Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8100798" data-attributes="member: 70468">I come here for the news, and I like to discuss RPGs. However, I participate irregularly because I have limited interest in the constant edition-warring garbage. What I like discussing is the games I play. That includes the things they do well and how to hack them, but it also includes their flaws. I don’t do that because of some arrogant conception that I know better than the designer but so I can figure out a way to mitigate that problem in my game and share that with others. It’s a constructive discourse rather than destructive.Again, what do we gain by seeing the light? How does that make our PF2 games better? You’ve already excluded using house rules, so all that leaves is the knowledge that we’re playing some crappy game that should have been better? What’s the value in that?It seems like you harp on this at every opportunity. It’s tiresome. It’s almost certainly driving people away from the game. For every one or two people who announce in these threads that they’ve noped on past PF2, how many just roll their eyes or shake their heads, and miss trying or playing a game that’s actually not as bad as the arguments make it seem? If you purported love the game, how is that actually good for it?Let’s be honest. The way you choose to run your game is just another house-ruled approach. You say you’re trying to respect Paizo’s intent, but there’s no basis for that. What you say about encounters in published adventures doesn’t match what other people are saying about their experiences (other than they’re hard, but that’s orthogonal). The rules text does not support your assumptions. If you want to run your game that way, that’s totally cool. But using it as a reason to educate us plebes is patronizing and conceited.</blockquote>

Verification