Red Griffyn]

A lot of the responses are again:
- "we did 4 years of playtest"
- "changes are so minor they don't need one".

* Again - a structured playtest with goals and focused effort is completely different from disparate new players saying 'this doesn't feel good' and having the Paizo community say its fine. A standardized format for obtaining opinions and popularity will always be better than trying to assess what community thought/feel is based on who comes forward to complain or praise something without any prompting.

* There are more ways to engage the community than only through playtest. Hell even posting the big changes and letting us take a survey could provide some insight/engagement with the community. But it seems like even that is some kind of 'tall order'? It would delay things by what... a week for the survey and another week for results?

* Just because they say the changes are minor, doesn't mean they are. Clearly some big things can/may be happening with focus points, alignment, and 4 classes. If they had 'got it right' in the first iteration or one of the 4 erratas to date they wouldn't be needing to change it now. So why not open those big changes/edits to bilateral engagement with the community and leave the rest off the table? The scope of a 'playtest and survey' or 'just survey' can be limited to just the big stuff (i.e., the stuff worthy of getting right).

[Rysky]

Please forward all complaints to WotC and their Pinkertons.

[Red Griffyn]

Rysky wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Last I checked the US still falls under the rule of law

Laws don’t really mean much when you can hire thugs to threaten, rough up, and dispose of people you don’t like.

Its literally illegal. I bet the person who was strong armed could sue and should.

Its always been true that you can 'only' control what 'you' do. Someone could always hire 'thugs' to intimidate, destroy property, or do w/e illegal things they want. You're treating WOTC like some kind of organized crime gaming mafia that has for all time in perpetuity been doing this stuff and has been known for getting away with it. One 'dot' does not make a line or a trend and for all we know this is literally the first time they ever did this and I'd be surprised if it happens again given the bad PR or that others haven't come forward with 'they pinkerton'd me' stories if it wasn't the first time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending WOTC and I won't support them with my money/purchases, but there is no evidence that they are suddenly breaking into every OGL publisher's home to delete the PDFs they're writing and burn their inventories.

In all 'risk assessments' the risk of something is a combination of the probability of an event x the consequence of the event. In this case, even if the 'probability of an event' has suddenly increased, the consequence of the event is negligible because it can easily be rectified via current laws. So the risk while not 0 is easily 'acceptable' for a few months.

[Red Griffyn]

Rysky wrote:

Please forward all complaints to WotC and their Pinkertons.

Why stop there? There are so many existential threats that might wipe humanity off the earth. We should all just embrace the nihilism of our current situation and all do nothing until our eventual deaths.

Please forward all complaints to Friedrich Nietzsche's grave.

[QuidEst]

Quote:

* Again - a structured playtest with goals and focused effort is completely different from disparate new players saying 'this doesn't feel good' and having the Paizo community say its fine. A standardized format for obtaining opinions and popularity will always be better than trying to assess what community thought/feel is based on who comes forward to complain or praise something without any prompting.

That's probably the fundamental disagreement. I don't think putting out a survey is a better way to gather data on a class than four years of people commenting if they feel like it, making guides, etc. Putting out a survey is a better way to gather data than a couple months of that, sure.

Obviously, it's fine if we disagree on that point. It just means we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye on the topic.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Paizo doesn't do playtests for errata updates.

[YuriP]

I completely agree with QuidEst here. Playtest surveys are good to take a greater vision of selected things that most people liked/disliked but is weak to take a full point of view of these players. Including that's the why Paizo designers also accompany the forums comments once that here, in reddit or any other channel they can see the entire discussion about them and that's the why I defend that this "playtest" already happened being the last 4 years of gameplay listening suggestions and complains of all kinds here, in personal tables, from PFS players, from reddit and so on.
This isn't means that they will do what everyone wants once they have the own game design goals and balance or that they simply cannot agree with some opinions and ideas. But they see and listen and understand and I'm sure that they want to do a game that could be fun for maximum number of players as possible.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Paizo doesn't do playtests for errata updates.

Because erratas updates are already the response for some complaints and misunderstands of the currently gameplay.

[Red Griffyn]

QuidEst wrote:

Quote:

* Again - a structured playtest with goals and focused effort is completely different from disparate new players saying 'this doesn't feel good' and having the Paizo community say its fine. A standardized format for obtaining opinions and popularity will always be better than trying to assess what community thought/feel is based on who comes forward to complain or praise something without any prompting.

That's probably the fundamental disagreement. I don't think putting out a survey is a better way to gather data on a class than four years of people commenting if they feel like it, making guides, etc. Putting out a survey is a better way to gather data than a couple months of that, sure.

Obviously, it's fine if we disagree on that point. It just means we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye on the topic.

Thats alright if we disagree on that.

One final thought there to try and convince you if you'll permit me. The people who engage on the community boards and are the most vocal either for or against an idea could be proportionately representative of the broader community. But they also could not be. People who don't voice their opinions often won't do it without the prompt (i.e., here is a formal request), a safe space to voice it (Paizo/reddit boards aren't free of hostilities), and a through connection to results (i.e., here is what you said and here is what is being done to address it).

Worst case scenario we could spend 2 weeks confirming our gut feeling. Best case scenario we identify a bias in our current thinking due to only hearing the loud voices and can address it before it gets published.

[Rysky]

Red, since you seem to have trouble comprehending the situation.

You’re upset that Paizo isn’t taking as long as you’d like and inviting you to a Playtest for an update to the game.

They’re having to push this update fast because WoTC sent that actual Pinkertons after someone and you are trying to downplay it like that’s a line they won’t cross. Again.

You can wax poetic about laws and society all you want the truth of the matter that’s for the living after the damage is done. Screaming “this is illegal!” while getting you ribs stomped isn’t gonna make hired thugs stop and rethink their life decisions.

That’s why I jokingly say forward the complaints to WotC, this is on them. Paizo isn’t pissing in your personal cereal out of spite.

[MMCJawa]

To defend Red (partially), the Pinkertons were sent after someone who they thought received stolen product, so it's somewhat a non-sequitur to use that as an argument against Paizo.

That said Paizo obviously is concerned about litigation, and ripping off the band-aid so to speak of the ORC required changes is better sooner than later. And most of those changes are cosmetic or pretty minor, so a playtest doesn't seem like it would be all that useful.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I do want to say, WOTC seemed to essentially admit they never thought anything was stolen. My very-strictly-personal read on it is that they conveyed "stolen" to the Pinkertons so they could terrorize the couple with the threat of jail time, thus ensuring the cards would be returned and the videos taken down. But, you know, that's entirely unfounded. Basically a conspiracy theory with meat on the bones.

Anyways, I agree that WOTC isn't going to send the Pinkertons to Paizo's door. Paizo's worried about litigation, not private dicks.

EDIT: It also occurs to me that they want to get this published as quickly as possible because, a) they want to minimize the number of angry new customers who bought the old book before they knew about the remaster, and b) they know that basically nobody is going to buy the current book now until the remaster is out, so they obviously don't want a year's delay on it.

Honestly, I think that's a bigger reason for the urgency than the legal concerns. I would be surprised if Wizards was going to sue them due to one extra month's delay, but I wouldn't be surprised if waiting another month means that Paizo loses a heck of a lot of money on people not wanting to buy a soon-to-be-"obsolete" product.

[Ashbourne]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Last I checked the US still falls under the rule of law

Laws don’t really mean much when you can hire thugs to threaten, rough up, and dispose of people you don’t like.

Its literally illegal. I bet the person who was strong armed could sue and should.

Could sue and should, doesn't always match up with can afford to. It's why rich people and big companies get away with it, and they know it.

[Tangorin]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I do want to say, WOTC seemed to essentially admit they never thought anything was stolen. My very-strictly-personal read on it is that they conveyed "stolen" to the Pinkertons so they could terrorize the couple with the threat of jail time, thus ensuring the cards would be returned and the videos taken down. But, you know, that's entirely unfounded. Basically a conspiracy theory with meat on the bones.

Anyways, I agree that WOTC isn't going to send the Pinkertons to Paizo's door. Paizo's worried about litigation, not private dicks.

EDIT: It also occurs to me that they want to get this published as quickly as possible because a) they want to minimize the number of angry new customers who bought the old book before they knew about the remaster, b) they know that basically nobody is going to buy the current book now until the remaster is out, so they obviously don't want a year's delay on it.

And with lawsuits, you can win one, but still go bankrupt from court expenses, sooo...

[Kobold Catgirl]

Basically, I'm guessing Paizo has a lot of very good reasons to want to get this thing announced and then published as quickly as possible. Any playtesting they do will be in-house, as it usually is for errata.

[Vardoc Bloodstone]

Red - I believe you put forth your opinions in good faith, you’ve been positive and respectful, thoughtful in your opinions. But it looks like you are on an island here. I don’t see anyone else here agreeing a playtest is necessary.

Time for us all to move on!

[WatersLethe]

I cannot even begin to fathom why this is such a bee in OP's bonnet when, from everything we know, the changes coming along are FAR smaller than we would have seen going from the playtest version of something to the final release, in every previous instance.

It's like stamping and fuming because they didn't try to speedrun the Achilles Paradox with playtests moving to a final release.

[Rysky]

MMCJawa wrote:

To defend Red (partially), the Pinkertons were sent after someone who they thought received stolen product, so it's somewhat a non-sequitur to use that as an argument against Paizo.

You don’t send the Pinkertons after someone getting a wrong box of trading cards. You send your lawyers.

[Ashbourne]

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

I think that we are well past the time of a formal playtest. Smurfy as one might be, Paizo hasn't the time.

And the informal playtest last as long as people are willing to argue about rule changes that they what. If that is useful is a different debate.

[Kobold Catgirl]

They didn't want a lawsuit, though. They wanted to terrorize some lone streamer with The Cops so they'd take down the videos quickly as possible. It worked because the streamer was some minor channel with minimal resources or legal know-how.

The thing is, that doesn't work with a company with deep pockets (in terms of its owner) and plenty of lawyers like Paizo. Going after Paizo this year would also completely ruin the smoke and mirrors Hasbro set up about "backing down" on the OGL fiasco. They probably would have thought about doing it in a few years, of course, when the fuss had died down. That's why Paizo needs to make this change.

[Ashbourne]

Rysky wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

To defend Red (partially), the Pinkertons were sent after someone who they thought received stolen product, so it's somewhat a non-sequitur to use that as an argument against Paizo.

You don’t send the Pinkertons after someone getting a wrong box of trading cards. You send your lawyers.

You also don't send the Pinkertons if you have any clue what a PR disaster that is. Unless your goal is to intimidate other people.

[Rysky]

Ashbourne wrote:

Rysky wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

To defend Red (partially), the Pinkertons were sent after someone who they thought received stolen product, so it's somewhat a non-sequitur to use that as an argument against Paizo.

You don’t send the Pinkertons after someone getting a wrong box of trading cards. You send your lawyers.

You also don't send the Pinkertons if you have any clue what a PR disaster that is. Unless your goal is to intimidate other people.

Yeah that was the quiet part there, you don’t send the Pinkertons period

[Red Griffyn]

WatersLethe wrote:

I cannot even begin to fathom why this is such a bee in OP's bonnet when, from everything we know, the changes coming along are FAR smaller than we would have seen going from the playtest version of something to the final release, in every previous instance.

It's like stamping and fuming because they didn't try to speedrun the Achilles Paradox with playtests moving to a final release.

Its dismissive to assume I'm stamping and fuming/have a bee in my bonnet. My mental state is calm, rationale, and based on on single principle:

- Community engagement in changes are better than no community engagement.

I would apply that philosophy to small or large changes and obviously there is a greater impact for larger changes. I see lots of people posting about all the things they should add, change, etc. But I wanted Paizo to actually tell the community is if that is even an option. Otherwise all that effort is wasted and pointless.

As stated above, I'd argue some of the changes aren't small and are worthy of community engagement in some form. I don't run Paizo, it is there prerogative to do w/e they want. But it feels like a step away from the norm/into the wrong direction for a whole system has been piecemeal playtested to a degree for its development.

Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:

Red - I believe you put forth your opinions in good faith, you’ve been positive and respectful, thoughtful in your opinions. But it looks like you are on an island here. I don’t see anyone else here agreeing a playtest is necessary.

Time for us all to move on!

I appreciate the statement and belief in my intentions. But also keep in mind there are ~20-25 people in here. It definitely feels like I'm the only one holding this opinion in the subset of people who posted here, but part of my commentary here is there are tens of thousands of people who play PF2e who aren't here making their opinions known. That is why there is value in Paizo formally collecting data. Maybe we can bump the sample size to ~500 or 1000 people and it could be focused on the direction they plan to take instead of just open forum? The claim from WOTC is that ~40K people take some of their OneD&D surveys so even at 1-2% to account for a smaller player base that would be 400-800 people.

Rysky wrote:

Red, since you seem to have trouble comprehending the situation.

You’re upset that Paizo isn’t taking as long as you’d like and inviting you to a Playtest for an update to the game.

They’re having to push this update fast because WoTC sent that actual Pinkertons after someone and you are trying to downplay it like that’s a line they won’t cross. Again.

You can wax poetic about laws and society all you want the truth of the matter that’s for the living after the damage is done. Screaming “this is illegal!” while getting you ribs stomped isn’t gonna make hired thugs stop and rethink their life decisions.

That’s why I jokingly say forward the complaints to WotC, this is on them. Paizo isn’t pissing in your personal cereal out of spite.

Since YOU ARE having trouble comprehending my responses to your hyperbole. Thats why we should all collectively assume a stance of nihilism because the worst case scenario (humanity being wiped off the face of the planet in the next ~decade) is clearly what will and always will happen. As nihilists we can throw off the weights of the world and simply do nothing and not care until we die because all life is meaningless.

While using hyperbole to make a point makes for a 'snappy' one line post and is 'a popular thing to do on the internet', it is usually detrimental to actual dialogue. So you aren't winning any 'praise' from me for trying to pull down a legitmate discussion/topic into the mud. Especially when you are using the same hyperbole as a 'look at me' attention grabbing device AND your actual logical rationale/justification.

As others have mentioned above Paizo is most likely concerned with a lawsuit, not pinkertons. So its a non-sequitor. In the case of a lawsuit the injunctive relief that is worst case scenario would be you have to stop selling or can't sell "x" inventory published under the OGL. The difference between the methods would equate to 2-3 months of potential new printings of the CRB/base books, which are already available for free and frequently cost < $10.00 in a humblebundle. After the 'time' they'd be selling ORC licenced material and as they've stated all the new stuff is ORC based anyways so you have to limit the scope of sales/financial impacts to what is actually being impacted. They already sold off a 8 month supply of materials in one massive spike to fund the remaster editions, so you're circling the drain of credibility here to say the speed of switching to ORC is the one and only reason they need to not engage the community. In truth they should have 8 months of delay time minus the cost of writing the the remastered edition as float. Obviously there will be other costs associated and that isn't an exhaustive list, but to say 2-3 months is financially prohibitive isn't as slam dunk as you make it once you think on it for a layer deeper.