| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making and there doesn't seem to be any demonstration that the problem he stated doesn't exist. i.e. specialization in one action makes that action (or set of actions) the default action in a majority of scenarios. PF2 relies on specialization and this creates limited choices.
...
But how would you even go about demonstrating that the problem doesn’t exist, though? You can’t do a mathematical analysis of all possible scenarios; one alternative would be to draw from experiences playing 2e to show that the system is interesting and not repetitive, which many people *have* been doing. Even so, it’s still going after a sliding target. If 50% of actions are spent making a bow attack, is that too repetitive? What about 70%? 85%? What if most turns are comprised of basically the same set of actions, but the sequence allows for several different variations on the set of actions? Are the variations interesting enough, then?
I’m of the opinion that ultimately the exact numbers don’t actually matter that much, the experience of those numbers is going to matter more. People are using a lot of numbers and complicated examples to explain their own experiences, and the original examples are being “nitpicked” because they’re discordant with peoples’ experiences with the system.
At the end of the day, it’s a lot like trying to convince a friend that a movie they loved (or hated) is actually really terrible (or amazing). It’s a not literally impossible task, but you can give a lot of examples and explanations and they won’t seem to do much of anything.