Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Staffan" data-source="post: 7584651" data-attributes="member: 907">No, the playtest also tested exploration and, I think, some amount of downtime rules.The main issue is probably that people approached the playtest as a preview when it was explicitly designed to stress test various aspects of the system. For example, one of the adventures instructs the players to make characters that are experienced demon-fighters from the Worldwound, and then proceeds to pit them against ever-increasing waves of demons which will eventually overwhelm them - the goal of the adventure is to see how much it takes. That's certainly useful information for the designers, but it's not very fun for the players. It also didn't help that the rules were fairly rough around the edges, with skill DCs designed around a very punishing treadmill.I think it would have been better for Paizo to look at how Wizards did their playtesting for 5e - start small, with only a few classes and/or only the first few levels and a simple scenario. Then gradually iterate on that and expand, allowing them to judge response to certain things and either iterate on them or throw them out. But instead they provided a sort-of complete set of rules, which got updated as the playtest went along, which means they're locked into certain paths. For example, one version of the Sorcerer in the D&amp;D Next playtest gradually took on more draconic traits as they cast their spells which meant that over the course of a day they'd gradually turn into a warrior-type. This did not turn out to be a great idea, so it was scrapped. But if a similar bad idea of a PF2 class turned out to be a bad idea, they couldn't reboot it and do something else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Staffan, post: 7584651, member: 907"] No, the playtest also tested exploration and, I think, some amount of downtime rules. The main issue is probably that people approached the playtest as a preview when it was explicitly designed to stress test various aspects of the system. For example, one of the adventures instructs the players to make characters that are experienced demon-fighters from the Worldwound, and then proceeds to pit them against ever-increasing waves of demons which will eventually overwhelm them - the goal of the adventure is to see how much it takes. That's certainly useful information for the designers, but it's not very fun for the players. It also didn't help that the rules were fairly rough around the edges, with skill DCs designed around a very punishing treadmill. I think it would have been better for Paizo to look at how Wizards did their playtesting for 5e - start small, with only a few classes and/or only the first few levels and a simple scenario. Then gradually iterate on that and expand, allowing them to judge response to certain things and either iterate on them or throw them out. But instead they provided a sort-of complete set of rules, which got updated as the playtest went along, which means they're locked into certain paths. For example, one version of the Sorcerer in the D&D Next playtest gradually took on more draconic traits as they cast their spells which meant that over the course of a day they'd gradually turn into a warrior-type. This did not turn out to be a great idea, so it was scrapped. But if a similar bad idea of a PF2 class turned out to be a bad idea, they couldn't reboot it and do something else. [/QUOTE]

Verification