Pathfinder Is Still Bad

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:40 am

It probably means an FAQ powered something up or didn't nerf fighters and monks as hard as SKR's realism demands

malak · Post by **malak** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:27 am

Kaelik wrote:
malak wrote:
ishy wrote:Interesting note: one of the reasons why SKR quit working for Paizo, was that he was forced to defend FAQ rulings he did not personally agree with.
Bah, that's just minimum expected professional behaviour. You can fight a decision internally as much as you want, but never carry that disagreement into the public.
Not really. There is a crucial distinction between "not shit talking" and "told it is your job to defend the stupid shit someone else said" and very few people actually have that second one, and they are almost always PR people who have experience doing that.

Yes really. On the Paizo boards, Paizo employees should pretty much just shut up about their own personal opinion on FAQ rulings and follow the company line. Jason and SKR getting into a flame war about rules sure would be very funny, I guess, but would not help the company one bit.

Also, it is doubtful that SKR would make better rulings were he the boss.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:10 am

malak wrote:
Kaelik wrote:
malak wrote:
Bah, that's just minimum expected professional behaviour. You can fight a decision internally as much as you want, but never carry that disagreement into the public.
Not really. There is a crucial distinction between "not shit talking" and "told it is your job to defend the stupid shit someone else said" and very few people actually have that second one, and they are almost always PR people who have experience doing that.
Yes really. On the Paizo boards, Paizo employees should pretty much just shut up about their own personal opinion on FAQ rulings and follow the company line. Jason and SKR getting into a flame war about rules sure would be very funny, I guess, but would not help the company one bit.

Also, it is doubtful that SKR would make better rulings were he the boss.

Hey you fucking idiot. Learn to fucking read. Like, I literally already explained the fucking difference in the post you quoted, so this is 100% redundant for people who are not idiots, but again:

1) It is perfectly reasonable to say that Paizo developers should not shit talk there own stupid FAQ.

2) It is not perfectly reasonable, and in fact, is almost never the case, that someone developer is told that every time some random person on the internet shit talks the FAQ, it is his personal job to defend the FAQ, and if he doesn't show up and start arguing with that person, then he is failing at his job.

SEE THE DISTINCTION? Wholly fucking shit how are you this dumb.

People who are paid to do 2 are fucking PR people, not developers.

malak · Post by **malak** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:21 pm

Kaelik wrote:2) It is not perfectly reasonable, and in fact, is almost never the case, that someone developer is told that every time some random person on the internet shit talks the FAQ, it is his personal job to defend the FAQ, and if he doesn't show up and start arguing with that person, then he is failing at his job.

So I guess it's no problem for you to show a quote by SKR where he says that he was told

Kaelik wrote: that every time some random person on the internet shit talks the FAQ, it is his personal job to defend the FAQ, and if he doesn't show up and start arguing with that person, then he is failing at his job.

and not just to shut up on rulings he disagrees with on the Paizo board?

Pixels · Post by **Pixels** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:48 pm

ishy wrote:Interesting note: one of the reasons why SKR quit working for Paizo, was that he was forced to defend FAQ rulings he did not personally agree with.

This is what you were discussing. Whether or not SKR actually said it does not have any impact on the arguments you made stemming from this statement.

Do carry on though. I enjoy watching goalposts dance to and fro.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:23 pm

If you want a source, he also wrote a post on enworld. I don't know how to link directly to a post there, but it is on page 4, you have to scroll down a little though.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:06 pm

The relevant quote:

SKR wrote:I was forced to be the FAQ guy, which meant I had to defend FAQs I disagreed with or was overridden about. Which is another reason why I chose to leave.

Please don't post things as truth when they're easily proven as speculation or error.

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:55 am

SKR's whole thing with comparing people who take trap options to trying to fight a balor with water balloons was above and beyond the call of duty.

He could have just said trap options flavor the game, and reward system mastery, and can be fun for Timmy. Saying Timmy can go shove his water balloon fighter up his own asshole; he doesn't get to be relevant to the adventure? That takes some good faith in the company line.

malak · Post by **malak** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:05 am

Pixels wrote:
ishy wrote:Interesting note: one of the reasons why SKR quit working for Paizo, was that he was forced to defend FAQ rulings he did not personally agree with.
This is what you were discussing. Whether or not SKR actually said it does not have any impact on the arguments you made stemming from this statement.

Do carry on though. I enjoy watching goalposts dance to and fro.

There' s a difference between 'every developer has to go out and defend FAQ rulings in public' and 'one developer is responsible for the FAQ, and has to defend the rulings made in the FAQ'.

SKR was the FAQ guy.

It's the minimal amount of professionalism for the FAQ guy to defend the FAQ instead of challenging its rulings in public.

No matter how stupid these rulings may be.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:55 am

malak wrote:
Pixels wrote:
ishy wrote:Interesting note: one of the reasons why SKR quit working for Paizo, was that he was forced to defend FAQ rulings he did not personally agree with.
This is what you were discussing. Whether or not SKR actually said it does not have any impact on the arguments you made stemming from this statement.

Do carry on though. I enjoy watching goalposts dance to and fro.
There' s a difference between 'every developer has to go out and defend FAQ rulings in public' and 'one developer is responsible for the FAQ, and has to defend the rulings made in the FAQ'.

SKR was the FAQ guy.

It's the minimal amount of professionalism for the FAQ guy to defend the FAQ instead of challenging its rulings in public.

No matter how stupid these rulings may be.

Except that he wasn't the FAQ guy, he was the guy who didn't get to decide what the FAQ said, but did have to defend what other people put in the FAQ.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 4:33 pm

He wasn't allowed to keep his mouth shut?

Slade · Post by **Slade** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:05 pm

Wow, SKR if truthful, says he championed the rights that Vows should be free option (not costing Still Mind), Brass knuckles should jut boost unarmed not be own weapons (he was overruled at the company)...

Maybe, just maybe he learned his lesson in WotC and tried to be better, but was told in Pazo, by people who had stupid ideas, that it had to be a shitty option each time.
Since Paizo didn't improve after he left it seems logical. But then we have to believe that SKR learned his lesson and isn't just saying with his 20/20 hindsight ("of course it wasn't me, it was those other paizo designers. "

8d8 · Post by **8d8** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:10 pm

Are we seriously having a discussion about SKR that depends on inferences born from speculation? Throwing logic and discussion at a unicorn, seriously.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:15 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:He wasn't allowed to keep his mouth shut?

No, that is the whole point. People are making fun of him for voraciously defending stupid FAQ entries that he personally thinks are stupid as shit, and is saying so now that he no longer works there. His defense is that he had to defend those things.

People are not making fun of him for insulting FAQ entries he never talked about, but ones he specifically defended.

So it looks like someone literally sat him down at some point and said:

1) No you don't get to decide what the FAQ says. We do!

2) If you see someone criticizing FAQ entries on our forums, your job is to tell them how great the ruling is, even if it is one of those ones you hate, and we decided on.

Which basically means they changed his position from developer to PR guy, so that seems like a good reason for quitting to me.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:20 am

He wasn't very good at his job, then. Though that is often why people quit.

Some feats are there to make the others look good by comparison, like Toughness. If your job is to pretend they are an awesome and valid choice and make the players feel good about themselves by out-smarting you, then that's your fucking job. Being the official company idiot.

But breaking character so severely afterward, it's poor form. Monte Cook, for instance, didn't feel the need to hang shit on the 5e team in public (or the 3e team that replaced him, for that matter), other than to thank a limited set of them on the way out. Skip Williams defended the hell out of the 3.0 Monk, and then defended the hell out of the 3.5 Monk without drawing breath, when everyone knows they're just there to make Fighters and Thieves feel slightly better about their living conditions.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:32 pm

tussock wrote:He wasn't very good at his job, then. Though that is often why people quit.

Some feats are there to make the others look good by comparison, like Toughness. If your job is to pretend they are an awesome and valid choice and make the players feel good about themselves by out-smarting you, then that's your fucking job. Being the official company idiot.

But breaking character so severely afterward, it's poor form. Monte Cook, for instance, didn't feel the need to hang shit on the 5e team in public (or the 3e team that replaced him, for that matter), other than to thank a limited set of them on the way out. Skip Williams defended the hell out of the 3.0 Monk, and then defended the hell out of the 3.5 Monk without drawing breath, when everyone knows they're just there to make Fighters and Thieves feel slightly better about their living conditions.

1) He was hired to be a developer. While he probably wasn't very good at that job either, it sounds like he might have been above average at Piazo. I signed on to be a lawyer, if someone told me tomorrow that my new job was PR guy, I would be fucking bad at my job too.

2) "Breaking Character" afterword is not poor form. They aren't paying him any more. He has absolutely no obligation to continue defending stupid decisions that he disagreed with. To say that someone paying you money for a week means you can never ever ever for the rest of your life disagree with the things they paid you to say is fucking stupid.

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:49 pm

Kaelik wrote:
2) "Breaking Character" afterword is not poor form. They aren't paying him any more. He has absolutely no obligation to continue defending stupid decisions that he disagreed with.

He has no obligation, agreed. But that's not necessarily what "poor form" means. Take it to mean "long-term self interest", for example. Bad-mouthing your former employer has severe negative consequences for future employment.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:25 pm

rasmuswagner wrote:
Kaelik wrote:
2) "Breaking Character" afterword is not poor form. They aren't paying him any more. He has absolutely no obligation to continue defending stupid decisions that he disagreed with.
He has no obligation, agreed. But that's not necessarily what "poor form" means. Take it to mean "long-term self interest", for example. Bad-mouthing your former employer has severe negative consequences for future employment.

If you don't work at pathfinder, and you criticize pathfinder rules that suck, and talk about how you wanted to implement better ones, there is literally absolutely no way that can look bad unless the other company is trying to hire a PR person and not a developer.

Since this is the ostensible reason for his departure, he sure doesn't seem to want a PR position, so there is literally no downside to talking like a developer instead of a PR goon.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 5:38 pm

Kaelik wrote:If you don't work at pathfinder, and you criticize pathfinder rules that suck, and talk about how you wanted to implement better ones, there is literally absolutely no way that can look bad unless the other company is trying to hire a PR person and not a developer.

That might be the case in non-ridiculous industries, but consider this depressing thought for a moment: the mentality of authority figures from places such as RPG.net is not an aberration when it comes to the rest of the industry. That is, the owners of various TTRPG properties are quite willing to sabotage the quality of their own product in order to assuage their own egos.

Viewed in that light, SKR's frankness was indeed a bad career move. He showed some spine and independence, small as it was, and has thus marked himself as a threat to the groupthink and inferiority-superiority complex of the petty minds that direct TTRPGs.

K · Post by K » Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:03 pm

Every time insiders at WotC break off, they seem to detail a highly dysfunctional environment where getting anything done requires five or more bosses who all have veto power specifically about that content (not general oversight) and can force directives onto the authors. No one is responsible because everyone is responsible, and thus no one is empowered. When the ax does fall, it's becomes a clusterfuck of fingerpointing and alliances that damages morale for years.

Basically, it's the worst possible environment for creative work and explains everything about the quality of work that has been produced at WotC since it was acquired by Hasbro.

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:51 am

Kaelik wrote:
rasmuswagner wrote:
Kaelik wrote:
2) "Breaking Character" afterword is not poor form. They aren't paying him any more. He has absolutely no obligation to continue defending stupid decisions that he disagreed with.
He has no obligation, agreed. But that's not necessarily what "poor form" means. Take it to mean "long-term self interest", for example. Bad-mouthing your former employer has severe negative consequences for future employment.
If you don't work at pathfinder, and you criticize pathfinder rules that suck, and talk about how you wanted to implement better ones, there is literally absolutely no way that can look bad unless the other company is trying to hire a PR person and not a developer.

Since this is the ostensible reason for his departure, he sure doesn't seem to want a PR position, so there is literally no downside to talking like a developer instead of a PR goon.

What color is the sky on your planet, and would you like to buy a slightly used bridge? That is naive bordering on autistic.

Covent · Post by **Covent** » Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:49 pm

I have been running a Pathfinder game using the Mythic rules for a while now and while it does have some serious and gaping issues I have found myself enjoying it. My players have also expressed their enjoyment of the differences mythic brings to the game.

Please understand I am not trying to defend either Pathfinder or Mythic, I am mostly writing this due to the fact that this game and the extensive house-ruling I have had to do to make Mythic "Sort-of" work has made me take a hard look at my regular Pathfinder game and realize how many "house-rules/gentlemen's agreements/understandings" I have in place on both the player and GM sides of the table.

This spurred me to start looking at each of my Pathfinder books and the game as a whole and start taking some notes. I shortly came to the conclusion that no-one could play this game as written and it needs quite a bit of work.

I was talking to a few friends and starting to write some stuff down, when I realized I was basically about to try and rewrite Pathfinder... The thought came to me "This is how Heart-Breakers come to be."

In short I had an epiphany and then a laugh at my own hubris. I am working on a rewrite but honestly I suspect it will never see the light of day outside of my personal gaming group.

Well enough rambling, I am sure this is old hat to everyone here but while I had realized such things as LWQW and CMD vs CMB scaling, the extent of the issues did not really come as a surprise it was just sobering when I really started to look at them all lain out.

It also left me realizing that their are some good seeds of ideas in pathfinder books, such as Mythic and WOP, they are just usually rushed, incomplete, and executed poorly. I am kinda in a place where all of Pathfinder feels like that right now.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:33 pm

Apparently, the Monster Summoner's Handbook has a new archetype for the cleric. And it's a really good archetype, too, handing out Augment Summons and Superior Summons as a bonus feat along with letting you spontaneously cast Summon Monster. And this is among the other things the game lets you do such as providing a metamagic feat (and thus rod) that lets you apply the Giant template to your summons at +1 level.

If there was a way for non-evil clerics to cast Summon Monster as a standard action without relying on that crack-ass Sacred Summons feat it'd be all I ever play in Pathfinder when I didn't want to sandbag.

Axebird · Post by **Axebird** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:40 pm

Combines pretty well with the Magical Lineage trait as well. Pick it up through Additional Traits and retrain it to whatever summon monster spell you're going to use to summon bruisers whenever you gain a new spell level and you can summon nothing but giant monsters all day without relying on rods.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:05 am

Question: based on the last few dozen pages, I'm wondering: should the title of this thread be edited to "Pathfinder is actually pretty good?"