Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2 and support for other playing styles/subgenres

[Justice and Rule]

That is because he doesn't really post in the D&D forums anymore. As I mentioned he is no longer playing D&D. If you search for his post from 2015-2019 you will see what I mean.

That's great and all, but we've come to a point where he's constantly threadcrapping how much better 5E is at things, which tells me that even if he has problems with 5E he likes it more. Moreover, if you don't like something at a certain point you just step away from talking about it if all you can do is complain about it.

What is wrong with someone venting about a system? Listen, I didn't agree with a lot of his critiques of 5e*, but I think he has a right to make them. He is often correct from a particular perspective as well (you just have to be open minded). The issue I have is that my perspective often differs from his and that is OK. You are attacking him, but he is usually not the only one agreeing with his issues. If others see the issue, then it is likely not just a CapnZapp thing, right?

*I imagine this applied to PF2 as well, but I just don't know the system well enough.

It's not about venting about the system, it's constantly venting about the system and telling us we're all wrong. And I mean that latter part literally, as they've literally declared victory in his arguments before.

If we didn't like that someone had problems with a system, I would be yelling at @kenada instead of just discussing our different views. But that's not what Cap does. Instead, they have multi-post rants about how they view things differently and how people won't argue with them and when we do, they just ignore our arguments and declares victory. Like, we all saw that and it's why we're at this point with them.

I honestly don't care if a person likes the system or not, but Cap is disruptive in a way others aren't. That's the long and short of it.

 

[transmission89]

What is wrong with someone venting about a system? Listen, I didn't agree with a lot of his critiques of 5e*, but I think he has a right to make them. He is often correct from a particular perspective as well (you just have to be open minded). The issue I have is that my perspective often differs from his and that is OK. You are attacking him, but he is usually not the only one agreeing with his issues. If others see the issue, then it is likely not just a CapnZapp thing, right?

*I imagine this applied to PF2 as well, but I just don't know the system well enough.

If you don’t like a system, fine, vent away, make thread and purge that out.

But multiple threads made? Driving by into other threads? Like for example, the beginner box release news thread. Lots of comments of people curious about the product, lots of positivity, people asking questions or maybe having issues they weren’t sure about, then just an absolute massive dump On it.

Like, if its not for you, and as such you have no desire to purchase the product, why would you then hijack a thread about a beginner box to continue your rant about the full rules system?

I am not saying his issues are non existent. I acknowledge there are indeed many issues. The key here is: presentation. If you are going to argue in absolutes claiming an objective position (the system is definitively a failure, there is no other possible view point) then this is where we have problems.

I could agree (and in fact do) with many of his critiques. He often offers very insightful analysis. But they need to come from a common ground, an acceptance that these are subjective issues, or things that many might agree on (such as the crb needing another editing pass or those hideous character sheets) aren‘t objectively nails in the coffin of a system. They are what they are, warts.

My parody review is there to highlight what is being presented, just an overwhelming wall of unnecessary negativity in every. Single. Thread. Often multiple times.

 

[dave2008]

That's great and all, but we've come to a point where he's constantly threadcrapping how much better 5E is at things, which tells me that even if he has problems with 5E he likes it more. Moreover, if you don't like something at a certain point you just step away from talking about it if all you can do is complain about it.

That is a misreading of his posts IMO. He has been saying PF2 didn't learn from 5e. However, I am sure he thinks some things in 5e are better, what is wrong with that? His group just got to level 20 in PF2, so who knows where he will go from here.

Also, there are definitely things he likes about PF2, and he has commented on those as well. In particular he likes PF2 monster design (something he hates in 5e).

It's not about venting about the system, it's constantly venting about the system and telling us we're all wrong. And I mean that latter part literally, as he's literally declared victory in his arguments before.

Yep, he did the same thing in his 5e posts. He even used some of the same blaming language (just at WotC instead of Paizo). Even some of the same type of subsystems (crafting comes to mind).

If we didn't like that someone had problems with a system, I would be yelling at @kenada instead of just discussing our different views. But that's not what Cap does. Instead, they have multi-post rants about how they view things differently and how people won't argue with them and when we do, he just ignores our arguments and declares victory. Like, we all saw that and it's why we're at this point with him,


I honestly don't care if a person likes the system or not, but Cap is disruptive in a way others aren't. That's the long and short of it.

Maybe I am just used to his approach from his 5e days, I'm just used to it now.

 

[kenada]

No, but what I'm saying is while that will give you specifically what you want, but does not restrict getting such information simply to that feat. What that feat does is gives a Rogue the ability to get specific information as well as not have to rely on a Knowledge Skill (which means they don't need to invest heavily in Knowledge skills to keep up given that their Perception is going to be damn good).

You make a good point. You can’t do that normally with Perception, so it’s at the adding options rather than limiting the baseline.

I don't think I agree to that view on it. "One of it's best known attributes" could absolutely reference a save, like an Ogre's stupidity (and thus weak Will save). I know you've talked about being prescriptive, but this feels more proscriptive to me given the breadth of what they the subject they are talking about.

I started to write a post ending with a wish for an example, but there is one.

Erik: It hisses as the blade sinks into its shoulder. That looks like it hurt, but the undead thing doesn’t appear to be slowing down. James, that was all three of your actions. Next up is Kyra!
Judy: I think this is undead. What do I know about it?
Erik: You use an action to recall your training about the living dead. Give me a Religion skill check.

Judy rolls a 16, adding Kyra’s +8 with Religion to get a total of 24. (note mine: Recall Knowledge is a secret check, so Erik should be rolling not Judy.)

Erik: At fifirst, you thought this thing might be a ghoul, which is a type of undead that feasts on the flflesh of the dead, but the terrible smell reveals the truth. This thing is a ghast, a more powerful type of ghoul. You are pretty sure that its stench can make you sick and that its claws can paralyze you with a touch.
Judy: This is bad. I am going to spend my last two actions to cast bless. It gives anyone next to me a +1 bonus to attack rolls.

The way the example of play is written suggests the GM decides what information to provide. For example, a wizard may want to know whether to favor Will-targeting spells against a troll, but the GM could recount the example from the CRB verbatim and argue that that’s fair because it’s literally what the book says in its example. At the very least, I think this supports that creature identification is poorly specified.

 

[dave2008]

This caught my attention:

Erik: It hisses as the blade sinks into its shoulder. That looks like it hurt, but the undead thing doesn’t appear to be slowing down. James, that was all three of your actions. Next up is Kyra!
Judy: I think this is undead. What do I know about it?"

Dammit Judy, Erik just told you it is an undead!

 

[Justice and Rule]

That is a misreading of his posts IMO. He has been saying PF2 didn't learn from 5e. However, I am sure he thinks some things in 5e are better, what is wrong with that? His group just got to level 20 in PF2, so who knows where he will go from here.

Also, there are definitely things he likes about PF2, and he has commented on those as well. In particular he likes PF2 monster design (something he hates in 5e).

It's not about them liking or disliking something. It's that it is constantly, unendingly brought up. I have my problems with 5E, but I don't go over there and just constantly systemcrap on it because I don't find that to be productive or helpful. This is less complaining and coming closer to picking fights.

Yep, he did the same thing in his 5e posts. He even used some of the same blaming language (just at WotC instead of Paizo). Even some of the same type of subsystems (crafting comes to mind).

I don't like 5E crafting, too, but I moved on to positive things rather than constantly harp on what I don't like. And if someone bounces off PF2, I'm okay with suggesting other options so that they find something they are happy with: it's why I suggested Spheres of Power & Spheres of Might in another thread.

Maybe I am just used to his approach from his 5e days, I'm just used to it now.

I've seen Cap elsewhere; they even sold me on an RPG system before. But this style of posting is just unendingly frustrating. Perhaps if this board had the same amount of traffic as the D&D board I could toss it away, but obviously that is not the case.

You make a good point. You can’t do that normally with Perception, so it’s at the adding options rather than limiting the baseline.

Yeah, it's an interesting workaround. I kind of wish Fighters got that as well; make Combat Assessment a requirement if there needs to be a balance or something.

I started to write a post ending with a wish for an example, but there is one.

(...)

The way the example of play is written suggests the GM decides what information to provide. For example, a wizard may want to know whether to favor Will-targeting spells against a troll, but the GM could recount the example from the CRB verbatim and argue that that’s fair because it’s literally what the book says in its example. At the very least, I think this supports that creature identification is poorly specified.

I do think this is an instance where the GM has a lot of leeway in what they hand out, which means the skill can have very different impacts depending on what kind of GM you have. On one level I get why they don't want someone to be able to pinpoint target what a weakness is (or at least why it's a feat for some), but at the same time I do agree that it's such a broad-reaching skill that it's something where you could put in some examples of what sort of success might be required to figure something out or not.

 

[Justice and Rule]

This caught my attention:

"
Erik: It hisses as the blade sinks into its shoulder. That looks like it hurt, but the undead thing doesn’t appear to be slowing down. James, that was all three of your actions. Next up is Kyra!
Judy: I think this is undead. What do I know about it?"

Dammit Judy, Erik just told you it is an undead!

She could just be really deadpan snarky.

 

[kenada]

What is wrong with someone venting about a system? Listen, I didn't agree with a lot of his critiques of 5e*, but I think he has a right to make them. He is often correct from a particular perspective as well (you just have to be open minded). The issue I have is that my perspective often differs from his and that is OK. You are attacking him, but he is usually not the only one agreeing with his issues. If others see the issue, then it is likely not just a CapnZapp thing, right?

*I imagine this applied to PF2 as well, but I just don't know the system well enough.

I could post why I stopped running PF2 — specifically why and what those things are. Most responses would follow in two categories:

• agreement that it doesn’t do what I want, and
• argument over my basis.

How I go about making that post and framing my arguments will likely correlate with the distribution of responses between those two things. If I frame it as trying to demonstrate how the designer/publisher blew it or educate everyone on the system’s problems, then I should expect a fair amount of pushback.

To put it another way, the criticisms of 5e that @transmission89 posted are all things I’ve seen from an OSR perspective. They’re even reasonable criticisms from that perspective. They are not necessarily indicative of systemic failure 5e’s part (though I’d argue the lack of concrete play procedures is at the least problematic, or just link this article from the Alexandrian like I did now).

 

[kenada]

This caught my attention:

Erik: It hisses as the blade sinks into its shoulder. That looks like it hurt, but the undead thing doesn’t appear to be slowing down. James, that was all three of your actions. Next up is Kyra!
Judy: I think this is undead. What do I know about it?"

Dammit Judy, Erik just told you it is an undead!

Seems like a fair portrayal of how well players pay attention sometimes.

 

[transmission89]

I could post why I stopped running PF2 — specifically why and what those things are. Most responses would follow in two categories:

• agreement that it doesn’t do what I want, and
• argument over my basis.

How I go about making that post and framing my arguments will likely correlate with the distribution of responses between those two things. If I frame it as trying to demonstrate how the designer/publisher blew it or educate everyone on the system’s problems, then I should expect a fair amount of pushback.

To put it another way, the criticisms of 5e that @transmission89 posted are all things I’ve seen from an OSR perspective. They’re even reasonable criticisms from that perspective. They are not necessarily indicative of systemic failure 5e’s part (though I’d argue the lack of concrete play procedures is at the least problematic, or just link this article from the Alexandrian like I did now).

This is actually the article I was referring too! Bravo for linking it. It’s a great read.