| 31 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea if I'm going to actually PF2e. Some of the big fans of the current version of the rules may come to hate the new version so I would argue most people don't know if they'll play it.
For the playtest can we please pledge not to threaten to walk away or to post to people telling them to "just play 1e so the rest of us can enjoy 2e"? here are two examples with the names redacted of what I'm talking about
In which case, you'll be happy playing 1e and I'll be happy playing 2e.
that's the point where people like me who came to pathfinder because it was the opposite of 4E/5E, lots of customization and variables, wave goodbye to the good people of paizo
This playtest is going to be volatile and (likely) toxic enough without us piling fuel onto the fire. Let's all try to restrain ourselves as much as possible and not posting these sorts of sentiments will help dramatically in the tone of the boards.
Just a small request from a fellow poster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Talk about the information and leave each other alone.
Most especially as the devs are paying close attention and nothing is written indelibly on titanium sheets.
Didn't we have a thread where people talked about how we should all be polite and not turn all the threads into name calling and arguing? It seems that was all forgotten both before the documents dropped and especially afterwards.
Also, we need a faster way to flag posts.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that sticks with me from having been in multiple video game alphas:
"The general player is VERY GOOD at spotting things that don't feel right, and VERY BAD at fixing them. Even hearing nothing but 'I don't like X' is valuable, and often times it is just as valuable as someone proposing a way to fix it."
Same goes here.
If a bunch of people are saying "I don't like X", then X is a problem. The idea should be to acknowledge that its a problem, and let the devs find how to fix it.
Is the problem with X that its actually a bad mechanic? Or is it that X was presented in such a way as to give a bad first impression of it? Either way, if enough people call out X over and over again, then something needs to be done about it (even if technically there is nothing wrong with it, the way it is presented can still be improved to remove the initial knee-jerk reaction to it).
All feedback is valuable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that sticks with me from having been in multiple video game alphas:
"The general player is VERY GOOD at spotting things that don't feel right, and VERY BAD at fixing them. Even hearing nothing but 'I don't like X' is valuable, and often times it is just as valuable as someone proposing a way to fix it."
Same goes here.
If a bunch of people are saying "I don't like X", then X is a problem. The idea should be to acknowledge that its a problem, and let the devs find how to fix it.
Is the problem with X that its actually a bad mechanic? Or is it that X was presented in such a way as to give a bad first impression of it? Either way, if enough people call out X over and over again, then something needs to be done about it (even if technically there is nothing wrong with it, the way it is presented can still be improved to remove the initial knee-jerk reaction to it).
All feedback is valuable.
This, this, this, this, THIS.
I’ve seen a mechanic be written in a way that made readers dislike it. Phrased differently, though, the exact same mechanical outcome was perfectly fine.
Tell the designers what you like, what you don’t like, and if you can, tell them why, but they don’t need armchair designers “helping”. (We’ll do it anyway, I know, but they really don’t need the “help”.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that sticks with me from having been in multiple video game alphas:
"The general player is VERY GOOD at spotting things that don't feel right, and VERY BAD at fixing them. Even hearing nothing but 'I don't like X' is valuable, and often times it is just as valuable as someone proposing a way to fix it."
Same goes here.
If a bunch of people are saying "I don't like X", then X is a problem. The idea should be to acknowledge that its a problem, and let the devs find how to fix it.
Is the problem with X that its actually a bad mechanic? Or is it that X was presented in such a way as to give a bad first impression of it? Either way, if enough people call out X over and over again, then something needs to be done about it (even if technically there is nothing wrong with it, the way it is presented can still be improved to remove the initial knee-jerk reaction to it).
All feedback is valuable.
Gods, yes please.
Sometimes I'm not that good at explaining why I don't like a thing, I just don't like the thing.
I just want to be able to say "I do not like this particular thing" without needing a full essay on why.
I hate constitution flaw on elf race.
Right. Now if we can get people to focus on explaining what they do or don't like and why without being told that they are wrong, dumb, and so forth from the Usual Suspects things may go better and the devs can read over the threads without three pages of back and forth on who is wrong for thinking something is broken or not broken.
It's a dream, I know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell the designers what you like, what you don’t like, and if you can, tell them why, but they don’t need armchair designers “helping”. (We’ll do it anyway, I know, but they really don’t need the “help”.
Exactly.
An example that comes to mind for me right now? Two Weapon Fighting.
From what I can tell, PF2e lets everyone hold two weapons and choose between which one they attack with freely with their Strike options. So you could do your first hit with a big clumsy weapon, then switch to the other hand for more reliable weapon to offset the penalties a bit.
However, everyone coming from 1e sees dual wielding as meaning "getting an extra attack because you have an extra weapon". And THAT is locked away behind class walls for the Fighter and Ranger. A rogue COULD wield two different daggers (say fire and ice) and use both of them in a single round, but what people SEE is "Well all the feats that make using two weapons good aren't available to Rogues, so Rogues can't TWF without multiclassing".
The way it is presented gives the impression that its totally locked out as even a general concept, when it really isn't.
I still don't LIKE how its handled, but changing how its presented would go a long way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea if I'm going to actually PF2e. Some of the big fans of the current version of the rules may come to hate the new version so I would argue most people don't know if they'll play it.
For the playtest can we please pledge not to threaten to walk away or to post to people telling them to "just play 1e so the rest of us can enjoy 2e"? here are two examples with the names redacted of what I'm talking about
In which case, you'll be happy playing 1e and I'll be happy playing 2e.that's the point where people like me who came to pathfinder because it was the opposite of 4E/5E, lots of customization and variables, wave goodbye to the good people of paizoThis playtest is going to be volatile and (likely) toxic enough without us piling fuel onto the fire. Let's all try to restrain ourselves as much as possible and not posting these sorts of sentiments will help dramatically in the tone of the boards.
Just a small request from a fellow poster.
Knowing how you feel about PF2, I would like to thank you for posting this. It means a lot to see this coming from you, and I look forward to seeing your point of view throughout the playtest.
Sounds good. Bump.
Sure.
Might have my gripes with this or that part of the system, but doesn't mean I'm just going to throw a tantrum about it.
/Signed.
Remember -- If you don't like something in the playtest rules, the best thing to do is complain about it, preferably politely and with suggestions on how it could be fixed or improved. We have now reached the phase where our inputs are important.
I find it funny that the thread right over this one as I write this is titled "And PF2 just lost us".
I agree with the OP, but maybe with an exception. It is allowed to say Farwell in response to a leave threat, and it is allowed to ale a leave threat in response to a request to go. For karmic balance and such. (just kidding)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find there's a difference between someone saying "I don't like this system and I wont play it", which is fair, and someone saying "I want this and that changed, or I'll stop buying things". The first is a consumer option. The second is a childlish attempt to bully Paizo to make the game you want. Similarly, I find that requesting someone to leave, is different than wishing farewell to someone who is leaving. That someone is leaving on his own will, I honestly hope him well in his endevours, wherever he goes. Wishing well to other people is not harmful.
In short, I think everyone should be able to do whatever they want with their own money and game time. I don't think, however, people should try to bully others to do something, or pretend they can held other hostages of their own decisions. Be it "change this part of the game" or "stop playing the playtest".
Your example of someone who is actively being a jerk to unhappy players can certainly hurt Paizo. The example of some jerk unhappy player who is actively trying to bully Paizo so they don't change the game as they see fit is also hurtful. Pushing back a change that might or might not be liked by a silent group of players because a vocal group of players is, well, vocal isn't exactly helpful.
In my opinion, people should really play the playtest, if possible with different groups, answer the survey, and see what Paizo does. Then buy, or not.
Optionally, Vic has posted a very good post about how make your voice heard to Paizo. That'll be nice too. But I still think Paizo should take MUCH less consideration to what it's said in the forum (even under Vic's advice) and much more consideration to what's being answered in the survay, whatever that answer is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't choose whether to play PF2. I'm saying such declarations during the playtest isn't helpful to the conversation as no one knows what the final rules will look like.
I've been pretty negative. I have strong reservations about whether or not my group will switch. But their decision won't be made until the PF2e CRB comes out.
I will gladly pledge to this :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find there's a difference between someone saying "I don't like this system and I wont play it", which is fair, and someone saying "I want this and that changed, or I'll stop buying things". The first is a consumer option. The second is a childlish attempt to bully Paizo to make the game you want. Similarly, I find that requesting someone to leave, is different than wishing farewell to someone who is leaving. That someone is leaving on his own will, I honestly hope him well in his endevours, wherever he goes. Wishing well to other people is not harmful.
In short, I think everyone should be able to do whatever they want with their own money and game time. I don't think, however, people should try to bully others to do something, or pretend they can held other hostages of their own decisions. Be it "change this part of the game" or "stop playing the playtest".
Your example of someone who is actively being a jerk to unhappy players can certainly hurt Paizo. The example of some jerk unhappy player who is actively trying to bully Paizo so they don't change the game as they see fit is also hurtful. Pushing back a change that might or might not be liked by a silent group of players because a vocal group of players is, well, vocal isn't exactly helpful.
Of course the tone of how you do it is paramount here, but I strongly disagree that you cannot warn Paizo that there is a good chance that they will be hurt economically if they make the wrong choices in this playtest. That is just logic.
They apparently think that there needs to be radical change to make them viable for the future. I think that the change is too radical in some areas and did (and already has) shock some veteran players into rethinking their commitment to buying Paizo's products in the future. Warning them that, if they release PF2E near to what we got in the playtest, I will not buy the new edition beyond the core rulebook PDF (to plunder it for houserules for PF1E) is trying to save them at least one loyal customer.
I'm not "threatening" them with that, I'm giving them feedback how they can find a decent middle ground (IMO, of course).
Of course the tone of how you do it is paramount here, but I strongly disagree that you cannot warn Paizo that there is a good chance that they will be hurt economically if they make the wrong choices in this playtest. That is just logic.
Cool. Here's my propossal:
Everytime someone goes out there in the forum and say they won't buy PF2 if rule X is implemented as it is right now in the playtest, I'll go to that thread and post right after them that I would not buy PF2 if said rule is NOT implemented as it is right now in the playtest.
Would you find that helpful for Paizo? Why? If not... why not?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the key is for everyone to give their own feedback and to let other people say their piece.
It really doesn't help to comment on the validity of another poster's views. No matter what the issue, there are passionate people on all sides - the job of sifting through all those competing views to come to the "correct" answer rests with Paizo, not with us.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cool. Here's my propossal:
Everytime someone goes out there in the forum and say they won't buy PF2 if rule X is implemented as it is right now in the playtest, I'll go to that thread and post right after them that I would not buy PF2 if said rule is NOT implemented as it is right now in the playtest.
Would you find that helpful for Paizo? Why? If not... why not?
Because you would be a disingenous douche if you were to do that just to make a point? If there is someone *spamming* the boards that he will pack up his stuff and leave, that is a problem. If it is individual people putting Paizo on notice once (or twice), it is a useful metric to Paizo that they have hit a stress point with their established player base and need to be careful not to lose too many of the unhappy people.