Pathfinder 1E WotC's playtest and Paizo's playtest -- how do they compare?

[variant]

Well, at least WotC didn't ban people from their forums for any sort of criticism of the game so props for that.

That place is a cesspool though. I wonder if they even read their own forums.

 

[Blackwarder]

That place is a cesspool though. I wonder if they even read their own forums.

Probably not, too much vitriol to wade through to bother I imagine, it's gotten better though but perhaps that's because I discovered the ignore option...

Warder

 

[Zardnaar]

Main difference was PF was a beta test and D&DN an alpha test. Some decent concepts like the 1d6+1 at will was kind of removed from wizards.

WoTC doesn't read the forums but they do have 1-2 mods who forward feedback from the forums upstairs so to speak so they culled some hot button issues to be addressed in L&L articles. One key difference was that with PF you had a very good idea what to expect. Not sure how D&DN is going to go.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I was in the very early pathfinder playtest, and was told that I was 'going to over board' when I made my very first suggestion, and now years later when I am forced to play there system (well only if I wish to continue to play with 2 of my oldest friends since they can only game once every other week and it is a pathfinder game) I find I still have the same complaint I did all those years ago.

I have seen some of my problems fixed with next, and some I see have not, the ones not I have been told to wait for optional mods...

from my point of view WotC listened to me and Piazo did not.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As far as whether or not they listened, I don't know about either of them.

One key difference between the two though, is the bizarre hoops that WotC wants you to jump through. You have to sign up, you have to agree not to discuss certain specifics, the only feedback they seem at all interested in is the occasional surveys (in which they only seem interested in hearing about minor issues; they're not soliciting any feedback on the heart of the system). Paizo just let you download the thing without signing up and have at it.

 

[billd91]

Well, at least WotC didn't ban people from their forums for any sort of criticism of the game so props for that.

Paizo didn't ban anyone for criticism. They banned people for posting like complete asshats and being rude to virtually everybody. Since that's against board rules, they were right to turf them out.

 

[Wicht]

Well, at least WotC didn't ban people from their forums for any sort of criticism of the game so props for that.

I don't remember anyone getting banned for criticizing the game. People still do that on Paizo's forums to this day, as a matter of fact. I do remember one or two who I will not name who were banned for being consistently belligerent and rude. I think there was a general feeling of relief when it happened in the instances I remember.

 

[Ahnehnois]

By comparison, WotC's unmoderated forums have effectively banned anyone who has some sense and doesn't want to deal with all the flame.

 

[Gundark]

Well, at least WotC didn't ban people from their forums for any sort of criticism of the game so props for that.

wait Paizo did that?

 

[Wicht]

wait Paizo did that?

They banned, I believe, and if iirc, one or two individuals who spewed forth vitriolic condescending posts concerning the only legitimate way to "fix" the rules based on their extensive "expertise." As I recall, it was not the disagreement with the rules which ended up causing them to be banned, it was the rather obnoxious, off-putting, rude, belligerent manner in which they insulted anyone and everyone with an opposing opinion to theirs which caused the ban. I also seem to remember that it was not necessarily a lifetime ban, but the individuals vowed never to return to share their wisdom with the fools that rejected it and may have had plans to publish their own perfect version. I may be wrong on those last two parts, but I dimly remember something like.