Pathfinder 2E Taking20 -"I'm Quitting Pathfinder 2e Because of This Issue"

[Justice and Rule]

Procedural question: Is this post about saying what made you quit PF2 and then having people debate if you were right? If X made me quit, it was obviously important enough to me. Debating it seems both futile and counterproductive - if we want people to come forward and say what they didn't like, forcing them to defend their views seems like it would scare off posters. I certainly do not feel encouraged to post my reasons here.

I mean, I think there's value in addressing certain reasons versus others: Cody's reasons (weird argument about "Illusion of Choice") versus, say, @kenada 's reasons (the rules are too crunch-heavy for his style of play) sparked very different responses. What you say and how you say it matters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn't think you would. Of course I never said it was the systems fault. I just said it is a real thing.

Personally, for me it didn't matter that the rogue feats are gated by level. When I was making my character, I had to try to look over all the feats for the rogue. Part of this is simply being curious of the options presented and part of it is figuring out where my character might go. Sure, I didn't check out the other class feats after I chose my class (I always choose rogues first), but even just the one classes feats where to much, and I still had race and general & skill feats to review. It was just to much so I stopped. I'm not saying it is the systems fault, I am just saying making characters in PF2e is not ideal for me. I am still interested in playing and if I join a group I will power through and make my rogue. But I just can't motivate myself to do it at this point.

I really don't mean to be hostile about this, and I suspect this can't but be coming across that way, but at some point a system either provides you meaningful design choices or it doesn't. The more of those it does the more some people are going to find it too much; there were people who found pretty much every addition in options after OD&D rolled around too much.

But you either offer too much for some people or not enough for some, and there's not much of a way to thread that needle; the closest you can get is offering some pre-canned "paths" so that people who don't want to fiddle with it don't have to, but even then if people start to wonder if they're losing out taking the "paths"...

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, I think there's value in addressing certain reasons versus others: Cody's reasons (weird argument about "Illusion of Choice") versus, say, @kenada 's reasons (the rules are too crunch-heavy for his style of play) sparked very different responses. What you say and how you say it matters.

Yeah, I've never had the sense that Kenada wasn't talking from a general understanding about both what PF2e was trying to do, and actually doing (now that he's clarified what he's getting at, mostly the same for Dave2008 above). Cody's videos--seem otherwise. And of course if someone says "PF2e does X" when it pretty clearly doesn't, I think if they're going to post they shouldn't be surprised if people choose to disagree with their statement.

 

[kenada]

There’s more to it than just “the rules are too crunch-heavy for (my) style of play”, but I’d say that’s a reasonably fair take. Beyond criticisms I’d make normally regardless, I’ve otherwise avoided going too much into the details because it’s not usually germane to the discussion at hand. Also, it’s easy to fall into the trap of conflating aesthetic preferences with systemic problems. At the risk of sounding full of myself, that’s why certain takes induce vehement disagreement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I try really hard myself to differentiate between "This is a bad rules set" and "this is a rules set doing things I don't want." The latter seems, generally, to be a description of PbtA games to me (with a couple exceptions), but its absolutely clear PbtA games are serving the needs of a fair number of people really well.

The most I'll get into it is when a game claims its doing X and it doesn't really seem to be doing so, but even then you can run into some YMMV situations, but at least those can sometimes be usefully unpacked.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Personally, I try to avoid treating anyone's views as sacrosanct, I have no power to compel anyone to change their mind about anything, but I live by the principle "all debate seeks the truth" so I'll happily debate anyone where I find something worth challenging or discussing. The assertion that 'no one's going to change their mind' is a thought-terminating cliche that typically seeks control. As a rule, people are welcome to make their own choices and disengage when they're ready-- I'll do the same when I am, and I certainly don't feel a moral obligation to never challenge others on their views, its not like anyone's being forced to respond.

 

[CapnZapp]

I won't enter a discussion with a user who argues with a straight face that PF2 is not just equal in complexity to 5E, but actually better.

Having played both games to high level, one game is simple clean and straightforward and the other is a jumble of checks and modifiers that all work in very slightly different ways.

And the former game is 5E and the latter game is PF2.

I have started several threads in this very subforum where I show beyond the shadow of a doubt how over-engineered and full of little rules PF2 really is. This evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Aldarc]

However, since you brought it up, it does have that effect for some people. I mean when I look at a making a character in PF2e I am overwhelmed. I know those feats and choices are siloed, but a can't stop myself from seeing the whole thing. I have the same issues with spells. That is why I almost never play spell casters.

Maybe it would help if you didn't start entirely from scratch but looked at the pre-generated NPCs or the sample builds in the game? Or even try to limit yourself - as best as you can - and do it on a level by level basis imagining and following a character concept, herein keeping in mind that if you find a cooler concept as you build your character that you can "retrain" your character.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Personally, for me it didn't matter that the rogue feats are gated by level. When I was making my character, I had to try to look over all the feats for the rogue.

I’m like you, and frankly, I don’t understand the posters that seem to think it is an unusual way to build a character.

I generally have an idea about the character, but at the ancestry phase, this is more likely to mean that I exclude one or two ancestries, not that I already know which ancestry I want to play.

Same thing for classes. If I want to play a spellcaster, I’ll probably be considering three or four classes, not one. And generally, I build a character with the intention of playing it long term, so of course I won’t just read the level 1 class feats.

This is even more pronounced with skills. The options for skill feats are going to guide my choices for which skills I choose, not vice-versa.

 

[glass]

Procedural question: Is this post about saying what made you quit PF2 and then having people debate if you were right? If X made me quit, it was obviously important enough to me. Debating it seems both futile and counterproductive - if we want people to come forward and say what they didn't like, forcing them to defend their views seems like it would scare off posters. I certainly do not feel encouraged to post my reasons here.

People in general are really bad at knowing why they do and do not like things, and tend to be pretty bad at expressing that knowledge even if they do know (and that is before you get to the delibarate misrepresentation by edition warriors, which is still depressingly common). Therefore, there is no reason to treat someone stated reasons for not liking something as above criticism. Especially if they appear innacurate.

_
glass.