Search results

I think it's probably better to look at that stuff as being less about "immersion" and more about "suspension of disbelief". Immersion itself can refer to a lot of things in a lot of different contexts, and for RPGs I think you can be both immersed in the mechanics (Very involved through various...

You could do things like lasting injuries with a threshold of sorts, like Star Wars: SAGA Edition had. I had a theoretical system I never actually used that did that sort of thing, where it was like "(HD type + Character Levels)/2 = Wound Threshold" and you got wounds equal to your Con Score...

People are down for lore, especially with such a dearth of official material being printed. While giants might not be dragons, they are monsters who are not as explored as others with big, interesting societies. They are also a notable focus in official materials, whether it be classic stuff...

You're not going to find a bigger Wizards critic than I, but I'm totally down to read that sort of stuff. If Wizards was doing less terrible stuff, I probably would have bought it. Some people are just lore junkies, other people love to steal ideas. Do we not all have an RPG that we buy books...

Not really trying to create cross-forum drama as much as get context for quotes. I appreciate the one thread given because I think it was enlightening to what we were talking about. I'll leave it at that.

People don't really question people saying those things about 4E because we've seen them for 15 years. I've been on websites that had to regulate certain stuff to stop people from starting edition wars. It may seem unfair, but that's kind of the situation we're in. Though it was less about not...

They're all trying for very different things. 13A is one I want to try but is definitely the most different, seeming to move away from the class skeleton while keeping with how powers are built. PF2 feels like "What if 4E was closer to 3E in concept", where it's got a lot of design aspirations...

Can you link to the thread so we can see it ourselves? Cherry-picking a single comment from Reddit is not exactly a convincing argument. I honestly don't see what's wrong with this. Sometimes people have in-built biases that make it hard to actually see how the mechanic works or prevents them...

Honestly kind of felt like Wizards could have put out a book or even a line on it, with softcovers instead of hard but more supplements to try and feed that. But I can also see why they are focused on what they think is working. Brand loyalty is a hell of a thing. At a certain level I have...

Maybe. Probably. I mean, it seems like there's a rather decent market for "D&D but with more" right now as it feels like some people kind of age out of trying to make 5E what they want it to be. PF2 is very much sits between 3E, 4E, and 5E when it comes to mechanics and such. It doesn't...

I mean, then you can just not go into the Older D&D forum and not post in these threads. This isn't like someone invading a PF2 Release topic saying how they should have never moved on. Instead, this is in a forum dedicated to talking about older D&D editions, surprisingly enough, talking about...

It's funny that we've moved on from classic 4E arguments to "Actually, 5E is the persecuted online brand!" This argument is hilarious, but it doesn't belong in this thread. If you have this belief, start your own thread in the current D&D forum (since it's the current D&D).

Honestly I've seen people be pretty polite and constructive (at least, for Reddit) on most of the boards I'm on. At the least, I haven't seen the comments like those very often.

I don't exactly think that's the case in what I've seen, especially on the PF2 Reddit. I've seen people correct people or direct them to play in different ways for PF2 in particular because while superficially-similar there are a lot of important differences people miss at first glance that...

Uh, people do say that all the time, they just don't say it in that direct a way, just like most people here aren't being like that. People tell us what 5E was designed for all the time compared to the critiques it gets. But also I find that to be a terrible comparison, because that doesn't...

In fairness, the early APs had the same misunderstanding, unfortunately. I speak as someone who remembers giving up pretty early on in our only session because of this.

I didn't say it had to be a + thread, there were clearly problems with how 4E ran. I just think talking about how it didn't conform to the standards of 3E is kind of like having a PF2 discussion where someone talks about how they should have never switched from PF1 in the first place. It's fine...

I get the reference you're trying to make, but I think it doesn't really work with what I was trying to say? No, but I think my point is that there are things we can talk about like the flawed monster math and such which are actually about 4E. People who couldn't change their mindset from 3E...