Frank and K, don't make me beg.

[Surgo]

It also lets magic remain awesome. I don't know about anyone else, but I like magic being awesome.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Fighter could be the baseline. It just means that 5-6 classes have to be rewritten.

I think you mean 5-6 classes and the entire spell list.

[K]

Fighter could be the baseline. It just means that 5-6 classes have to be rewritten.

I think you mean 5-6 classes and the entire spell list.

No, you could get spells much, much later. D20 modern, for example, starts giving out spells at 10th level and you end up with like 4th level spells at 20th level.

[Midnight_v]

considered making you own professional OGL stuff? Or is it too cost prohibative going up against a brand name like q-tips Uh... D&D?

[cthulhu]

I was the guy who posted that vision thread, because I did actually genuinely want to find out what they wanted to do - was having a dicussing in the back end of that frank is banned?!?! threat which is banned - because it is seriously not obvious. And then had some guy called 'sock puppet' have a go at me in a personal attack for no obvious reason in post ... 3. If you check his profile he's a known alias of someone else, but at that point I stopped caring because whats the go with that.

Anyway, one of the developers posted the actual answer and it is 'well, not what you want to do, or anything you'll ever be intrested in' and they haven't worked out what they are going to do about backwards compatibility, so I got bored with it.

[Username17]

Oh they made it quite clear shortly after I started up my campaign. They said that they were interested in all input, and that their ultimate goal was to make it the best version of D&D according to their own personal subjective standards. Which is sort of everyone's personal goal, but when they said that directly in response to asking people to standardize and objectify playtesting criteria that basically meant that they were deliberately refusing to be compared to criteria against which it was possible to succeed or fail.

So by its own criteria, 3.P will automatically be a success, so by any objective standard it will be a waste of time.

-Username17

[Jerry]

From what I skimmed over, Frank was banned because he got into an arguement with LL and Aubrey or something. Apparently, on Paizo, you aren't allowed to "fight back," if someone annoys you, you report their post and ignore them. Saying things like "you are a horrible scientist and a horrible person" is not allowed, even if it is not obviously meant to be taken seriously. In short, paizo boards are a "play nice" board.

P.S. Did Frank say this, or is it something Aubrey made up?

While it might be underhand to quote Frank in this context (this was private correspondence, in reaction to a suggestion of mine that he tone down the invective) what you will read next, in Frank's own words, might help clarify the situation.

Frank wrote:

I am polarizing. I started posting on Paizo a few weeks back and there are a number of people who hate me and another number of people who consider themselves "my supporters." That's phenomenal. If I did not use strong language, less people would hate me and less people would agree with me. And I honestly don't give a flying rat's ass if people hate me, because I'm in medical school and I'm never working in the industry again.

Being an incorrigible c*&% who uses strong language and harsh tones polarizes debate. And if you just want to accomplish as much of your agenda as possible, that's seriously a win. Look at Newt Gingrich. He is hated by a lot of people and he got thrown out of office very quickly. But in his time in office he pushed a lot of his agenda forward. Another example would be Stalin. He outright killed people who didn't agree with him and went down as one of the most hated men in history. But he did double the life expectancy of Russian women and won a multi-front war against the two largest genocidal regimes in human history (Germany and Japan).

I have an agenda. That agenda does not include being loved or even liked on the Paizo board or any board. And believe it or not, that honestly really is a rational stance that real people have. One that can be acted upon to positive effect. Using strong, dismissive language against people can push debate. By being an unreasonable voice you can change what constitutes a reasonable voice. Like FOX News or the Chinese Media.

[Username17]

That's a real quote, but it's shorn of its context deliberately, because that's how Aubrey rolls. He isn't a nice person and does not debate honestly. Which would be fine if he was actually attempting to accomplish a goal, but he's not. He's just attacking the idea of getting anything done.

-Username17

[Jerry]

That's a real quote, but it's shorn of its context deliberately, because that's how Aubrey rolls. He isn't a nice person and does not debate honestly. Which would be fine if he was actually attempting to accomplish a goal, but he's not. He's just attacking the idea of getting anything done.

-Username17

So what do you mean by your quote? What is your agenda? Why compare yourself to Fox News and the Chinese Media, who are basically supporting a vocal minority? If you did not care if people hated you, then why bother arguing with them? Also, if you're being serious, how does being an "incorrigible c*&%" help you? Paizo boards are against that in their rules. In short, how does being an "incorrigible c*&%" help prove a point? Or I am I not supposed to take what you're saying seriously?

[Nihlin]

Why compare yourself to Fox News and the Chinese Media, who are basically supporting a vocal minority? ...In short, how does being an "incorrigible c*&%" help prove a point? Or I am I not supposed to take what you're saying seriously?

Not to answer for Frank here, but Fox News et al. are relevant because you've probably heard of them. Bob Edwards, CFO at Company You Haven't Heard Of, also uses this strategy, as do legions of successful middle managers the world over - but you haven't heard of them, either. You probably have heard of Margaret Thatcher, who based a great deal of her political success on this strategy.

Polarizing opinion, drawing lines in the sand, and saying things like "you're either with us or against us" are techniques that have been used to great effect for literally thousands of years. Robert Green devotes a chapter to it in "The 33 Strategies of War," and I cite that just because I've read it lately.

The strategy is precisely the opposite of consensus-building. Instead of getting 100% agreement while shunning partisanship and polarization, you deliberately create partisanship and polarization. You make enemies, and your enemies' opposition to you helps define your side and your cause. You present your cause as a bright line of differentiation, and in doing so focus attention on that precise point in the discussion or conflict.

As a strategy, it has benefits and drawbacks. You are straight-up creating conflict and animosity by design - and while this is a big advantage in getting people to pay attention, it also generates a lot of noise.

Consider the payoff here, though: in a very short amount of time, Frank and K made "What Does Game Balance Mean, and How do We Relate to It?" into a very meaningful question on the Paizo forums and actually got a far more detailed answer from the 3.P designers than they would have gained by asking nicely. That answer happened to be other than what we might have wanted, but now we actually know.

[Jerry]

That answer happened to be other than what we might have wanted, but now we actually know.

What is important to Paizo if it is what their customer base wants. Is it?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Paizo's more interested in producing something that they can con their base into thinking they want. That's why the playtest boards are being managed to generate praise, not actual contribution.

[Jerry]

Consider the payoff here, though: in a very short amount of time, Frank and K made "What Does Game Balance Mean, and How do We Relate to It?" into a very meaningful question on the Paizo forums and actually got a far more detailed answer from the 3.P designers than they would have gained by asking nicely. That answer happened to be other than what we might have wanted, but now we actually know.

Care to link? I can't find the thread.

[Prak]

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.

and this shows why denizens get banned from Paizo. We debate in a much different manner here, we belittle, use verbal assaults and even threats in a joking manner and pretty much everyone here understands that, things do get out of hand but I've never seen it really affect people very much. Paizo expects everyone to be nice and self police. We don't do that. We're like playful hyena pups tearing at each other's throats when we argue, but it doesn't, generally, seriously hurt anyone because we know that's what happens here and that if we can't deal with it we can get the hell out.

[Jerry]

But Paizo doesn't play that way. If you don't play by their rules, you get banned.

Or Frank's just posting that way over there for the lulz. I'm fairly certain of the latter.

What's funny is that when signing up here, the "Terms of Agreement" says to "not post obscene, hateful, or sexually oriented subjects."

I think that it should be altered to something like "If you find this site offensive, then fvck off!"

[Voss]

Shit, we have terms of agreement?
Did we get those in the move?

Anyway, to answer your general inquiry, I'd say getting to the point is more important than wandering around giving everyone hugs and kisses. For about two weeks it was useful to poke around Pathfinder and see if it would become something interesting and useful- an actual improvement on the 3rd edition rules.

In some ways it was an interesting look. People who makes games tend to be wacky people. Monte Cook essentially tosses his house rules people and calls it a system. Mike Mearls tends to leave things unfinished and call it a complete game anyway. Jason... well, Jason's approach seems to be to recycle other people's shit, and just assume it will be better if it looks nice on paper. It doesn't matter how shitty it was in the first place, and any bizarre rules interactions don't seem to matter, no matter how blatant they are. He also this bizarre inability to just look at ability text and recognize that it just sucks ass. Its actually rather frightening in a way.

And, of course, he's also just a complete idiot if he really thinks that backwards compatibility is even possible when you're making changes to every major aspect of the system. Its more likely he's a disingenuous little shit who knows he's suckering the diehard Paizo/3e fans into a system they won't really want at the end of the process. Unless, of course, he can convince them that they've 'contributed', but some people will buy anything if you blow enough smoke up their ass.

[Prak]

and then there are people like me who just want 3.5 compatible material still coming out.

[JonSetanta]

and then there are people like me who just want 3.5 compatible material still coming out.

Or at least something vaguely 3.5 compatible, like how Anime d20 is.
House rules can be worked in to 'translate' if needed. It doesn't take much.

[Surgo]

Wait, we have terms of agreement now? What the fvck?

[Jerry]

Wait, we have terms of agreement now? What the fvck?

I thought that it was a funny "joke" feature or something.

[Username17]

But Paizo doesn't play that way. If you don't play by their rules, you get banned.

Actually, the crap I got warnings for weren't even against their rules. The ban sticks came down when I hadn't posted anything even directed on the threads made specifically to attack me for days. I was banned because they didn't like what I had to say.

Which isn't really important because I had already cornered them into showing what they were actually doing and I didn't want any part of it. Technically I didn't even get banned, I got temporarily suspended. No specific rules breaches were named because there really weren't any. Compared to the literally dozens of attack posts leveled in my direction, telling one of the attackers that they are a bad debater for doing it is actually taking the high road.

I didn't fail to play by their rules, I refused to verbally felate their staff. And since the Paizo boards are actually for generating praise rather than contribution, that was a far more grievous sin in their eyes.

The Paizo board is not a real testing arena. They explicitly came out against testing of all things. It's a fan club. They maintain it in order to get a pile of positive PR. They chase out people like K and myself because we make critical comments untainted by wandering tirades about how much we like the art or the feel or whatever. Whether we play by their rules or not is irrelevant. We left not because they don't want what we have to offer, though they do not, but rather because we don't want what they have to offer.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

The strategy is precisely the opposite of consensus-building. Instead of getting 100% agreement while shunning partisanship and polarization, you deliberately create partisanship and polarization.

You just need to make sure that when you draw the line in the sand most of the beach ends up on your side of it. In 3.P's case it wasn't.

[JonSetanta]

OH NO WE HAVE TERMS OF AGREEMENT get over it.

[Jerry]

But Paizo doesn't play that way. If you don't play by their rules, you get banned.

Actually, the crap I got warnings for weren't even against their rules. The ban sticks came down when I hadn't posted anything even directed on the threads made specifically to attack me for days. I was banned because they didn't like what I had to say.

Which isn't really important because I had already cornered them into showing what they were actually doing and I didn't want any part of it. Technically I didn't even get banned, I got temporarily suspended. No specific rules breaches were named because there really weren't any. Compared to the literally dozens of attack posts leveled in my direction, telling one of the attackers that they are a bad debater for doing it is actually taking the high road.

I didn't fail to play by their rules, I refused to verbally felate their staff. And since the Paizo boards are actually for generating praise rather than contribution, that was a far more grievous sin in their eyes.

The Paizo board is not a real testing arena. They explicitly came out against testing of all things. It's a fan club. They maintain it in order to get a pile of positive PR. They chase out people like K and myself because we make critical comments untainted by wandering tirades about how much we like the art or the feel or whatever. Whether we play by their rules or not is irrelevant. We left not because they don't want what we have to offer, though they do not, but rather because we don't want what they have to offer.

-Username17

Assuming you're not joking around, I think that you're taking Internet message boards too seriously. I don't go on the boards for intellectual discussions of game balance in a purely logical manner; anybody can post stuff, provided that they sign up.

[Koumei]

you're taking Internet message boards too seriously.

Didn't you know? The internet is serious fucking business. Cue the many pictures with that very message.