Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8100690" data-attributes="member: 12731">If you like to keep silent on what you perceive as painful missteps in an otherwise promising product, more power to you. Personally though, I do not like the idea that discussion forums should only be filled with uncritical praise. (Not saying you push this, Kenada. But every time I'm asked why I participate, I can't help hearing a small voice in the back of my head telling me &quot;they just want you to shut up, grin, and bear it&quot;.) I don't know why you come here, but a big reason why I frequent places like this is to be able to discuss and analyze anything from individual mechanics to overall design directions in as much of a brutally frank manner as civil discourse permits. And, of course, I'm not invulnerable to the pleasant feelings generated by managing to persuade my peers to acknowledge my points. I'm sure you have felt them too.In this case, my basic theory is that Paizo completely ignored 5E in their design process, and that this is to the detriment of everybody playing PF2.Instead of just saying &quot;I don't like that&quot;, I am attempting to showcase exactly where and how the problems can occur. While advice such as &quot;why complain, houserule!&quot; contains a nugget of genuine helpfulness in telling frustrated gamers their rules aren't set in stone, such sentiments far too often come across as attempts to dismiss or shut down criticism. I also want to avoid ending up in relativisms like &quot;you like it, I don't, everything's subjective, no game is better than another&quot;. I consider that nonsense. I absolutely believe some game designs are objectively better than others. I want to argue where Paizo could improve theirs.Cheers</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8100690, member: 12731"] If you like to keep silent on what you perceive as painful missteps in an otherwise promising product, more power to you. Personally though, I do not like the idea that discussion forums should only be filled with uncritical praise. (Not saying [I]you[/I] push this, Kenada. But every time I'm asked why I participate, I can't help hearing a small voice in the back of my head telling me "they just want you to shut up, grin, and bear it".) I don't know why you come here, but a big reason why I frequent places like this is to be able to discuss and analyze anything from individual mechanics to overall design directions in as much of a brutally frank manner as civil discourse permits. And, of course, I'm not invulnerable to the pleasant feelings generated by managing to persuade my peers to acknowledge my points. I'm sure you have felt them too. In this case, my basic theory is that Paizo completely ignored 5E in their design process, and that this is to the detriment of everybody playing PF2. Instead of just saying "I don't like that", I am attempting to showcase exactly where and how the problems can occur. While advice such as "why complain, houserule!" contains a nugget of genuine helpfulness in telling frustrated gamers their rules aren't set in stone, such sentiments far too often come across as attempts to dismiss or shut down criticism. I also want to avoid ending up in relativisms like "you like it, I don't, everything's subjective, no game is better than another". I consider that nonsense. I absolutely believe some game designs are objectively [I]better[/I] than others. I want to argue where Paizo could improve theirs. Cheers [/QUOTE]

Verification