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

[dave2008]

To be honest I can’t comprehend why people feel they can bo longer play a game because they stop putting out new books for it. Blows my mind. I think it finds them easier to play because canon closed.

I agree, personally I don't see any need for my group to switch from our customized 5e, ever. However, I personally would like to give PF2 a try (just can't convince my group).

 

[kenada]

I mean, that is one take on the video. You can dismiss what he says by suggesting nefarious intent or adding assumptions he never makes.

Or you could consider that he and the other people who have strongly criticized PF2, who often come from different gaming backgrounds and have different approaches to the game, are acting in good faith and have legitimate issues with the game.

The assumption he articulated is that you have to play optimally. It’s pretty much the entire basis of his complaint. His druid always changed into a t-rex because that’s what the player thought they had to do to play optimally. He explained how every combat played out exactly the same (like you would go through your rotations in an MMO). That’s why he said the choices you made didn’t matter — because the system expects you to play that way, so they had to do that.

Let’s assume he’s completely sincere. I have no reason to believe that he doesn’t believe what he says is true. I’m not going to impugn his style of play or the choices they make. I said in my very first response that PF2 is not a great fit for certain types of groups or players. His group may be one of those groups, and that’s okay, but it’s also possible for it to be a bad fit and for that not to be a systemic issue with the game. If I had any quibble with his video, it’s conflating the two.

If this were just a random post on the Internet somewhere, it wouldn’t have gotten much traction. People wouldn’t care because it would be limited to that venue, but it was posted to Youtube on a channel with a decently sized audience. People are going to react to that. Some might call it trolling, but if we’re assuming sincerity, it’s hard to call it trolling. Anyway, he can make videos about whatever he wants, but his right to have an opinion does not negate anyone else’s right to have one counter to that or to respond to it.

With all that said, I don’t think Cody is really interested in having a conversation about this issue. His response to Nonat’s video was dismissive, and I think that’s being charitable. I find it hard to believe that an honest discourse about PF2’s problems was the intended outcome. Even if we still assume his complaint his sincere, there can be other reasons for sharing it (i.e., driving views to his channel).

It might also be better to do so without making snide comments against posters who have responded to this comment section.

I was taking a dig at the wider discourse. This conversation has a familiar shape. It’s happen before, and it’ll happen again. I also take issue with the expectation that those on the receiving side of criticism are obliged to show magnanimity. That’s nothing more than tone policing.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I’m not sure about the relative sizes of PF2 and Roll20, so you could instead feel embarassed for PF2.

Insofar as Roll20 is a VTT intended to facilitate online RPGs and PF2 is a one such RPG, I can say that the VTT side of it is very bad. How much that has to do with the PF2 ruleset or Paizo support is a question I don't have an answer for but by comparison the Foundry VTT experience is significantly better.

I may feel bad for PF2 that is been implemented so poorly, but I'm embarrassed for Roll20
a. ) That the product is so bad, and
b.) That such a superior product is in the market by a new and small entrant.

Roll20 should have the benefits of scale and experience to prevent such quality disparities.

 

[kenada]

I believe you, unfortunately that does nothing to mitigate me concerns. I just need to give it a try when this pandemic thing is mostly over.

Sure. You’ve articulated a bunch of reasons in these threads for why PF2 may not be a good fit for you. More as a GM, but I think that’s fair either way.

I was partially responding more for readers than I am to your concern. There’s a ton of negativity going around about PF2. If someone who’s curious in the game sees only negativity, then they might give it a pass.

I also wanted to clarify what I meant by “deoptimize”. Optimization is a common theme in PF2 discourse. The video that prompted this thread makes the assumption you have to optimize and play optimally. My hope is that by being more specific, it should be clear that I’m saying you don’t have to play that way.

 

[kenada]

Insofar as Roll20 is a VTT intended to facilitate online RPGs and PF2 is a one such RPG, I can say that the VTT side of it is very bad. How much that has to do with the PF2 ruleset or Paizo support is a question I don't have an answer for but by comparison the Foundry VTT experience is significantly better.

I may feel bad for PF2 that is been implemented so poorly, but I'm embarrassed for Roll20
a. ) That the product is so bad, and
b.) That such a superior product is in the market by a new and small entrant.

Roll20 should have the benefits of scale and experience to prevent such quality disparities.

It’s also worth emphasizing that the PF2 support in Foundry is done entirely by the community. Volunteers are doing a better job for free than a company working with the publisher and being paid for the content.

The only thing I miss in Foundry is the tokens. I really wish I could just buy a token sheet from Paizo for use in my VTT of choice.

 

[dave2008]

Sure. You’ve articulated a bunch of reasons in these threads for why PF2 may not be a good fit for you. More as a GM, but I think that’s fair either way.

Yep, no real interest in DMing PF2 at the moment, but I have a lot more freedom in what I chose to play. Really it comes down to who I play with I believe. I'm just hoping I can find some casual players. I'm not into character building, optimizing, team synergy / tactics. I mostly hear those are the parts people who play PF2 enjoy and I therefor will have a hard time finding players I fit with. We will see...

 

[dave2008]

It’s also worth emphasizing that the PF2 support in Foundry is done entirely by the community. Volunteers are doing a better job for free than a company working with the publisher and being paid for the content.

That's amazing. I don't use VTTs, but that is pretty shocking that a community effort is surpassing a professional paid effort.

 

[TheWayofPie]

That's amazing. I don't use VTTs, but that is pretty shocking that a community effort is surprising a professional paid effort.

I think it’s mostly because Roll20 seems complacent and has probably terrible infrastructure (where the heck is night mode???). Only reason I use it is to play 4e because I see no support ever coming for foundry since the community is incredibly tiny and only getting smaller. Once I can get a group to run pathfinder 2e or other systems I’m doing everything else on foundry

 

[FrozenNorth]

Anyway, he can make videos about whatever he wants, but his right to have an opinion does not negate anyone else’s right to have one counter to that or to respond to it.

Want to disagree with his opinion? Go ahead. There are numerous posts on this thread that do just that.

Suggesting that his video was just to drive views (as the original poster did) and suggesting that his issue was that he was unwilling to make any changes to the AP (while making a snide dig at another poster, as you did) is both unconvincing, and a bit of a jerk move.

Plus, while I have not had the same issue Cody had with the system, I have had my own issues with the system despite my game approach being extremely different from his.

I was taking a dig at the wider discourse. This conversation has a familiar shape. It’s happen before, and it’ll happen again. I also take issue with the expectation that those on the receiving side of criticism are obliged to show magnanimity. That’s nothing more than tone policing.

Cody is the one of the receiving end of criticism. He was the one accused of lacking sincerity.

You weren’t on the receiving side of any criticism. Instead, you made an unsolicited snide remark about @Retreater.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It does seem like a good indicator for games that are receiving active development and I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I would point out, however, that those of us in PF1 games cannot buy new PF1 products from Paizo because they aren't being made. One local DM kept his subscription to Paizo adventures but plans to convert anything he likes to PF1.

I mean, I know I bought some Paizo material and converted it to 5E before PF2 came out. That could easily work in the reverse, too, though overall I think it's probably a small bit of the market.

Also keep in mind he made a 5e vs PF2e video and he gave the win to PF2e. I feel his complaints are legitimate. I tried to like it but it was just too busy. He did give the game a fair shot. Its his opinion after all.

I mean, I feel his complaints are kind of lame because he just doesn't give any real support to it. There's no real justification for saying the Druid has to shapeshift into a T-Rex every time: I've looked at the different stats and honestly there is are other easily viable options there. You need to give some sort of more detailed evidence if you are going to talk about "optimal picks" because you're dealing with stuff like numbers. That he didn't... well, it's weaksauce. With his Diplomacy jab at the end, it all comes off as pretty weak.

It’s kinda cool to polymorph into a T-Rex. Sounds like fun to me. It’s nothing I would get upset about. But maybe that’s a sign that they need to create more monsters of that challenge rating to maybe spice things up a bit.

It doesn't quite work like that in PF2: you basically a base form and you get stat/attack mods depending on the form. I think they could do a little more to flesh out (The Ankylosaurus should get extra AC, Brontosaurus should get more HP, the Stegosaurus should probably cut teh difference between the two to give it a little niche, and the Deinonychus should probably cause a bit more bleed damage to stay competitive), but the T-Rex isn't like the end-all be-all for that transformation: the Triceratops is definitely more of a damage-dealer, it just lacks the T-Rex's range. Then again the Big B has more range, and if you have access to AoO it's definitely going to lockdown more people, though it's attack doesn't have the Deadly trait like the T-Rex's jaws do (though the jaws don't cause as much normal damage).

Also really needs a Pteradon transformation, maybe a Plesiosaurus to give air/water versatility.

While I agree with most of your analysis, I think it is absolutely wrong that many claimed you could not roleplay in 4e. I'm not sure how you could dispute that (of course I couldn't understand it when people said it on the WotC boards as well). In case you misunderstood, that is what I was claiming was wrong, not anything to do with combats.

People seem to think that having systems to arbitrate roleplaying is meant to replace roleplaying. His last Diplomacy comment really nailed that home.

To be honest I can’t comprehend why people feel they can bo longer play a game because they stop putting out new books for it. Blows my mind. I think it makes them easier to play because canon closed.

I mean, it's always regrettable, but as long as you got the books you're good. When it looked like FFG Star Wars was ending, I was pretty okay because I had all the material for it.

Insofar as Roll20 is a VTT intended to facilitate online RPGs and PF2 is a one such RPG, I can say that the VTT side of it is very bad. How much that has to do with the PF2 ruleset or Paizo support is a question I don't have an answer for but by comparison the Foundry VTT experience is significantly better.

I may feel bad for PF2 that is been implemented so poorly, but I'm embarrassed for Roll20
a. ) That the product is so bad, and
b.) That such a superior product is in the market by a new and small entrant.

Roll20 should have the benefits of scale and experience to prevent such quality disparities.

Roll20 is just really lackluster. Like, the interface is dated as hell in my opinion, especially when you compare it to Foundry. I'm not a fan of the subscription service, but if you're going to do it I think you should really have a solid user interface and options, and honestly it feels like a product from 3-4 years ago.

I think it’s mostly because Roll20 seems complacent and has probably terrible infrastructure (where the heck is night mode???). Only reason I use it is to play 4e because I see no support ever coming for foundry since the community is incredibly tiny and only getting smaller. Once I can get a group to run pathfinder 2e or other systems I’m doing everything else on foundry

God, yes, night mode.

I do hope 4E appears on it, though I think the bigger problem is the lack of OGL material, which makes it legally difficult to create it.