Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[kenada]

You’re framing this like you’re doing us a favor, and you’ve chastised us for being obstinate. Do you think a “public service announcement” is going to be uncritically received in a forum for that game? What kind of reaction did you expect?

I tried to understand the core of the argument, but that got no traction. We’ve instead gone around and around in circles over minutia. Moreover, when a particular issue affects only a certain style, we get reminded that what you actually mean is a very narrow style of play: a kick-in-the-door campaign running official adventures running everything 100% by the book. If you mean that, then you should say that instead of keeping it in reserve as a way to move the goalposts when someone offers a counter-point or argument.

I’m flabbergasted. This is a farce. You are literally saying we are wrong in our beliefs about a game. For what? Because we view it differently, enjoy it differently, or don’t consider the things you identify as problems as actual problems or even consider them desirable traits or virtues? Poor us. Having our bad wrong fun because we just don’t understand how much better that thing we’re doing could have been.

 

[GrahamWills]

I intended it to be a public service announcement stating that not only is Pathfinder 2 complex, it is much more complex than Paizo would have you believe, and perhaps more importantly, it is far too complex for its own good. Pathfinder 2 is still playable and fun - it's just painfully obvious it could have been more accessible, easier, faster, and... just better... if it had dared shed a mountain of clutter.

However, when I browse through its pages I see I have made many many points that those that refuse to believe this have... downplayed, ridiculed or simply ignored. I did my best to nail them to their incomplete, misguided or just plain wrong beliefs, but it is all too easy to just evade having to back up your claims. In here, just as in contemporary politics.

This certainly could be the case. I understand you believe that if PF2 had been more of a 5E clone it would have been better in some sense. But for a lot of people, they play PF2 because it is different from 5E. I certainly do!

Given that most people appear to disagree with you, and that you have had no success “nailing people”, might I suggest that you simply find the game you want to play, and play it, and stop trying to convince people who enjoy PF2 that they are stupid for doing so? I really think you’ve done a great job at detailing all the things you hate about PF2; I think I’m pretty clear about them. So we are at the stage where, as you state, you have presented all the info, and it has been rejected by the majority. I’m not sure your crusade has anywhere left to go.

I’ve read and thought about your complaints, and I partially agree with many of them, and they have made me think about character choices and ways of GMing, so don’t feel you haven’t had an impact. But rather than make me feel bad about playing a tragically flawed system, it’s just made me concentrate more on the good parts, let me know that I should be really carefully in AoA encounters, and allowed me not to worry about poorly designed bits of the system. So thanks for bringing them up. I don’t agree with your conclusion, but it has been helpful getting a view on what you believe are the weakest points of what I consider a solid, fun, playable system

 

[CapnZapp]

This certainly could be the case. I understand you believe that if PF2 had been more of a 5E clone it would have been better in some sense. But for a lot of people, they play PF2 because it is different from 5E. I certainly do!

I do too.

Given that most people appear to disagree with you

No they aren't.

, and that you have had no success “nailing people”

Qualified success.

, might I suggest that you simply find the game you want to play, and play it, and stop trying to convince people who enjoy PF2 that they are stupid for doing so?

Why are you drawing these conclusions? I play PF2 myself. I am not calling myself or anyone else stupid. I just clearly see the game falls short from what it could easily have been.

I really think you’ve done a great job at detailing all the things you hate about PF2; I think I’m pretty clear about them. So we are at the stage where, as you state, you have presented all the info, and it has been rejected by the majority. I’m not sure your crusade has anywhere left to go.

Hate? Rejection? Crusade?

I’ve read and thought about your complaints, and I partially agree with many of them, and they have made me think about character choices and ways of GMing, so don’t feel you haven’t had an impact. But rather than make me feel bad about playing a tragically flawed system, it’s just made me concentrate more on the good parts, let me know that I should be really carefully in AoA encounters, and allowed me not to worry about poorly designed bits of the system. So thanks for bringing them up. I don’t agree with your conclusion, but it has been helpful getting a view on what you believe are the weakest points of what I consider a solid, fun, playable system

You're welcome.

Just like you I too concentrate more on the good parts and try not to worry about poorly designed bits of the system rather than feeling bad about playing a tragically flawed system. This thread has been quite cathartic in this regard.

I too consider PF2 solid, fun, playable. Just with many very disconcerting weakest points.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ah, we're back to "If you don't agree with my basic premises, its because you're obstinante or stupid." Well, its on-brand at least.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Zapp does have quite the reputation pretty much everywhere they post, I think that Christmas post jumped the shark a bit though.