|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm well aware I may be flamed for this post, but I'm going to post this anyway. I miss the playtests with Dev. interactions. It has become less with more recent playtests and while I get it, they want unbiased and raw feedback, the lack of any dev. interaction on this playtest has been deafeningly silent. I miss the playtests where a dev. would occasionally pop into the forums and make a clarification on a poorly written feature or feat, or an acknowledgement of an unintended interaction, a question to induce conversation, or even a "thank you" and quick comment about some feedback.
All of these things made the playtests feel interactive and important to Paizo. The playtest going on now, with lack of any seeming interest by the dev. team just seems bland, even though it is with some extremely exciting classes and mechanics. I don't know, I just miss playtests like we had with the Summoner/Magus where it was obvious that the Paizo team was following it with great attention and fervor. Where it was clear they were proud of their creation and genuinely wanted to hear the feedback from the playtesters.
All that said, I'm sure they are taking all of our feedback and will do great things, I just can't shake how this one feels different is all. Heck, we are a month in and they still haven't even said boo on what makes it an "Impossible" playtest, not even teasingly.
While I agree with your premise and opinion, there has been some feedback. I vaguely recall someone correcting an egregious error in a recent playtest (though that might have even been made unofficially!). And didn't Paizo do a mid-playtest update too to a core ability? I think this time there's a non-dev who's posted a few times as the liaison to the devs so there's both a filter and ear, someone who can account for some opinions coming across louder due to repetition by several voices or by once voice repeatedly.
So I think Paizo recognizes your want, yet also values letting the pseudo-rules speak for themselves. And interacting on the forums is a timesink, and would get chaotic if dev voices conflicted. So much like with rules debates, sometimes silent patience serves one's ultimate purposes better. And when the polls get revealed, sometimes I'm shocked at how much they differ from the ongoing forum discussions. Maybe they're mainly for us to hash out issues, and less primarily as sources as feedback? (Which they are, just maybe not as much as we may feel.)
Again, I mostly agree, but just think Paizo has good reasons not to. What I would appreciate is a secondary playtest after major changes get introduced. Sometimes it's hard to square that the final variant is several (unplaytested) steps away from the original.
|
|
True enough, and it is a corporate decision no doubt. Guess I preferred when Paizo functioned less like the typical corporation and engaged more freely with the community in creative ways. Again, using the Magus/Summoner playtest as an example, the primary creator of each of the classes participated (mostly passively or in ways to provoke thought) and were obviously proud to discuss what they and their team created. Sometimes it was just to thank somebody for an "actual play" rundown and mention things like "I never thought of..." It felt engaging and rewarding to be part of the discussion.
Perhaps its nostalgia of an old fart that has been following and buying Paizo products for the whole of both PF1e & PF2e runs (as well as proud owner of every Dragon magazine). I've enjoyed how they encouraged their devs. to talk to people and just feel this playtest (and last one as well) are a sad separation of that into a different mindset. It isn't bad exactly, but...
That said, I appreciate that we are still doing playtests at all and hope to hear some news mid-playtest, or at least some teasers from the team.
Which ability got a core rework in which Playtest?
Which ability got a core rework in which Playtest?
I don't remember clearly, which is why I phrased it as a question (and not a rhetorical one as it might appear). The intervention might be from back when OP says Paizo was interacting more. And I don't know what you mean by "core rework"; it was an important change to an ability, but not a foundational rework (and not related to Core books, so I guess that word could mislead.) Yet if nobody else can recall it (and more clearly) then I'd set that point aside.
And I'll add that I respect how unlike most corporate interactions, Paizo's are authentic, not scripted to placate. And employees burned a lot of time surfing the forums. I imagine they can't afford that now (whether personally or if paid for).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been reading these forums since 2011. The degree of Paizo employee interaction here varied over the years. They had a lot of casual interactions before I arrived, but it was winding down. Some people wanted rulings on ambiguous rules directly from the developers, but when the developers answered, other people would argue with them. The developers learned that explaining in the forums did not resolve disagreements, sometimes it sparked bigger disagreements, so they went silent. James Jacobs, creative director, was still willing to tell stories about Golarion lore.
The 2018 public playtest of Pathfinder 2nd Edition was a change. The developers of PF2, especially Mark Seifter, were actively participating in the Paizo forums for that gigantic playtest. They regularly updated the playtest document with adjustments and new ideas. I found it exciting.
And apparently they listened to us. My wife had created a house rule, Expert Climber Aiding Trained Climbers, that might have inspired the Follow the Expert rule. I was so happy about that that I made a thread, Follow the Expert.
They kept up some of that interaction on later playtests of individual classes, but it has been winding down. I recall that one of them explained that the people active in these forums are a small subset of the playtesters and that they receive most of their information about the playtests from the surveys. Their main reason to speak up would be to explain errors or ambiguities in the playtest documents, and that explanation would miss most of the participants.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recall devs making comments on aspects of past class playtests where something was completely unplayable/confusing, but not on minor power balance stuff or things that could maybe work one of two different ways, at least not until the playtest was over. Mark and Mike would occasionally pop in with enthusiastic supportive statements about players experiences, but not usually in a way that weighed in on the design intentions, but neither of them are still with the company nor a part of this specific playtest. we will probably start seeing commentary in a coupe of weeks.
Far more concerning about these playtest forums to me is that we have seen barely any report backs from actual play experience. I know someone who played with a 15th level runesmith and they said the burst damage of the runes on round 2 was encounter ending and made every other character feel pretty useless.
I look forward to hearing about how developers will address that issue, but I don't expect it before the playtest is over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of get wanting to keep a hands off approach so as not to put the thumb on the scale too much, but I definitely sort of miss it.
For me I think it's especially frustrating when there's something unclear in the playtest, a rule people don't know how to adjudicate properly or a vague ability. It feels hard to playtest something when you don't even know how it's supposed to work and feels bad when the developers just decide not to let anyone know. It can't be good for the data in the end, can it?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Far more concerning about these playtest forums to me is that we have seen barely any report backs from actual play experience. I know someone who played with a 15th level runesmith and they said the burst damage of the runes on round 2 was encounter ending and made every other character feel pretty useless.
I feel like the timing of this playtest wasn't really conductive to its intended purpose. A lot of it overlaps the holiday season. I don't know about you, but during December I consider it a success if half of my regular TTRPG sessions go ahead.
Trying to fit in some extra playtest ones at this time of year is exceptionally difficult for my groups. And its not like 60 sessions into Kingmaker I'm going to show up suddenly with a Runesmith for one session to test it out.
That really made this one difficult for us and though my GM did suggest he'd try and put something together, he really didn't have time. Nor did I have time to organize one.
I can't speak to the lack of dev feedback though it has been pretty noticeable that its total radio silence. Even a mid-playtest "thanks for the feedback so far, here are some level ranges we haven't gotten much feedback on that we would love some additional testing" would be great since it gives a sense of direction and letting us know what they need from us to be successful.
Putting it out followed by total silence doesn't really tell me if I should put some extra effort into trying to make a test happen, or if they've gotten what they need, or what. And yes, clarifying parts that folks are finding confusing in terms of what's intended would help.
Maybe they stay off social media for their own sanity these days, and I get that, but a blog post or two with clarifications and some directed testing requests would make it feel better in terms of the involvement mattering.
Trying to fit in some extra playtest ones at this time of year is exceptionally difficult for my groups. And its not like 60 sessions into Kingmaker I'm going to show up suddenly with a Runesmith for one session to test it out.
Haha, that's what I did, except it was Strength of Thousands rather than Kingmaker and it will be six game sessions: Virgil Tibbs, Playtest Runesmith. I lack the energy to run a separate game session for playtest characters, so I insert them into my ongoing campaign, such as Cirieo Thessaddin, Summoner, Arkus, playtest inventor, and Collin, playtest kineticist. One exception was when the War of Immortals playtest started up just as I was starting a mini-campaign, so I asked the players if they wanted to try out Animist and Exemplar: Playtesting in A Fistful of Flowers with 7 Leshies.
I feel like the timing of this playtest wasn't really conductive to its intended purpose. A lot of it overlaps the holiday season. I don't know about you, but during December I consider it a success if half of my regular TTRPG sessions go ahead.
The holidays did interfere with my playtesting. Our Tuesday evening weekly game session skipped Christmas Eve and New Years Eve. It will resume tomorrow.
I recall that most playtests are only a month. This one is a month and a half, probably due to expected breaks for the holidays.
|
|
I’d be happy with a comments box on the play test forms.
I really wanted to leave a comment on the awkwardness of the Runesmith in places. I know they pick up the sentiment in general, but it would be nice to tabulate forms.
Run the comments box through an AI for commonality and sentiment extraction, if reading all submissions seems overly daunting.
I’d be happy with a comments box on the play test forms.
I really wanted to leave a comment on the awkwardness of the Runesmith in places. I know they pick up the sentiment in general, but it would be nice to tabulate forms.
Run the comments box through an AI for commonality and sentiment extraction, if reading all submissions seems overly daunting.
There's no open comment section in the survey? Hmm.
Edit: Quote fix
|
|
I’d be happy with a comments box on the play test forms.
I really wanted to leave a comment on the awkwardness of the Runesmith in places. I know they pick up the sentiment in general, but it would be nice to tabulate forms.
Run the comments box through an AI for commonality and sentiment extraction, if reading all submissions seems overly daunting.
There's no open comment section in the survey? Hmm.
Edit: Quote fix
Ah, I see there is indeed a second link to a feedback sheet.
Reading is leet.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly miss the multiple-pass playtesting from the PF2 Playtest. I understand it's not really worth it outside of a new edition playtest, but it was so cool to see "live" updates and changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the playtest winds down and we've had so few people posting feedback or play experience here, I do hope we hear from a developer in a blog f they got a lot more feedback in surveys than we've seen here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen a lot of posters make really good, inspired and insightful posts on perceived problems both narrative and mechanical and proposed solutions, both as derived from actual play-tested games and “theorycrafted”.
I have not seen a single post from any developer. Not one. That seems…super weird. And if that is the new normal then that is beyond disappointing. I get that it was stated from the very outset that there wouldn’t be a second round of playtesting, that there would ‘t be any feedback in the blog until after the playtest period but as I stated in my “Welcome to the Playtest?” thread the radio silence has been deafening and, to tell the truth, demoralising.
The surveys for the Commander and moreso the Guardian were anemic and obviously hyper-focused on incredibly narrow data points that did not allow for other points of view that clearly the devs had zero interest in.
I haven’t looked at this batch of surveys yet. Sadly, the runesmith holds absolutely zero interest for me as a concept and this iteration of a “placeables” Necromancer repels me narratively. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is an interesting mechanical concept that has been seen before, but it’s not one I particularly want to either play or run a game in which one is being played.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's worth noting that Paizo very recently and very suddenly lost their design lead. The only speculation I'll add based on this is that this sort of abrupt change is likely to be disruptive to development, and could be at least partially responsible for the reduced developer activity we've seen lately as the company reorganizes internally.
Right that happened, I forgot that even happened....That is a minor problem but nothing that can not be worked through though. I would not like to know what Paizo needs to do to fix his leaving but hope they do well. It would be helpful but far from needed.