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

[JmanTheDM]

Interestingly (to me at least) there was a thread over at /r/[pathfinder...???] subreddit. the difference was stark and instantly relatable back to the PF2 forum discussions here on enworld.

over on /r the question asked was (grossly paraphrased)
"what are the things that bug you about Pf2?"

and then there proceeded to be dozens of comments and replies to individual rules, subsystems and minutia that bugs players. without exception, the comments were framed as:

"I don't like rule X because of the following reason" and then a short exposition of why rule X feels broken to the user making the post. the replies sometimes commiserate with the OP, or pushed back by perhaps showing a gap in knowledge or why / how that certain issue can be handled in place.

here, the message is: [exaggerated language used to emphasis the difference between the 2 posts - but only IMO slightly exaggerated]
"Paizo utterly broke PF2 for the following reason. X is simply crap and it beggars belief why Paizo would ever implement this broken rule when they have 5e to reference in full. Its obvious to anyone that Paizo didn't spend even 1 second learning about other rules, else they wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake in game design. here is the only logical way to handle this broken system which should have been used to begin with"

the difference is stark. in /r the criticism was about the system or rule, but framed as a personal opinion. in enworld, the criticism was about the system or rule but framed is ad hominem towards the publisher. one is constructive, the other is destructive. to engage with the enword mode, by default, one who agrees with the criticisms is also objectively also agreeing that the company is (at best) incompetent or (at worst) actively sabotaging their IP.

/r invites engagement while here demands acquiescence

so, in the spirit of not only outlining a problem but also laying out a solution, I propose a subtle language shift that may see increased engagement. May I suggest the following templated example:
"Hey everyone, I'm struggling with Crafting, I'm finding that its really hard to achieve goal X through the use of this skill. anyone else having similar issues? one thing that I though might help would be to modify X by introducing Y. what do you think?"

Cheers,

J.

 

[dave2008]

DELETED

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

So, would you allow RK on a named NPC the characters don’t know anything about?

Yeah, the uncommon, rare, and unique tags boost the DC, by RAW, for recall knowledge checks on them, but itd be a houserule if you couldn't do it at all.

Notably, it would vary depending on how unique the NPC actually is, if they're pretty much a Troll King whose gotten a name in the story then that's just an Troll King and its fairly reasonable the players would be able to estimate things like how well they would be able to dodge a fireball based off what they've read about the leaders of Troll Kind.

If its a named character, custom stat block, where the person isn't well represented by a generic anything, then we would slap the unique tag on them and increase the DC accordingly, but hey, maybe you've heard of them.

 

[nevin]

telling people how to communicate will shut down far more communication than people complaining or voicing strong opinions.

 

[MichaelSomething]

But you can easily convert Ponyfinder to Pathfinder 2E! What else could you want???

 

[cmad1977]

I’m not surprised that someone who couldn’t really get 5e couldn’t get PF2.

 

[BigZebra]

I actually liked this thread, before it was derailed to be about CapnZap, who the "derailors" then declared to be a troll.

I own the CRB and the Beginner Box - and currently play 5e. There are some stuff I like about PF2, but I also see quite some issues. Hence I like reading these threads about the system. Not sure why it had to be derailed. You may disagree with the original poster, but he seems to be bringing up issues he doesn't like about the system. What is wrong with that? His posts aren't really what I find problematic in this thread.

 

[transmission89]

I actually liked this thread, before it was derailed to be about CapnZap, who the "derailors" then declared to be a troll.

I own the CRB and the Beginner Box - and currently play 5e. There are some stuff I like about PF2, but I also see quite some issues. Hence I like reading these threads about the system. Not sure why it have to be derailed. You may disagree with the original poster, but he seems to be bringing up issues he doesn't like about the system. What is wrong with that? His posts aren't really what I find problematic in this thread.

The answer to your questions can be found in page 6 when someone else asked the exact same questions.

 

[CapnZapp]

I actually liked this thread, before it was derailed to be about CapnZap, who the "derailors" then declared to be a troll.

Unfortunately, the administration of this site has decided that derailing threads ("topic-napping"?) isn't moderated.

I have had several threads successfully derailed by people that can't cope with criticism against their favorite game. For instance, I was one of the earliest whistle-blowers (AFAIK of course) against Great Weapon Master (the 5th Edition feat) as being far too good. Only recently has this become accepted wisdom. Another thread about the gaping lack of a working magic item economy (again, in 5E) was even successfully closed after people managed to make the thread about me instead of the actual topic, effectively shutting down discussion entirely. Yet today, the fact "gold is worthless" is a relatively common complaint.

So... yeah. Sorry about that.

The perception of Paizo's rules quality will likely have shifted in, say, two years time. In the meanwhile, there's nothing I can do except try my best to ignore the personal attacks. I am aware I could be better at that task.

 

[transmission89]

Unfortunately, the administration of this site has decided that derailing threads ("topic-napping"?) isn't moderated.

I have had several threads successfully derailed by people that can't cope with criticism against their favorite game. For instance, I was one of the earliest whistle-blowers (AFAIK of course) against Great Weapon Master (the 5th Edition feat) as being far too good. Only recently has this become accepted wisdom. Another thread about the gaping lack of a working magic item economy (again, in 5E) was even successfully closed after people managed to make the thread about me instead of the actual topic, effectively shutting down discussion entirely. Yet today, the fact "gold is worthless" is a relatively common complaint.

So... yeah. Sorry about that.

The perception of Paizo's rules quality will likely have shifted in, say, two years time. In the meanwhile, there's nothing I can do except try my best to ignore the personal attacks. I am aware I could be better at that task.

This is, to be honest, to me, really disappointing to read this. Especially after we’ve had that pleasant exchange of ideas and view points earlier this morning in the other thread.

As was stated on the prior page of this thread (multiple times, by many different people) it’s not about the system criticism. Its not that people cannot handle or don’t want to hear criticism. It’s about how you do it. That is what shuts down the discussion when you declare in absolutes in quite frankly, a rather caustic way.

You demonstrated on the other thread this morning fantastically and eloquently, how you can stay true to your opinion, and frame it in a way that invites discussion, a friendly exchange of viewpoints and understanding even if we politely disagree at the end of it.

I much prefer that @CapnZapp to the one presented here, and really enjoy conversing with that one, even though it’s obvious we disagree on many points.