Frank, Paizo, and my thoughts

[Jerry]

Since others have asked for me to stop derailing threads, I'll condense it to just this thread.

Jerry it is very simple.

Frank cares about facts. Everything else is somewhat of a joke, and he will fell free to be an ass about it.

When Lich Love says "The DM can fix that!" that is an actual problem and needs to be stopped. Because Lick Love is making life worse for other people by convincing others to not correct problems.

If Lich Love threatened to kill Frank's family, he wouldn't give a damn.

You think threatening to kill someone's family is worse then saying something that is wrong and causes others to come away with wrong impressions.

I disagree, I assume Frank does as well. If what you have to say is a personal insult that does not affect anyone other then the person you are insulting, and they can freely choose to ignore it or respond, then it is really doing no harm.

If what you have to say is that problems that affect at least 100s of people (the people that are going to buy/run Pathfinder) should not be fixed, that is sirus biznez, and you need to be put down.

To understand this, you have to accept that facts are more important then people's feelings, and that is something you will never be able to accept.

I don't have a problem so much with Lich-loved, so much as Pathfinder's creators were also trying to fix D&D in their own way, and Frank bad-mouthed several of their ideas.

Also, saying that Lich-loved is actively making people's lives worse is weird; D&D's a game that you play to have fun, not a necessity.

If you have problems with a game, you fix them to suit your tastes if the game developers fail. Frank and K did that. And yes, saying that "the DM can fix that!" is a cop-out, because anybody can try and fix a problem.

That, and what's a problem in your games may not be a problem in other peoples' games; I've met some gamers who don't care in the least about game balance, and think that Wizards and Druids being powerful is "just the way things are."

[Psychic Robot]

1. The developers of Pathfinder asked for feedback. "Your idea is stupid" is feedback.

2. Lich-Loved didn't just love dead bodies; he loved the sound of his own voice. A number of his posts were practically filibusters.

3. People who had hope in Pathfinder were having that hoped stomped out by dumbasses like Lich-Loved. That is, in a way, actively making our lives worse.

[Jerry]

But if Frank didn't act like a jerk and just stated the problems, then he would be taken more seriously, and he probably would have more fans and people that like his work.

That, and if Frank is right, then he doesn't need to prove it or defend himself from people like Disenchanter and Lich-loved. The fact that he flamed back when said people bad-mouthed his ideas makes it seem like he's unsure of his work, and must prove that he's right.

If you're right, you're right; no need to advertise it.

[Aktariel]

If you're right, you're right; no need to advertise it.

When was the last time that this was the actually the case? People need to be led away from their incorrect ideas and shown new ones.

Frank just likes to use a sledgehammer to do so.

[Jerry]

If you're right, you're right; no need to advertise it.

When was the last time that this was the actually the case? People need to be led away from their incorrect ideas and shown new ones.

Frank just likes to use a sledgehammer to do so.

Since when was the last time someone on the internet said "Oh my god, how could I be so wrong?! Thanks for insulting and belittling my ideas, I've seen the light now!"

Frank's tone just seems to alienate him from people that may have otherwise liked his ideas.

[Calibron]

Frank has explained the reasons behind his actions before, while you were present, I'll reiterate for your benefit.

Being loud and controversial gets you and your ideas noticed and forces a response. Frank never went into the pathfinder playtest forum with any delusions of the developers looking at his proposals and adopting them simply because they made sense and were leaps and bounds above anything they could come up with, quite rightly so seeing as how they've not only avoided changes so sweeping and controversial as the Tomes, but have avoided repairing or even changing any of the negative dynamics or core problems entirely. They tweaked the rules just enough to put on a good show for the more gullible/trusting half of the customer base and called it a day. If they had actually been planning on revamping D&D to be more playable at all levels and balanced they would have actually done something resembling this task, and may very well have incorporated a lot of Tome material after Frank repeatedly called attention to it. The effort, in fact all the efforts from various quarters to get anything positive accomplished, was entirely in vain, since the entire Pathfinder endeavor was a "do as little as possible while still making a decent profit" scheme rather than a "make a quality original project and prey upon people's hate and fear of 4th ED for a good profit" scheme.

P.S. shut up.

[Leress]

As Psychic said, It was an "open" playtest, that mean if someone thinks a part is shit then it is supposed to be discussed. It is not an "OMG, U FICKS MY DnD, Oh blessed gods!", dicksucking. The Pathfinder not only kept many of the old broken parts, it made new ones (Bonded Item).

What burns me the most of about the open playtest is that anyone who actually brought up good ideas were just thrown aside and never really mentioned again. There was no guidelines to actually playtest so results were most likely skewed in all kinds of directions.

Squirelloid made headway on those forums so that's good. The whole concept of backwards compatibility was shot in the face with many of rewrites making NPCs in adventures needing a total rewrite.

Many of the ideas in Pathfinder are just mostly old ideas with prettier pictures. There are somethings that are good in Pathfinder...The Rogue (Seriously, adding more awesome to an awesome class is only good)

Also, saying that Lich-loved is actively making people's lives worse is weird; D&D's a game that you play to have fun, not a necessity.

If you are talking about something on a forum it is part of your life. Hobbies are still part of your life and somebody doing annoying things like not really contributing to feedback messes up the whole thing

If you have problems with a game, you fix them to suit your tastes if the game developers fail. Frank and K did that. And yes, saying that "the DM can fix that!" is a cop-out, because anybody can try and fix a problem.

Then there would be no real point of buying nor doing feedback for Pathfinder. Here is the thing if you are getting paid to make something and you ask for feedback you damn sure that people will go through it with a fine tooth comb. There is no time to kiss ass. That applies to pretty much any thing that is playtested.

That, and what's a problem in your games may not be a problem in other peoples' games; I've met some gamers who don't care in the least about game balance, and think that Wizards and Druids being powerful is "just the way things are."

If those people don't have a problem then it shouldn't really matter if the other person want to have it changed. They can just ignore the changes and just play their game. You are kind of riding both sides of the fence with your statements, Jerry.

[Username17]

Frank's tone just seems to alienate him from people that may have otherwise liked his ideas.

Does that happen for FOX news? Of course not! Putting things in harsh tones makes people listen to you. They may hate you, but they'll lsten. If in addition to a strident opening you then make a strong case, people who listen to you may be persuaded.

A harsh tone and no backing up argument will just make people angry and weary. They'll shut you out and be rid of you. A strong argument phrased in nice language will get skipped over and ignored.

The problem at Pathfinder is that it turns out that it doesn't matter whether your argument is persuasive or not, because Jason isn't really looking for feedback, he's looking for praise. So if your statement is "this idea is unworkable, do something else" it doesn't matter whether your argument is strong or you are well liked. Jason seriously does not intend to scrap his ideas like that, and if you are making persuasive arguments to the effect that he should, he will endeavor to drive you away.

Recall that I actually got a ban flag over there over a thread where I didn't break their Code of Conduct. They just didn't like my message. K and I both were called out specifically as presenting the kind of input that they didn't want. And since we had rather different tones on that board - the "kind" of input would therefore be critical input.

---

The thing to realize is that you will not ever get all gamers to agree on anything. All you can get is a market share of gaming opinions. And frankly if you don't have a multi-million dollar marketing budget behind you, that market share is going to be a bullshit tiny amount. How many people really use my stuff? Dozens? Hundreds? In the big scheme of things, that's very small. PDF sales are incredibly small by comparison to print sales even for 3rd party games.

So anecdotes about how a harsh tongue has alienated one person or another means fuck all. If you can piss off two people and pull in a third by being vocal, you're actually ahead. Because frankly people who don't like you can at worst simply not use your material. Exactly what they would have done had they not known about you because you were less vocal.

But the deal with Lich Loved is that he didn't start a personal crusade against me because I was rude. Lots of people over there are rude, and lots of people who were debating me were ruder than I was by a substantial margin. He went on his personal crusade against me because the idea of applying the scientific method to the game and getting genuine answers offended him. He straight up even said that.

All the insults, all the character assassination, all the endless diatribes about how my methodology was bad for the game, none of it had to do with the way I personally behaved. It was all aimed at the meat of my real message: that things could be right or wrong and that you could use mathematics and consistent testing procedures to demonstrate this to be the case.

-Username17

[Leress]

If you're right, you're right; no need to advertise it.

When was the last time that this was the actually the case? People need to be led away from their incorrect ideas and shown new ones.

Frank just likes to use a sledgehammer to do so.

Since when was the last time someone on the internet said "Oh my god, how could I be so wrong?! Thanks for insulting and belittling my ideas, I've seen the light now!"

Frank's tone just seems to alienate him from people that may have otherwise liked his ideas.

*raises hand* *points at Runic Knight thread*

[K]

I've been watching Paizo for a few months, and as far as I can tell the people concerned with playable mechanics ditched the place a while back. The people that are left are only concerned with "coolness" or whether something fits their particular conception of a class or some other thing.

Frank was just the most vocal, and thus identifiable, person to be driven out. If they had simply given only the flavor text of the classes with none of the crunch, then they'd be getting the exact same feedback.

Paizo's forum system lets them use aliases, and so as far as I can tell they are the actual people that did the driving out of the critical thinkers so that only the storytellers would be left (and all critical thinkers/storytellers were encouraged to leave as well).

The people that they selected to have stay really are of the opinion that "I don't care about balance, and I wouldn't even notice inbalance, but my opinion on the rules should matter." That's an paraphrased quote from one of the more obnoxious bastards.

At the end of the day, critical thinkers aren't going to take crap just so that someone else can make all the money on top of taking all the credit. That's illogical, and critical thinkers are anything but illogical.

Paizo is pulling a 3.5, which means that they are only changing enough to sell a new edition. The real crime is that are doing it under the guise of making a better game, and that they wasted so many people's time doing it.

To Paizo, I must say: do your tawdry little scam, but damn you for playing with out hopes and making us all a little more jaded.

[Jerry]

Frank's tone just seems to alienate him from people that may have otherwise liked his ideas.

Does that happen for FOX news? Of course not! Putting things in harsh tones makes people listen to you. They may hate you, but they'll lsten. If in addition to a strident opening you then make a strong case, people who listen to you may be persuaded.

But the whole "any publicity is good publicity" doesn't work for the better, unless your entire scheme is to act like an attention addict.

But when you say that putting things in a harsh tone makes people listen, that didn't seem to work for you; people eventually just seemed to tune your tirades out on various message boards. Sure, you have a bunch of good ideas for D&D, but there's a probability that the things tuned out will be your good ideas.

So, finally, I apologize to everyone here for being annoying. I'll drop it, and take a break from here.

Paizo and WotC just appeal to the majority just to get a profit margin, and that's standard business practice, and tireless scientific analysis isn't always going to be a major seller.

[RandomCasualty2]

The problem at Pathfinder is that it turns out that it doesn't matter whether your argument is persuasive or not, because Jason isn't really looking for feedback, he's looking for praise.

This is pretty much all that needs to be said about the Pathfinder "playtest".

But the deal with Lich Loved is that he didn't start a personal crusade against me because I was rude. Lots of people over there are rude, and lots of people who were debating me were ruder than I was by a substantial margin. He went on his personal crusade against me because the idea of applying the scientific method to the game and getting genuine answers offended him. He straight up even said that.

Yeah, There are a lot of gamers out there who use the tactic of burying their head in the sand whenever something they don't like about an RPG comes out. They think that if they can't see the imbalance, that the game is somehow better, and thus it's anathema to talk to them about how the game may be broken.

Some of them simply do this because they believe that dissecting any game makes it less fun. There are always that group of casual players that simply want to play the game on a simplistic unanalyzed level. Maybe they just don't' like going dumpster diving for crap to be competitive, or maybe they just think the game is more fun when characters aren't made 100% brutally efficient. This group legitimately probably has experience where a high level wizard didn't dominate, because he played horribly and chose the wrong spells.

Then there's the other group of antisocial powergamers who deep down just don't want a balanced game. They want to keep on going with the Ars Magica system of fighters being side kicks and wizards being all powerful. And naturally, this is because they always play spellcasters and like making the fighter players feel small in the pants. It's a lot tougher to go on a power trip when you have to share power. And they get by through claiming that "Oh, D&D is all situational" or "the fighter is the master of nonmagical combat" (whatever the fuck that means). But by showing scientifically how they're wrong, they're exposed for the abusive type of power gamers that they are.

[Jerry]

The problem at Pathfinder is that it turns out that it doesn't matter whether your argument is persuasive or not, because Jason isn't really looking for feedback, he's looking for praise.

This is pretty much all that needs to be said about the Pathfinder "playtest".

Seconded.

But really, what did you expect from the Internet? People simply shrugging their shoulders and saying "Let's just agree to disagree?" Everything is a big issue on the Internet.

[virgil]

I've brought this up before. I've seen this in action from both personal activity and witnessing others attempting. When it comes to problems with RPGs, putting Frank's words in nice terms doesn't get you anywhere.

At best, it gets uncommented and it falls into obscurity. Generally, people jump out of the woodworks and get passive-aggressive about how you're wrong using illogical-yet-emotional arguments that make those around them gather and decry your words as bad.

[Jerry]

I've brought this up before. I've seen this in action from both personal activity and witnessing others attempting. When it comes to problems with RPGs, putting Frank's words in nice terms doesn't get you anywhere.

At best, it gets uncommented and it falls into obscurity. Generally, people jump out of the woodworks and get passive-aggressive about how you're wrong using illogical-yet-emotional arguments that make those around them gather and decry your words as bad.

I get it now;

On the Internet, there are so many forms of stupidity and ignorance that I instinctively tune it out when Frank says something that strikes me as dumb and ignorant. From this, I tune out the point that he was trying to make.

[Jerry]

1.) Recall that I actually got a ban flag over there over a thread where I didn't break their Code of Conduct.

2.) The thing to realize is that you will not ever get all gamers to agree on anything. All you can get is a market share of gaming opinions. And frankly if you don't have a multi-million dollar marketing budget behind you, that market share is going to be a bullshit tiny amount. How many people really use my stuff? Dozens? Hundreds? In the big scheme of things, that's very small. PDF sales are incredibly small by comparison to print sales even for 3rd party games.

To the first: Being rude was against the Code of Conduct. That, and you merely got suspended, not banned, from what I heard. In a just world, Aubrey, Lich-loved, Disenchanter, you, and K would have been suspended for breaking the rules. That, and many other posters there.

To the second: So why does it seem to me that you act like you are championing the cause that you are helping the vast majority of gamers when so few read your work or want to adopt your rules? What are you going to do, force them to accept your help? I can empathize with the fact that you want people to care for problems in the game, but what are you going to do if most gamers don't want to correct the problems?

Just pander to the ones that accept your views. You're not going to convince people like Lich-loved of your views, so such time would be better spent among the people that like you, not WotC loyalists and such that are extreme fan-boys that don't want to admit that there are problems.

quite rightly so seeing as how they've not only avoided changes so sweeping and controversial as the Tomes, but have avoided repairing or even changing any of the negative dynamics or core problems entirely.

I can understand the problem with avoiding the negative aspects, but I wouldn't want to make money off of someone else's work and claim it as my own. Frank didn't want to work for Paizo, so why should the Paizo developers adopt his rules?

2. Lich-Loved didn't just love dead bodies; he loved the sound of his own voice.

Frank seems the same way; a lot of his posts are long, and the PM quote from Aubrey the Malformed (which Frank acknowledged) was long and unnecessary. Basically, all that Frank needed to say was "I need to be a jerk to empathize my point," not a long paragraph.

If those people don't have a problem then it shouldn't really matter if the other person want to have it changed. They can just ignore the changes and just play their game. You are kind of riding both sides of the fence with your statements, Jerry.

Frank said in a Paizo post some time ago that if you use ad hoc rulings to to change D&D to suit your game, then you're not playing D&D, you're playing Magic Tea Party.

He acted in that post like other people were playing the game wrong, and that he knew the right way, no matter how much fun that they had.

[Prak]

If you're right, you're right; no need to advertise it.

When was the last time that this was the actually the case? People need to be led away from their incorrect ideas and shown new ones.

Frank just likes to use a sledgehammer to do so.

Since when was the last time someone on the internet said "Oh my god, how could I be so wrong?! Thanks for insulting and belittling my ideas, I've seen the light now!"

Frank's tone just seems to alienate him from people that may have otherwise liked his ideas.

I think Frank uses his tone as a shit filter, if the people are really stupid enough that they can't understand we post in a different way here, and that everyone isn't always nice, then we really don't need them, and they can go on their merry way and be dumbasses.

[Jerry]

I think Frank uses his tone as a shit filter, if the people are really stupid enough that they can't understand we post in a different way here, and that everyone isn't always nice, then we really don't need them, and they can go on their merry way and be dumbasses.

An excuse is still an excuse.

Frank doesn't post differently on other message boards. Why should the rule that you can act rude here means that you can act rude on other boards, no matter what their rules are?

Off-topic:

Eh, I'm tired of posting on this board.

I think that Koumei said "Why congratulate developers when they do their job right?"

But if you just complain and don't congratulate someone when they do a good job, you look as though that you hate D&D and that you'll never be satisfied.

I realize that you like Frank and K's Tomes, but if you act like nobody else (except for posters here) is a good d20 designer, you come off as elitist.

[Leress]

It was not so much as "adopt" his rules so much as "hey, look at this major problem. How are you going to fix it?"

Then when he purposed ways of fixing it a number of people shat on it, but didn't really give an alternative except "the DM wouldn't allow that" ... So anytime a real problem was brought up or even when someone had a good solution it was ignored at best or the shat on at worse.

There were people on those thread that were acting a lot worse than Frank and were not suspended. Hell, Frank when to PM with Aubrey, but Aubrey brought that out into a thread. While that is not a violation of the CoC it was very poor form. Lich made a thread about the Same Game test, but didn't offer a real alternative.

The people who did playtesting were very helpful, but that is only one part of the the "playtesting" process. Playtesting means you purposely try to break the game and then you see if that break can be repeated. If it is something that could easily be fixed, then make a possible solution and try again, does it break? This is repeated until the problem is fixed or is pushed to a desired distance from the game. Most of the people on the broad didn't want to do that because it is fucking tedious, but that is what playtesting contains.

I should have know that is bullshit was coming when I read JB sentence about no one taking rogue past 2 level.

Also another thing, in a playtest people shouldn't praise you for getting shit to work properly. They should only tell you the shit that breaks and how they broke it. There is a whole thread about "what they did right."

[Talisman]

But if you just complain and don't congratulate someone when they do a good job, you look as though that you hate D&D and that you'll never be satisfied.

I realize that you like Frank and K's Tomes, but if you act like nobody else (except for posters here) is a good d20 designer, you come off as elitist.

Agreed.

Frank's tone puts me off...a lot. When I stop and consider the logic he offers, he's usually right, but his tone make him appear to be an angry, ranting troll. He tends to assume a "me vs. them" attitude, which only puts other posters on the defensive.

virgileso posted to the effect that polite arguments get ignored (paraphrase). I disagree. Personally, whether I'm soliciting critiques on my own work or observing someone else's, I'm more likely to read a post that's polite, rather than one that's angry and insulting.

[Leress]

Eh, I'm tired of posting on this board.

Okay

I think that Koumei said "Why congratulate developers when they do their job right?"

But if you just complain and don't congratulate someone when they do a good job, you look as though that you hate D&D and that you'll never be satisfied.

It's a bloody playtest, giving praise is a waste of time. Just assume that any part that doesn't have problem is good to go.

I realize that you like Frank and K's Tomes, but if you act like nobody else (except for posters here) is a good d20 designer, you come off as elitist.

There are a number of good d20 designers - Monte when he has an editor to reign him in, Fantasy Flight pretty much knows what they are doing.

[Jerry]

There are a number of good d20 designers - Monte when he has an editor to reign him in, Fantasy Flight pretty much knows what they are doing.

I'm not referring to everyone here by my previous comment, just a few.

[Jerry]

Also another thing, in a playtest people shouldn't praise you for getting shit to work properly. They should only tell you the shit that breaks and how they broke it. There is a whole thread about "what they did right."

It wasn't just playtests that Frank criticizes; he criticizes a lot of existing rules and doesn't always give constructive criticism; many times, he just attacks people like Caedrus. Frank was treating Caedrus like he was a professional game designer, and seemed angry that some guy on the Internet couldn't write a class properly.

Frank's standards are too high for Internet message board posters.

[Leress]

If Caedrus was offended by what Frank posted he could have just reported Frank...bring that old news up has nothing to do with the Paizo situation.

He does give constructive criticism.
*points at my Runic Knight thread*

[Jerry]

If Caedrus was offended by what Frank posted he could have just reported Frank...bring that old news up has nothing to do with the Paizo situation.

He does give constructive criticism.
*points at my Runic Knight thread*

I've seen that, but he doesn't always.

When he said on a Paizo board that the people who were silent on the good things but critical on the bad things needed to "shut up," he immediately lost any credibility that he had, because he criticized others for doing the opposite.

He's just angry at all sides.