Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E's reception?

[Aldarc]

To me RPGs are not about balanced tactical combat. They are about creating a reasonable self consistent world and then creating character ideas within that world and playing out (through a combination of role-play and dice mechanics) how those characters get along in various exciting situations.

I have not seen anything about PF2 that would antithetical to what you think RPGs are about. And if PF2 is (somehow) excluded, then I would suspect that you have an incredibly restricted, if not exclusionary, view about what constitutes a TTRPG that likely leaves out a metric tonne of RPGs.

 

[BryonD]

I have not seen anything about PF2 that would antithetical to what you think RPGs are about.

Noted.
I have.

And if PF2 is (somehow) excluded, then I would suspect that you have an incredibly restricted, if not exclusionary, view about what constitutes a TTRPG that likely leaves out a metric tonne of RPGs.

Do you mean as a hobby or as top choices for my personal table?

 

[Aldarc]

Noted.
I have.

Sure, but I don't think that they are particularly good, helpful, or meaningful observations if you would come to the conclusion that PF2's design is antithetical to being an RPG, unless of course you were begging the question. Then I could see how you could come to that conclusion.

Do you mean as a hobby or as top choices for my personal table?

I mean as per your general thesis about what RPGs are about and how that relates to PF2 and the wider TTRPG hobby.

 

[BryonD]

Sure, but I don't think that they are particularly good, helpful, or meaningful observations if you would come to the conclusion that PF2's design is antithetical to being an RPG, unless of course you were begging the question. Then I could see how you could come to that conclusion.

I mean as per your general thesis about what RPGs are about and how that relates to PF2 and the wider TTRPG hobby.

Where did I say it was antithetical to the wider hobby?
I do believe that the wider reception is, to some degree, inhibited by the design elements that are of issue to me. But if you go back and read my posts you will see me repeatedly agreeing that PF2E is GOLDEN for some players and I think that is great.

My "thesis" as you call it starts in the part that you quoted with the words "to me".
And, honestly, this is exactly what I was getting at in another part of that post.

But I also think that one of the big problems that you get in these conversations is the presumption that others do or should see things the same way.

I reject the claim that people can't reasonably have significant differences in preference and therefore significant differences in perception to the same ideas.

Within the context that this is purely a conversation about a game and in no way earth-shaking, it is eternally frustrating to me that no matter how much I bend over backward to acknowledge my respect for other view points, I always get replies which either (a) present their own viewpoint and demand that my analysis must work within their point of view, (b) take my point of view as a declaration of universality which I am imposing upon them, or (c) both (a) and (b).

May I stay with my own viewpoint, which I assure you is very much true to me, while also retaining that I have not even implied a general thesis which applies to the wider hobby?

If a game fails to attract as large of an audience as may be desired and my opinions play into that, then this is meaningful, but also somewhat coincedental. But still my opinion remains completely non-universal. There continue to be deeply committed fans of 4E. And I respect that entirely. I like 5E, but the bounded accuracy skews slightly in the same direction such that 5E is not my favorite. And yet 5E shows my taste to be out of step with overwhelming popularity in that case. I find neither case to be informative to my personal fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

if PF2 is (somehow) excluded, then I would suspect that you have an incredibly restricted, if not exclusionary, view about what constitutes a TTRPG

There's always been some of that attitude, in any cult/geeky/nerdish hobby. Defining-out rival alternatives, be they ideas, products, or people, premptorily excluding them from consideration rather than accepting or engaging.
In our own hobby, we've seen that attitude in the "ROLL v ROLE Debate" of the 90s, the edition war, and, currently against fans of streaming.

 

[BryonD]

There's always been some of that attitude, in any cult/geeky/nerdish hobby. Defining-out rival alternatives, be they ideas, products, or people, premptorily excluding them from consideration rather than accepting or engaging.
In our own hobby, we've seen that attitude in the "ROLL v ROLE Debate" of the 90s, the edition war, and, currently with fans of streaming.

Do you mean such as saying that the opinion of someone else is can't exist unless that person is refusing to be open minded?

Or do you mean such as saying "the people who LOVE PF2E will continue to love PF2E. I have never been critical of loving PF2E. I was never critical of loving 4E. I stated over and over in each case that I appreciate the appeal to a certain niche and I only wish those playing the most fun experience possible."

 

[Rhianni32]

Isn't that what this post is doing

nope. and if you were to read my other posts in this conversation vs singling this one out, you'd see where i say they can and should keep posting.

 

[Manbearcat]

I was certainly excited about this game during development. It’s live version has tons of things that were clearly cribbed directly from games I love.

However, I needed to see the basic action resolution mechanics be more akin to Blades or Strike! (Which is a more stepped version of AW with an advancement scheme for each Skill similar to Blades). Critical Success and Failure doesn’t do it for me. I need to see Success With Cost/Complication (preferably multiple varieties like Strike!) as the beating heart of action resolution (particularly non-combat) or closed scene conflict resolution mechanics.

Imagine if they would have gone with a Strike!/Blades hybrid.

- Each Skill is granular.

- If you don’t have it, you have a good chance to learn the base Skill when you use it.

- There are 5 possible outcomes to actions whether trained or untrained (etc) with Success With a Twist being flanked by Success, Success With a Boon, Twist, and Twist With a Cost (d20 results spread advantageously/scaled based upon your Skill level).

- Every time you get a Success With a Boon or Twist With a Cost, you mark XP with that particular Skill.

- Once you have enough XP in a Skill you can spend a Downtime action to level it up.

That sort of action resolution paradigm would have ensured I was a buying customer.

The game went far, it’s very good, but it didn’t go far enough to draw me in.

 

[zztong]

How exactly were you set aside in PF2? Or is this just you dramatically posturing yourself as some sort of victim? I'm honestly puzzled by your attitude.

Answering for myself... If I were speaking casually to a friend, I might say I was "set aside", but what I would really mean is that I feel Paizo went a different direction with its toolset of rules. I would also think that Paizo would disagree with that statement because I suspect they're more focused on a platform for Golarion and organized play. So their perspective is probably that they improved the tools for telling their story. So perhaps it's just best to say Paizo and I were on different paths that just happened to share part of the journey, until recently.

One game I'm in went from PF1 to PF2 to 5e. My experience so far with 5e is that it seems leaner and cleaner than PF2, but it still hasn't captured my imagination. Somebody was rattling off a list of things that were in 4e that I didn't care for, and some of that is in 5e.

Mentally, I'm still in the land of 3.5e/PF1. I still like a more-simulationist game, though I would concede that D&D/Pathfinder never intended to be such, even though many people in the 1970s and early 1980s were using D&D that way. I would say it was still possible and easier to have a more-simulationist game using those earlier rules, and even 3.5e/PF1. I didn't think it was possible with 4e or PF2. I'm not really sure about 5e yet.

 

[Aldarc]

Where did I say it was antithetical to the wider hobby?
I do believe that the wider reception is, to some degree, inhibited by the design elements that are of issue to me. But if you go back and read my posts you will see me repeatedly agreeing that PF2E is GOLDEN for some players and I think that is great.

When I said, "I have not seen anything about PF2 that would antithetical to what you think RPGs are about," you responded that you have and noted as such prior. But such a criteria as it applies to PF2 would by consequence exclude a number of other TTRPGs in our hobby. So regardless of whether or not you said it is antithetical to the wider hobby or not is irrelevant. What matters here is how your statement regarding PF2 would likewise potentially exclude other TTRPGs in the wider hobby. It's an implication present in your statement.

My "thesis" as you call it starts in the part that you quoted with the words "to me".
And, honestly, this is exactly what I was getting at in another part of that post.

"To me" does not somehow make a statement into (a) an opinion about preference or (b) above reproach. The statement "to me a hot dog is not a sandwich" is not a statement of preference about hot dogs but an argument about whether a hot dog constitutes, or qualifies as, a sandwich. Stating what you believe constitutes an RPG and that PF2 fails to qualify as one isn't a statement of preference, but an argument of constituency. It's essentially a syllogism masquerading as an opinion of preference. And it seems that if your criteria excludes PF2 as a RPG, given that you claim it is antithetical to an RPG, then that would by consequence exclude a lot of other TTRPGs. This is why your argument, which you claim is a mere statement of "preference," comes across as problematic, toxic gatekeeping regarding the wider hobby. You may not have intended it to be such, but it most definitely reads as such to me.

I reject the claim that people can't reasonably have significant differences in preference and therefore significant differences in perception to the same ideas.

Sure, but your post does not read as a rote difference of preference but as a positive argument about what constitutes an RPG and whether PF2 qualifies as a RPG based on your self-selected criteria.

Within the context that this is purely a conversation about a game and in no way earth-shaking, it is eternally frustrating to me that no matter how much I bend over backward to acknowledge my respect for other view points, I always get replies which either (a) present their own viewpoint and demand that my analysis must work within their point of view, (b) take my point of view as a declaration of universality which I am imposing upon them, or (c) both (a) and (b).

If you find that you are regularly facing this problem, then perhaps you should work on improving how you word and communicate things. Just a piece of friendly advice from someone who has been in a similar position.

May I stay with my own viewpoint, which I assure you is very much true to me, while also retaining that I have not even implied a general thesis which applies to the wider hobby?

You may rephrase your original statement such that it actually does so, yes. But if you are persistent in the viewpoint that PF2 is not a RPG, then I will remain of the viewpoint that your said viewpoint is toxic gatekeeping that should be challenged.