First Knee-Jerk Reaction


General Discussion

251 to 261 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Well, this thread has devolved into a dumpster fire.

I have this strange feeling I get whenever I agree with you. That and us both being on the same page regarding 4e ... Ugh. Can I take a shower at your place? I fell unclean.


BPorter wrote:

A strawman is refuting an argument never made and claiming to have refuted the irrelevant argument as if it mattered.

5e and PF2 don't claim to do anything about high or low power, and people talking about high or low power don't claim that it's representing something else. Thus, it isn't a strawman. Claiming that they ARE doing that, however, is certainly a strawman.


Grapes of Being Tired wrote:


Compare PF2e's entry on...anything, really, to the same one in 1e or 3.5e, or the direct competitor, 5e.

I find it to be pretty much the same as 1e if you were actually forced to use the books.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GameDesignerDM wrote:


Or, you know, veterans could just ignore that bit since it has no impact on us, and for new players who may need some inspiration, they might find that section immensely useful.

A few new players I've recently introduced to PF loved those types of blurbs in the Strategy Guide and Inner Sea Races.

2E is also about attracting new people, and those blurbs are likely meant for new players.

In that context it's fine. Flavor is flavor, after all, and I'm going to be playing a goblin rogue that wears fancy dresses and tries to be super high society for the play test. Because why not.

But sometimes I like more options to match the flavor. I like going "Ok, I want to make a character that does X" and looking and seeing many different class and feat options to make X happen. If there's only 1 way to make X happen it feels restrictive, at least to me.

And that's my initial reaction. I'm still going to try it out, and try as many combinations of things as I can in the time frame to get a good feel for it. Can't wait to try it, but overall not currently excited. Maybe I'm just trying to keep my hopes down so I don't get disappointed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
5e and PF2 aren't fighting for "which is more/less powerful", they are staking out simpler (fewer mechanics) vs. tactical satisfaction. Reducing the comparison to low-power vs. high-power is a strawman.

For the record, when I'm talking about 5e or PF2e and strength, I'm not referring to power level of the game. I'm referring to the power of the COMPANY and the BRAND.

I'm saying that if Paizo tries to make a product that is in even the same ballpark as what WotC is doing, then Pathfinder is not a strong enough brand to go up against Dungeons and Dragons on even footing.

Instead, you have to make your product stronger (aka better) than what the competition is doing so that you are competing where they are weak (not so good at). So if Dungeons and Dragons is killing it in the "Quick and easy to pick up, but not really that deep" market, you'd be a fool to try and squeeze in there with it. Instead, you'd want to aim at it's weakness (not deep) by making a system with a lot more depth and customization that is more detail and nuanced.

Think of it like... you own a Mom & Pop store, and a Walmart comes to town. If you think you can compete with Walmart selling the same things, you're an idiot and you're going to go under. Instead, you let Walmart carry the cheap crap, and you change focus to more expensive and niche products that can't be bought at a big box store. Whatever Walmart does, you run the hell away from as fast as you can, because Walmart is stronger than you are and you can't win against it. You just have to get out of it's way and do what it can't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:

Or, you know, veterans could just ignore that bit since it has no impact on us, and for new players who may need some inspiration, they might find that section immensely useful.

But it's important to approach these types of suggestions the right way. Adding tips and generalized suggestions for new players or players who struggle to think of outlandish character ideas is perfectly fine! But it's so so crucial to give those tips and then encourage other ideas in the process. Reminding players that they can come up with their own ideas and create against-the-grain characters helps them go from new players needing inspiration to veteran players like yourself.

If an RPG only mentions stereotypical concepts and ideas and doesn't encourage player creativity along the way, it can lead to a lower chance of players trying new things simply because they didn't realize they could.

This is especially true of newer players who often ONLY know fantasy tropes and cliches when coming into the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:
BPorter wrote:
5e and PF2 aren't fighting for "which is more/less powerful", they are staking out simpler (fewer mechanics) vs. tactical satisfaction. Reducing the comparison to low-power vs. high-power is a strawman.

For the record, when I'm talking about 5e or PF2e and strength, I'm not referring to power level of the game. I'm referring to the power of the COMPANY and the BRAND.

I'm saying that if Paizo tries to make a product that is in even the same ballpark as what WotC is doing, then Pathfinder is not a strong enough brand to go up against Dungeons and Dragons on even footing.

Instead, you have to make your product stronger (aka better) than what the competition is doing so that you are competing where they are weak (not so good at). So if Dungeons and Dragons is killing it in the "Quick and easy to pick up, but not really that deep" market, you'd be a fool to try and squeeze in there with it. Instead, you'd want to aim at it's weakness (not deep) by making a system with a lot more depth and customization that is more detail and nuanced.

Think of it like... you own a Mom & Pop store, and a Walmart comes to town. If you think you can compete with Walmart selling the same things, you're an idiot and you're going to go under. Instead, you let Walmart carry the cheap crap, and you change focus to more expensive and niche products that can't be bought at a big box store. Whatever Walmart does, you run the hell away from as fast as you can, because Walmart is stronger than you are and you can't win against it. You just have to get out of it's way and do what it can't.

Well, there have been a lot of 5e comparisons made but I wasn't citing you specifically.

However, the entire existence of PF has been "making a product in the same ballpark". I was only pointing out that where 5e has opted for "lighter weight mechanics", PF2 embraces tactical crunch.

PF has been staking that genre & rules approach out since the launch of PF1 and has been pretty damn successful at it. I don't see any reason why PF2 can't be as well.


At a very first glance, this is looking to be a system that I was hoping would exist eventually.

It appears to me to be a middle ground between the complexity of PF1 and the simplicity of DnD5. There's more customization than DnD5 while not going as far as PF1, and it is more streamlined than PF1 while not so light on rules as DnD5 is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vition wrote:

At a very first glance, this is looking to be a system that I was hoping would exist eventually.

It appears to me to be a middle ground between the complexity of PF1 and the simplicity of DnD5. There's more customization than DnD5 while not going as far as PF1, and it is more streamlined than PF1 while not so light on rules as DnD5 is.

To me, PF2 seems fiddlier and more cluttered than PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
The thread is "kneejerk reactions". If you don't have a kneejerk reaction to the game to post, you're in the wrong thread. The fact that you're here solely to piss other people off is quite literally the definition of a troll. To troll is to try to make someone angry for your own amusement. It doesn't matter whether or not they're 'innocent'.
Flag and move on, then! :)

'

My posts can get deleted. Doesn't make you any less a lousy GM and player.

Web Product Manager

Locking this one. A bit of a refresher on our Community Guidelines might be in order given our Playtest is bringing in a lot of new posters, or posters who've stepped away and have come back. I've highlighted important pieces below for your reference.

Quote:
There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!
Quote:
Posts or threads made solely to provoke a strong negative reaction or conflict do not contribute to the inviting place we’d like our community to be. Threads with provocative titles will be locked, and posts removed as necessary.

In addition, we're not cool with "edition warring" on our forums. Folks are totally welcome to like different games and systems and it's that variety in options is beneficial to our community. If you find yourself tempted to hastily respond, that might be a sign to step away from the keyboard and take a break from the discussion.

251 to 261 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / First Knee-Jerk Reaction All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion