Frank and K, don't make me beg.

[Psychic Robot]

Please come back to Paizo. We really need you over there. Without you guys being...you guys, the stupidity quotient threatens to suffocate Pathfinder. And then there will be no one to combat the Lich-Loved or Aubrey the Douchetwat threats.

So, pretty please come back.

[Username17]

I appreciate the note of confidence, but I don't think it's going to happen. And I don't mean that because we literally can't come back until the end of next week. It just doesn't seem likely that either one of us will want to come back. We aren't valued or wanted there. And while neither one of us is thin skinned enough to go off in a huff just because people hate us, we both have important things to work on and can't be bothered putting genuine effort into a project which won't benefit from that labor.

When the Open Playtest was reported, I was very hopeful. It is after all an unprecedented attempt - it's something which could theoretically achieve the kinds of results that the distributed network of D&D fans can already achieve - breaking the system within hours of publication. Regressed repeatedly, that could make a system that was resilient enough to withstand the vast majority of campaigns - maybe even all of them. But it would take dedication to do that, and the Paizo management has refused to put that effort in.

Indeed, they've made it clear that they don't even want other people to put in that kind of effort. Jason Bulmahn straight up said that K and I were "making extra work for him" as if that was a bad thing. I've been on both sides of the development team / playtest group divide, and making more work for the dev team is the playtest group's actual job. Complaining seriously that they are doing that is disingenuous.

K and I have very different qualifications. He has a resume that includes literature and philosophy, he worked as an English teacher, a technical writer, and an editor. He's in law school. I, on the other hand am a scientist. My cv revolves around biology, ambulance work, technical writing, and playtesting. I am in medical school. We're on two different continents and don't see each other much. But both of us know how to run a test. He's better at analyzing text, I'm better at designing systems with reproducible results. But we can both do it.

And the system they have over there isn't one. If you wanted to do it right, you'd set up a basic set of Bug Reports based on severity and Frequency, and then you'd have an entirely separate section where you discuss the equally important (but completely distinct) accessibility questions of Complexity, Cogency, and Coolness. So basic severities might look something like this:

• A - An 'A' bug stops play or destroys the game world. An example of that would be The Shadow Over the Sun. Another example would be the Kokrachon from the Book of Vile Darkness. It's CR 6 and it cast's blasphemy once per day at caster level 12. It will kill your entire party with no save, which stops play and is therefore of equal severity with any infinite power loop.
  
  B - A 'B' bug severely impacts play or the campaign world. Gross balance disparities, economic inconsistencies, incorrect CRs on monsters, and the like are all B bugs because they produce a game which is not the game that is advertised. If people can fabricate or Chain Bind to get all the gold they can imagine and they can turn that into epic magic items, that's a B bug because the game claims that people of a certain level have certain magic items. If a Monk of whatever level is categorically incapable of contributing as much as other classes, that's a B bug because the game presents all of the classes as being viable in play.
  
  C - A 'C' bug has a modest impact on play. Minor balance issues and weird numeric effects at the edges of the random number generator are C bugs because the game can shrug its shoulders and move on even when they come up. Things which can be played through and have the game mostly behave as advertised, without resorting to Rule Zero to make this happen are C bugs. Monsters which are too weak for their level are almost always C bugs because nothing bad happens to the game if the PCs get extra treasure and XP for smacking around an easy challenge. If one weapon is clearly superior to others it is a C bug, because the game doesn't stop being playable if everyone uses a lucerne hammer rather than a glaive (or whatever).
  
  D - a 'D' bug is simply a matter of preference. If Rogues end up being classed as crossbow snipers and you want them to be dagger fighters, that's a D bug. There is nothing inherently wrong with characters fighting with swords or fists or golden teddy bears on sticks. So if a class is otherwise balanced, but is doing things you don't like, that's a D bug. It's a D bug because it is entirely possible that someone else does like the new stuffed animal fighting classes, and it is held up to a different standard than a mathematical anomaly would be.

That's not a secret or anything. And if you wanted to do things right, you'd do that. Which means that if you aren't doing that, it strongly hints that perhaps you don't want to do things correctly.

---

And there's good solid reasons to not want to do things correctly in this case. Imagine for the moment that the success of the playtest is determined based on how many of the voices on the voluntary board are saying positive things. That's pretty easy to imagine actually, as superficially that sounds like a pretty reasonable way to do it. If lots of people are still complaining about stuff, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is more work to be done. If lots of people are saying it's the best thing ever and changing anything now would be a step backwards, then it seems likely that it's ready for publication.

The problem here is that the board is voluntary. People who like the project will post more and people who don't like the project will leave and then not post anything at all. In short, you can get the same effect on the playtest feedback by pissing off people who are critical to the point where they leave as by actually fixing perceived problems. And this is the strategy that the folks at Paizo are employing. Giving feedback about what needs to be fixed isn't helpful. It makes Jason hostile, because discussing flaws creates more work for him. Work that he can skive off of by just banning people who report problems.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

...It is after all an unprecedented attempt - it's something which could theoretically achieve the kinds of results that the distributed network of D&D fans can already achieve - breaking the system within hours of publication. Regressed repeatedly, that could make a system that was resilient enough to withstand the vast majority of campaigns - maybe even all of them...

...set up a basic set of Bug Reports based on severity and Frequency, and then you'd have an entirely separate section where you discuss the equally important (but completely distinct) accessibility questions of Complexity, Cogency, and Coolness. So basic severities might look something like this:

• A - An 'A' bug stops play or destroys the game world. An example of that would be The Shadow Over the Sun. Another example would be the Kokrachon from the Book of Vile Darkness. It's CR 6 and it cast's blasphemy once per day at caster level 12. It will kill your entire party with no save, which stops play and is therefore of equal severity with any infinite power loop.
  
  B - A 'B' bug severely impacts play or the campaign world. Gross balance disparities, economic inconsistencies, incorrect CRs on monsters, and the like are all B bugs because they produce a game which is not the game that is advertised. If people can fabricate or Chain Bind to get all the gold they can imagine and they can turn that into epic magic items, that's a B bug because the game claims that people of a certain level have certain magic items. If a Monk of whatever level is categorically incapable of contributing as much as other classes, that's a B bug because the game presents all of the classes as being viable in play.
  
  C - A 'C' bug has a modest impact on play. Minor balance issues and weird numeric effects at the edges of the random number generator are C bugs because the game can shrug its shoulders and move on even when they come up. Things which can be played through and have the game mostly behave as advertised, without resorting to Rule Zero to make this happen are C bugs. Monsters which are too weak for their level are almost always C bugs because nothing bad happens to the game if the PCs get extra treasure and XP for smacking around an easy challenge. If one weapon is clearly superior to others it is a C bug, because the game doesn't stop being playable if everyone uses a lucerne hammer rather than a glaive (or whatever).
  
  D - a 'D' bug is simply a matter of preference. If Rogues end up being classed as crossbow snipers and you want them to be dagger fighters, that's a D bug. There is nothing inherently wrong with characters fighting with swords or fists or golden teddy bears on sticks. So if a class is otherwise balanced, but is doing things you don't like, that's a D bug. It's a D bug because it is entirely possible that someone else does like the new stuffed animal fighting classes, and it is held up to a different standard than a mathematical anomaly would be.

I'm going to copy this much to Paizo, because the rest is guaranteed to piss people of, and contrary to popular belief that is not always the best way to accomplish things (even if it feels good). But the point is (as usual) a good one, and it's possible that the folks at Pathfinder simply haven't thought in those terms yet.

[Maxus]

Catharz, you just won me a bet. Thanks.

[JonSetanta]

Wow.
They are begging you to come back? Frank n K were a bigger hit than expected.

Welp. Guess the choice comes down to dignity or fame then.
Stick with the vow never to return?
Or double the fan base & enemies?

[PhoneLobster]

Apparently this thread has offended someone in the midst of This circle jerk of retards

Oh and thanks a lot for indirectly exposing me to that level of utterly disgusting self congratulating inane dick weeds guys.

[Username17]

Just the fact that that thread is still going on proves my point better than anything I could possibly say. It's just a thread where people come in to felate each other and insult people with actual swearing that is auto-edited by the board software. It can't possibly not be against their code of conduct, but it continues because the thrust of it is pro mutual masturbation and anti science. And that's obviously what Jason wants out of the community. If it wasn't, they would have come down on the other side.

-Username17

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

If I may, I'm the Robert Harris in the thread linked to on the Paizo boards.

I want a good game. Is that so much to ask? I guess it is, from the Paizo POV. They'd rather a note on the front of their books that says, "This game was designed by nice people," than one that says, "This game was designed by smart people."

That's bullshit. I want a good game. I want input from people who know what they're doing. I want cool not suck. I want a good goddamn game. I invested a lot into D&D 3.X, and for them to say, "We're going to carry the 3.X torch, but ignore the smartest people invovled," is just straight-up dumb.

So, Frank, if you can steel yourself to giving it another shot, I'd appreciate it. And so would the game.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Hey Frank, where do classes like the Fighter and Monk fit in the list of bugs?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Hey_I_Can_Chan, I read your posts under the name of Robert Harris, and everything you said is right on.

I want a good game. Is that so much to ask? I guess it is, from the Paizo POV.

That is really the only point that matters in the end. It won't happen.

__________________

I am more interested in the status of TNE. Since Frank and K are the central designers on it, it can use the processes that would result in a good game. So is it now again on the front burner? Or is it on a hiatus?

[virgil]

Hey Frank, where do classes like the Fighter and Monk fit in the list of bugs?

He stated in the 'B' bug description that the imbalance of the Monk is one of them. I suspect that the Fighter is in a similar boat.

[Calibron]

Just when I thought my general opinion of humanity couldn't sink any lower...

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Hey Frank, where do classes like the Fighter and Monk fit in the list of bugs?

He stated in the 'B' bug description that the imbalance of the Monk is one of them. I suspect that the Fighter is in a similar boat.

Ah silly me, didn't see that How does one rate a wizard or a cleric then? Their power changes exponentially by levels because of spells. So how does one sort out the problems? Is it individual spells or the spell system?

[Maxus]

Hey Frank, where do classes like the Fighter and Monk fit in the list of bugs?

He stated in the 'B' bug description that the imbalance of the Monk is one of them. I suspect that the Fighter is in a similar boat.

Ah silly me, didn't see that How does one rate a wizard or a cleric then? Their power changes exponentially by levels because of spells. So how does one sort out the problems? Is it individual spells or the spell system?

The casters are actually in good shape, but some spell effects are way out there, like Shapechange or even Divine Power.

Frank even posted a wizard build that would let a wizard out-grapple anything.

[Leress]

[sorry for the slight off topicness]

I just don't get it. Okay so we have " continution " of 3.5 by Paizo but it is "modified" to clean up the bad things of 3.x. It also says that is going to be backwards compatible. I've look through the Alpha release and there are some good things in it. I look at the skills and since now they have been reconsolidated, how will this not make it hard to covert other classed NPCs in adventures. Also now with the major changes in some of the class there will have to be coversions of even more of the stat block. As Voss said, a fighter's stat block is completely fubared. It not just that class pretty much every class has something that has to recalculated if you are using them in older adventures. If it is not changing AC, hp, or spells it is something like new options.

Then there is the whole thing about the playtest, it is great that they are doing this. The problem arises is how are we suppose to playtest this. There is no paradigm to work towards. "the best 3.5" is too bloody vague. Many of the things that didn't work need a radical or complete over haul. In Path finder Two weapon fighting still isn't a very viable option. Many of the things that could be broken are still there. It is great that many ideas are being put on the table but it is hard to tell if an idea is "backwards compatible" enough to be even considered. I don't even know what even makes something "backward compatible" for this game. Untill I get a goal/objective/power level/etc to achieve all I am doing is just throwing spatgettii on the wall. The whole point of a playtest is to see where the system break, record where it broke, and see if there is way to fix it. If there is no agreed upon way of even playtesting it then there really is no point of doing it.

Many of the problems can't really be touch because of this backward compatibility issue, it is already past that point and might as well just make it a varient d20 system like Trued20. The backward compatiblity is the main restrain that keeps this from really becoming the best it could be and work. One may say that restiction fuel creativity but one can only be restricted so far before it is just plain damaging.

This one has it's own new problems that I see. I will start with the combat feats since you can only use one per round they can't synergise with other combat feats even if one is using the prequirement for another (exp. Dodge, mobility, spring attack chain)

[K]

I thought I might as well chime in, though Frank stated the problem pretty clearly.

I understand why Paizo has to take the public position that it does. It must seem to accept everyone's feedback because not doing so turns off customers.

The fact that they have listened to exactly one thing I've brought up and it will be in all future editions of Pathfinder is nice. The fact that this one thing was a flavor consideration is incredibly saddening.

Like the Democratic Party, Paizo needs Superdelegates because in general the masses don't have the real knowledge to make informed decisions. Paizo should have noted the 10-20 people who really seem to know what they are talking about when it comes to flavor and mechanics, then created a separate forum for those people so that they could contribute without muddling through the people who have kneejerk emotional reactions to mechanical considerations. I personally am no longer willing to wade through Aubrey the Malformed's high-minded personal insults just to get my points across, and I expect that there are a lot of other people who feel the same.

The fact that people like Frank and I will do this kind of thing for free as a stress-relieving hobby means that private considerations need to take precedence over pubic considerations. Paizo, whether they know it or not, is driven by a bunch of people who do this kind of thing for free. Even their artists and authors get paid so little that is amounts to a token payment, so they need to understand that they have to make it easy for people to contribute. I'm a normal guy who is NOT on a "crusade to change DnD for the good of all", so I'm going to back off when the shit gets too thick.

I'm actually surprised that Paizo is taking a page from WotC's book where they ignore playtest feedback and clear mechanical problems in favor of some sort of divine authority of "we are the publishers, so we know better" and they have forums just to give people something to play with rather than letting it be a incubator for a better game. It's this attitude that is going to make 4e DnD a failure, so Paizo's adherence to this model is disappointing.

I expect that some of the people I've been arguing with are in fact Paizo's staff designers using aliases(a function of the Paizo board), and they may in fact be the jackholes we have problems with. Jason B's public face seems unable to believe that people can run a ten minute playtest after something is released and find clear mechanical problems, mostly because I don't think he's doing any playtesting at all and he's farming it out to the community.

I would come back under one condition: an Ignore button that also banned people's aliases. I already have a list of people who I know resort to personal attacks rather than real argument on the merits, so the fact that the board is not moderated in any meaningful way and is full of non-contributing and opinion-spouting trolls could at least be mitigated.

[Psychic Robot]

Heh, it would be great if they were actually aliases of the developers. I can't believe that Jason got all whiny in that sorcerer thread, though...good grief.

[Kaelik]

...It is after all an unprecedented attempt - it's something which could theoretically achieve the kinds of results that the distributed network of D&D fans can already achieve - breaking the system within hours of publication. Regressed repeatedly, that could make a system that was resilient enough to withstand the vast majority of campaigns - maybe even all of them...

...set up a basic set of Bug Reports based on severity and Frequency, and then you'd have an entirely separate section where you discuss the equally important (but completely distinct) accessibility questions of Complexity, Cogency, and Coolness. So basic severities might look something like this:

• A - An 'A' bug stops play or destroys the game world. An example of that would be The Shadow Over the Sun. Another example would be the Kokrachon from the Book of Vile Darkness. It's CR 6 and it cast's blasphemy once per day at caster level 12. It will kill your entire party with no save, which stops play and is therefore of equal severity with any infinite power loop.
  
  B - A 'B' bug severely impacts play or the campaign world. Gross balance disparities, economic inconsistencies, incorrect CRs on monsters, and the like are all B bugs because they produce a game which is not the game that is advertised. If people can fabricate or Chain Bind to get all the gold they can imagine and they can turn that into epic magic items, that's a B bug because the game claims that people of a certain level have certain magic items. If a Monk of whatever level is categorically incapable of contributing as much as other classes, that's a B bug because the game presents all of the classes as being viable in play.
  
  C - A 'C' bug has a modest impact on play. Minor balance issues and weird numeric effects at the edges of the random number generator are C bugs because the game can shrug its shoulders and move on even when they come up. Things which can be played through and have the game mostly behave as advertised, without resorting to Rule Zero to make this happen are C bugs. Monsters which are too weak for their level are almost always C bugs because nothing bad happens to the game if the PCs get extra treasure and XP for smacking around an easy challenge. If one weapon is clearly superior to others it is a C bug, because the game doesn't stop being playable if everyone uses a lucerne hammer rather than a glaive (or whatever).
  
  D - a 'D' bug is simply a matter of preference. If Rogues end up being classed as crossbow snipers and you want them to be dagger fighters, that's a D bug. There is nothing inherently wrong with characters fighting with swords or fists or golden teddy bears on sticks. So if a class is otherwise balanced, but is doing things you don't like, that's a D bug. It's a D bug because it is entirely possible that someone else does like the new stuffed animal fighting classes, and it is held up to a different standard than a mathematical anomaly would be.

I'm going to copy this much to Paizo, because the rest is guaranteed to piss people of, and contrary to popular belief that is not always the best way to accomplish things (even if it feels good). But the point is (as usual) a good one, and it's possible that the folks at Pathfinder simply haven't thought in those terms yet.

It only took four posts for someone to come in with a suggestion that they ignore every bug that "doesn't come up often" IE "We don't need to fix the Economy, Shadow armies, or anything else, because DM can fix it!"

Way to go Paizo, exactly what we expected.

[Koumei]

private considerations need to take precedence over pubic considerations.

Emphasis mine. I really hope that pubic considerations don't come into the matter at all.

On a more serious note, Paizo need the smart people more than the smart people need Paizo. I'm going to support the F&K stance of "We feel no compulsion to do this, so we won't go in there if you don't realise this and make our effort actually fruitful."

Besides, I still look forward to New Edition being completely awesome and beating the stuffing out of both 3.P and 4E. Combined.

[Maxus]

Besides, I still look forward to New Edition being completely awesome and beating the stuffing out of both 3.P and 4E. Combined.

Agreed. I have much more faith in the design abilities of Frank and K, as well as the other people on here, than I now have in that of Jason Buhlman and WotC.

[Psychic Robot]

It only took four posts for someone to come in with a suggestion that they ignore every bug that "doesn't come up often" IE "We don't need to fix the Economy, Shadow armies, or anything else, because DM can fix it!"

Way to go Paizo, exactly what we expected.

I'm not seeing it. The guy said, "Ideally one would want to fix any serious problem, regardless of how uncommon it seems to be. Normally that would be a little unrealistic, but with an open playtesting community like this it might be worth shooting for."

[Kaelik]

It only took four posts for someone to come in with a suggestion that they ignore every bug that "doesn't come up often" IE "We don't need to fix the Economy, Shadow armies, or anything else, because DM can fix it!"

Way to go Paizo, exactly what we expected.

I'm not seeing it. The guy said, "Ideally one would want to fix any serious problem, regardless of how uncommon it seems to be. Normally that would be a little unrealistic, but with an open playtesting community like this it might be worth shooting for."

I'm talking about the one two posts above that, where he suggests a second axis for how common a problem is.

Say you added that, and then actually used the system to playtest something:

Suddenly someone (Frank) points out infinite Wealth at level 9 being an A class bug. What happens next?

Aubrey the Malformed and Lich-Loved jump in saying, "But we shouldn't waste time fixing that, because it rates so low on the commonality axis, because DMs can fix it."

Or

Sorcerers are a B class bug because they are inferior to Wizards. Lich-Loved: But they rate only average on the commonality axis, because most people aren't optimizers, better things to spend our time on.

The rating on the commonality axis is going to be inversely proportional to how big a bug it is, because if something is really bad (infinite wealth) then players and DMs are going to avoid it on purpose. If a class is weaker, but playable, only good optimizers will play it as a challenge, or people who don't care about being useful.

So adding a second axis as proposed serves the purpose of ranking all errors as equally not worthy of being fixed, giving Jason an excuse to continue not fixing anything, because his time is better spent making the Sorcerer more flavorful.

[virgil]

Frank indirectly stated that there would be an additional factor for any of the bugs based on frequency, though I take that to mean a flaw based on how often it's actually present (whether or not it's ignored is a seperate concern). This would make the fabricate bug rather high in frequency, because it's a core spell and any wizard can have it. At the same time, the kokrachon's A bug would actually have relatively low frequency by simple fact it's a one monster (out of legion) from a splatbook, and not even a particularly memorable one at that.

[cthulhu]

You do need to categorise bugs based on frequency - because a problem with the melee attack system is a bigger problem that one that only effects a single prestige class.

The second one has a work around (don't use it) until you fix it, the first one.. not so much.

[Maxus]

You do need to categorise bugs based on frequency - because a problem with the melee attack system is a bigger problem that one that only effects a single prestige class.

The second one has a work around (don't use it) until you fix it, the first one.. not so much.

You could say frequency is part of severity, so it's already taken into account. TWF sucking, for example would probably be a C or B class bug, (maybe a C+ bug?), whereas a prestige class ability that's crap or interacts with other abilities in very strange ways would be a C bug.