Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8100703" data-attributes="member: 12731">I absolutely think games don't exist in vacuum bubbles.And I'm not too hot about the phrase &quot;PF2 does well what it set out to do&quot;. I've seen it before, and I can't help to think it is sometimes used as a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the game aimed for exactly what it ended up doing, then it must be a great success! Right? Actually, no, that is not logical. I don't believe for a second the complexity of subsystems like Recall Knowledge, for instance, or the way Crafting goes to great lengths to hide the fact you can't actually make any money, is a good goal to strive towards. I find it much more likely a writer just got over-excited, and that there was noone to rein him or her back in.Which leads me back to my point. I strongly believe PF2 would have done what &quot;it set out to do&quot; better if it had looked at what WotC accomplished with 5E. That is, by evaluating each proposed subsystem for clutter that could be removed with no real loss in functionality. 5th Edition comes across as a game with brutally effective management. Almost every darling D&amp;D has ever seen has been examined, and ruthlessly eliminated if deemed non-critical. (Sure that game isn't perfect either.&nbsp; It dropped utility-based magic item pricing and it still has d20 levels of clutter in interaction between hands, objects and components, for instance.) But Paizo sure could have benefited from strong project governance on the level of the 5E team. Oh, so many pages of obsolete or needless clutter that could have been removed with negligible loss in play fun...!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8100703, member: 12731"] I absolutely think games don't exist in vacuum bubbles. And I'm not too hot about the phrase "PF2 does well what it set out to do". I've seen it before, and I can't help to think it is sometimes used as a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the game aimed for exactly what it ended up doing, then it must be a great success! Right? Actually, no, that is not logical. I don't believe for a second the complexity of subsystems like Recall Knowledge, for instance, or the way Crafting goes to great lengths to hide the fact you can't actually make any money, is a good goal to strive towards. I find it much more likely a writer just got over-excited, and that there was noone to rein him or her back in. Which leads me back to my point. I strongly believe PF2 would have done what "it set out to do" better if it had looked at what WotC accomplished with 5E. That is, by evaluating each proposed subsystem for clutter that could be removed with no real loss in functionality. 5th Edition comes across as a game with brutally effective management. Almost every darling D&D has ever seen has been examined, and ruthlessly eliminated if deemed non-critical. (Sure that game isn't perfect either. It dropped utility-based magic item pricing and it still has d20 levels of clutter in interaction between hands, objects and components, for instance.) But Paizo sure could have benefited from strong project governance on the level of the 5E team. Oh, so many pages of obsolete or needless clutter that could have been removed with negligible loss in play fun...! [/QUOTE]

Verification