And PF2 just lost us...


General Discussion

201 to 250 of 337 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Well, after reading a post from Lisa, saying how happy they were about the overwhelming positive reaction among those who heavily playtested the thing in Gen Con, I think you are going to need Mjonir to hammer it back to what it was.

There is a HUGE, HUGE difference between playing a low level premade game with premade characters and building a character, running the game as a DM and playing through many levels. Having fun in a vacuum where someone else control every element to make it as fun as possible is quite different from starting from scratch with all the good and bad: it's like ikea furniture in the store looking good but it's a LOT less enjoyable when you're looking at a pile of parts you are meant to fit together on your own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Indeed. If that lvl 16 goblin, instead of "a goblin" is Globerg The Dragonkiller, Son of Grafgh, heir of Magluybyet, the Widowmaker, Blood of Fiends, then slaughtering 20 low level guards isn't surprising. He is the goblin equivalent of Achilles. That is why he is lvl 16, a legendary level.

Sure. But you know what would happen to Globerg in PF1E if he'd try that stunt? He'd get his naked goblin ass spanked by the level 1 dwarf fighters, that would happen. And to me that is what should realistically happen, because Globergs shtick is lobbing fireballs, not beating up armored people with his bare hands.

Everybody has a different taste in how he wants his fantasy to work. Given how we all got here, i.e. we didn't want a too gamey Dungeons & Dragons and preferred the more simulationist approach of 3.X over 4E, I'm really surprised how many people are now demanding that we shed the approach which made Paizo's continued existance possible in the first place.

I'd argue that part of that difference comes from the fact that a PF1 character is insanely dependent on magic items to make up their stats, and that a naked PF1 fighter actually wouldn't fare that much better. Sure, they've got the BAB to attack four times (making it theoretically possible), but they'll take just as much damage as the wizard will.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Well, after reading a post from Lisa, saying how happy they were about the overwhelming positive reaction among those who heavily playtested the thing in Gen Con, I think you are going to need Mjonir to hammer it back to what it was.
There is a HUGE, HUGE difference between playing a low level premade game with premade characters and building a character, running the game as a DM and playing through many levels. Having fun in a vacuum where someone else control every element to make it as fun as possible is quite different from starting from scratch with all the good and bad: it's like ikea furniture in the store looking good but it's a LOT less enjoyable when you're looking at a pile of parts you are meant to fit together on your own.

You want me to put that cupboard together for you? It's not THAT hard, you just need to read the manual instead of scouring the Internet for other people's posts about how hard it is.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
You disagree that someone could write a story where a fictional wizard who has reached legendary status and been through many battles and all manner of adventure could beat up 10 untested rookies in a bar fight?

Sure, someone could write that story. Would probably be the last time I pick anything up from that author, but yeah, one could write it.

Apart from that,what disturbs me a bit is your notion that level 1 fighters are untested rookies, because they are (unluckily, in my opinion) way more than that. They already had training, they already can do what most normal people can't. And most probably, that wizard has, through all his fights, never needed to use their fists (because magic is stronger anyways), so they are glass-skin characters very much.

I've no idea at this point of time if magnuskn is right with his claim regarding that difference between PF1 and PF2, but man, do I hope he's wrong. Because making starting PCs even more superhuman than they already are in PF1 would be a big bummer for me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
You disagree that someone could write a story where a fictional wizard who has reached legendary status and been through many battles and all manner of adventure could beat up 10 untested rookies in a bar fight?

No, I disagreed because my analogy was that a naked low-level goblin wizard of level 16 could not do that in PF1. Of course someone can write a story like the one you cited. But we are not "writing stories" here, we are trying to simulate combat scenarios for roleplaying characters.

And my preference in roleplaying games is for situations where there is still an element of verisimilitude to my expectations, which PF2E so far is not giving me with its "+level to everything" approach.

Nobody is saying that other expectations are wrong, but in this situation where we are in, it's a competition to convince Paizo which side has the better argument.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Well, after reading a post from Lisa, saying how happy they were about the overwhelming positive reaction among those who heavily playtested the thing in Gen Con, I think you are going to need Mjonir to hammer it back to what it was.

Probably. Doesn't mean I can't try.

Also, I'm stealing Globerg. He's mine now. Yoink!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
You disagree that someone could write a story where a fictional wizard who has reached legendary status and been through many battles and all manner of adventure could beat up 10 untested rookies in a bar fight?

Sure, someone could write that story. Would probably be the last time I pick anything up from that author, but yeah, one could write it.

Apart from that,what disturbs me a bit is your notion that level 1 fighters are untested rookies, because they are (unluckily, in my opinion) way more than that. They already had training, they already can do what most normal people can't. And most probably, that wizard has, through all his fights, never needed to use their fists (because magic is stronger anyways), so they are glass-skin characters very much.

I've no idea at this point of time if magnuskn is right with his claim regarding that difference between PF1 and PF2, but man, do I hope he's wrong. Because making starting PCs even more superhuman than they already are in PF1 would be a big bummer for me.

So the problem is that The high level wizard in question doesn't fit your concept of what a high level wizard should be, not gamist vs simulationist concerns?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
I'd argue that part of that difference comes from the fact that a PF1 character is insanely dependent on magic items to make up their stats, and that a naked PF1 fighter actually wouldn't fare that much better. Sure, they've got the BAB to attack four times (making it theoretically possible), but they'll take just as much damage as the wizard will.

That's probably true and actually what I'd like to happen in that scenario as well, though a naked Fighter at level probably has a much better chance to win that fight, because of his main stats + feats. Again, I like that there is still an element of realism in that kind of situation ("I need your clothes, boots and your horse" "You forgot to say please" ^^), versus the PF2E version.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Well, after reading a post from Lisa, saying how happy they were about the overwhelming positive reaction among those who heavily playtested the thing in Gen Con, I think you are going to need Mjonir to hammer it back to what it was.
There is a HUGE, HUGE difference between playing a low level premade game with premade characters and building a character, running the game as a DM and playing through many levels. Having fun in a vacuum where someone else control every element to make it as fun as possible is quite different from starting from scratch with all the good and bad: it's like ikea furniture in the store looking good but it's a LOT less enjoyable when you're looking at a pile of parts you are meant to fit together on your own.

Maybe. Still, they are not talking about "hey, it was a warm reception". They are talking about how happy they are about the MASSIVE and overwhelming positive reaction.

Also, take in account, that's reaction they (the team) see live. They see the people play, and then they see the people answer the questions. That's a big difference compared to someone on internet who has been crapping on the playtest for 6 months because it's not the game they have been playing for 10 years, even if they did not have the book yet, and then a few days after the release of the playtest book they write a post explaining how everything they thought beforehand was right, in some playtest session they supposedly have somewhere. That one is also important, sure. But honestly, I'd give more weight to the first one. Maybe the second one is... uh... colored by some confirmation bias.
Or you know, a false report trying to push an agenda. Or true, of course, that's also possible. Who knows. It's certainly feedback they need to take in account. But they guys they saw playing in Gen Con, and having fun? Well, that's real direct feedback.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
So the problem is that The high level wizard in question doesn't fit your concept of what a high level wizard should be, not gamist vs simulationist concerns?

Nice strawman. No, I explained my perspective twice now. Get someone else to play your game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
You want me to put that cupboard together for you? It's not THAT hard, you just need to read the manual instead of scouring the Internet for other people's posts about how hard it is.

You missed the point or ignored it. Seeing something already put together and put in the best light is different than the experience of doing it yourself.

Secondly, I used ikea not be cause it's hard to do but because they are infamous for almost giving you everything you need for putting your furniture together.

"Bender: [After they finish working.] Ah, there. Finished. And with only six missing pieces!
Fry: Those Swedes sure know how to put in almost everything you need."

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Pretty sure Globerg is going to get his ass kicked by action economy no matter which edition he is in.


magnuskn wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
So the problem is that The high level wizard in question doesn't fit your concept of what a high level wizard should be, not gamist vs simulationist concerns?
Nice strawman. No, I explained my perspective twice now. Get someone else to play your game.

That question wasn't even directed toward you ...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
So the problem is that The high level wizard in question doesn't fit your concept of what a high level wizard should be, not gamist vs simulationist concerns?
Nice strawman. No, I explained my perspective twice now. Get someone else to play your game.
That question wasn't even directed toward you ...

Sorry, I apologize. I misread.


I'm pretty sure Paizo would love to be as succesful as Ikea, tho.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
There is a HUGE, HUGE difference between playing a low level premade game with premade characters and building a character ..

I was just having this discussion and the possible epiphany here is that many folks are thinking about Pathfinder 2E all wrong.

(That's those of us who are complaining that the system doesn't feel right to fit our traditional fantasy roleplay system of choice).

The comment that struck to me was that Pathfinder 2E isn't meant to scratch that itch, but is instead meant to potentially be the market leader in the tabletop-pseudo-roleplay-boardgame space.

My closest gaming group has had occasional dalliances where we play games like Talisman, Runebound, the World of Warcraft boardgame, etc. Afterwards all our reactions are almost always very positive that it was a a fun game ~ marching the wizards and rogues we randomly drew around and collecting gear and abilities and feeling that 'leveling up' like going from 'Burning Hands' to 'Fireball' and such.

If you look at Pathfinder 2E through the lens that it's part of your shelf alongside Talisman, and don't look at it through the lens of 'this is what I use as the backbone for my homebrewed world/campaign', it's a tidy little system for running a Fighter, Wizard and Rogue through a pre-printed dungeon that occupies a space somewhere between Talisman and traditional D&D.

The point was even made that the pages in the PF2e Playtest book with feats, spells and powers are about as close to 'cardifying' things you find in a facedown 'chest deck' on a gameboard with keywords, icons, etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the first post. Reading the Core Rulebook so far reminds me of programming language specifications and mathematical papers and none of those things are even close to anything I'd call an entertainment for myself. I still have a degree of optimism for Playtest, will play and gm it over the weekend, but actually reading the book diminished that optimism greatly.
And that comes from someone who easily gets entertained by optimising his 49AC and (350 average DpR in the best circumstances) 16 lvl seeker in PF1.
Using the pdf with current layout is just very frustrating. I have a feeling that these rules would only be pleasant to use with some sort of a REALLY well made electronic database with hyperlinks for everything. Paizo might look at their competitors and make, say, Pathfinder Beyond (btw, that would actually be awesome and worth the money for me).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

It took me around 30 minutes to figure out what the proficiency bonus was for skills (your level if trained) - that's not really an exaggeration - the problem I think was I was trying to follow the 'build your character' section and it never explained where that info was - so I had to search and kept missing it.

There is no entry in the index for skill proficiency by the way.

It took me even longer to understand what Proficiency meant. It is possible that I just assumed that it meant level of training based upon the standard use of the term from other games. I feel that this is the key to almost everything in this system. The system is elegant and simple. The presentation is convoluted and confusing. Once I understood that proficiency was level plus training bonus everything else made sense. Maybe the solution was simply to say it that way rather than combine them into a very common term.

Skill = Level + Training Bonus + Ability Modifier

And do the same for other proficiency dependent things like AC, TAC, Weapon...etc

Or always list a page for proficiency. Or make sure that things like this can't be missed.

I feel like there are too many page bounces to figure out even simple character creation. The classes combined all the heritage, character leveling, skill feats etc. into one simple chart but everything else is located all over the book. Like powers being located in the spells...


gustavo iglesias wrote:
I'm pretty sure Paizo would love to be as succesful as Ikea, tho.

I don't know: I only have to drive 7 min to find Paizo products on sale but have to drive 2 1/2 hours to buy Ikea. I also know multiple people [inside and outside my sphere or friends] that own paizo products but no one I know has Ikea items. From my perspective, Ikea is far less successful in my area.

As far as dollar amounts and total profits, we're really talking apples and oranges in terms of products, employee numbers, having physical sale locations or not and many other factors.


well, if they are apples and oranges, and apples are the ones who are worth a few billions, I'm pretty sure I'd like to be that one if I had a company.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a specific example in Simulationist vs Gamist, consider Raistlin. Undoubtably he's a high level wizard. How do you think he would fare against a group of low level fighters without using his magic? Or, if you'd like something more modern, Kvothe without his magic against any group of guards...

These sorts of examples are super common and literature, and things we're used to seeing. You can be as high level as you'd like, but if you're out of your element, you're pretty much SOL. PF1e preserved some of this. Ever tried to escape a grapple from a level ~5 grappler when you're a level 20 wizard? Good luck!

PF2e is cutting down on number disparity, so some of this transition is to be expected, but still... there's a legitimate concern from those who don't desire that sort of thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

As a specific example in Simulationist vs Gamist, consider Raistlin. Undoubtably he's a high level wizard. How do you think he would fare against a group of low level fighters without using his magic? Or, if you'd like something more modern, Kvothe without his magic against any group of guards...

That has nothing to do with simulationism vs gamism, but with the kind of story those books are telling, and how wizards are in those books. I'm pretty confident Gandalf can beat 20 goblins using a staff. He can stale a combat against a Balrog, after all. Geralt of Rivia is another example of a wizard who probably can beat a lot of low level fighters into a bloody pulp using his hands. In Wh40k, a chaos sorcerer will spank those guards. If we widen the genre a bit, Jedi will do as well, even naked and without light saber.

So a good simulationist game who is trying to represent a world where wizards cough and are sick, like Raistlin, will have a different answer than a simulationist game who is trying to represent a world where wizards are Maiar. Having level being so important in combat is not less simulationist. It's just simulating a different world.

Remember, the word to express a game that looks like our world is "realism". Simulationism mean the rules do a good job to represent the game world. Which might not be realist at all. A good simulationist Marvel Super hero Game will have rules that give you the feel of Marvel Super Heroes genre.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
well, if they are apples and oranges, and apples are the ones who are worth a few billions, I'm pretty sure I'd like to be that one if I had a company.

Well if you want to publish books, it's in fact a very BAD pick. So for the analogy, they always intended to be an orange and you're saying 'but apples are so much better'...

Personally, if I enjoyed RPG's and making books, swedish furniture might not be an overly exciting thing to make. Let's face it, you don't get into RPG publishing to make billions and you know that going in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:

I see similar friction in just getting player desire to play the game.

So much this. It feels like the book was written by an accountant with a bad case of bleeching. I don't mind crunch (heck, I like Rolemaster, and that's rather notorious for it), but the way things are written is actively discouraging the reader to become invested. As it stands, you need to be willing to play the game in spire of the system - and that means that it will not appeal to new players. And the existing PF1 players will, too often, find that this is not the game they know and love, and likewise drift away - or stick with that they already own.

All in all, it seems not the way to go if you want to sell new product, especially with D&D 5th being very well received.

Note, please, that this post is purely speaking about presentation, with no opinions offered on the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Let's face it, you don't get into RPG publishing to make billions and you know that going in.

Sure, but that does not mean Lisa and the rest should not care about being able to raise the wages of their employees, being able to employ more people, having extra financial power to try more ambitious projects they might like... oh, and make some money for themselves too.

I mean, it's not like they should make Paizo a non-profit organization for the greater good of RPG fans.

Now, how they achieve that, it's open for debate, of course. But they are the ones risking their money, so they are the ones who have to make the call. And it seems they are pretty happy with how things are going, based on the extensive hours of playtest in Gen Con, and how everybody reacted positively to it.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

As a specific example in Simulationist vs Gamist, consider Raistlin. Undoubtably he's a high level wizard. How do you think he would fare against a group of low level fighters without using his magic? Or, if you'd like something more modern, Kvothe without his magic against any group of guards...

That has nothing to do with simulationism vs gamism, but with the kind of story those books are telling, and how wizards are in those books. I'm pretty confident Gandalf can beat 20 goblins using a staff. He can stale a combat against a Balrog, after all. Geralt of Rivia is another example of a wizard who probably can beat a lot of low level fighters into a bloody pulp using his hands. In Wh40k, a chaos sorcerer will spank those guards. If we widen the genre a bit, Jedi will do as well, even naked and without light saber.

Just wanted to say, Geralt of Rivia isn't a wizard by any stretch of the imagination (and certainly not by Pathfinder standards, or the standards of his own universe); a Chaos Sorcerer would beat them because he's a 7 foot tall supersoldier in power armor (assuming a Chaos Space Marine) or get completely obliterated (assuming a human sorcerer); and Jedi got slaughtered by mooks even with lightsabers.

Plus, PF2 is an evolution of PF1, so you'd need to look at those stories. And you won't find a PF1 story about an unarmed, magic-less wizard beating up twenty 1st level fighters. Because it didn't happen.

It can totally happen now though. The numbers are just incredibly skewed by level, it isn't even funny.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
graystone wrote:
Let's face it, you don't get into RPG publishing to make billions and you know that going in.

Sure, but that does not mean Lisa and the rest should not care about being able to raise the wages of their employees, being able to employ more people, having extra financial power to try more ambitious projects they might like... oh, and make some money for themselves too.

I mean, it's not like they should make Paizo a non-profit organization for the greater good of RPG fans.

None of this has anything to do with what I'm saying: they can never be as successful as ikea BECAUSE of the type of company they are. I was never implying that they shouldn't try to be the best company they can be or should neglect profits.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
And it seems they are pretty happy with how things are going, based on the extensive hours of playtest in Gen Con, and how everybody reacted positively to it.

Sure, but I was pointing out that that is a poor metric as it's a snapshot of the game shown at it's best in a vacuum: it's like having people LOVE your movie trailer. It might bode well for you or it may end up that those 2 min of clips where the only parts of the movie people liked.

Don't get me wrong, it's great people liked the pregen stuff: I just don't think that means much in the grand scheme of things. I think it'll be more useful in raising interest in the playtest then as a metric for how well people will actual like the playtest once they get into the nuts and bolts of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So far I'm not seeing it as an evolution. It is like the X Men movies. We have characters that look like the Xmen and Jane powers like the Xmen only the stories and backgrounds that made us love the Xmen arent there.


TheFinish wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

As a specific example in Simulationist vs Gamist, consider Raistlin. Undoubtably he's a high level wizard. How do you think he would fare against a group of low level fighters without using his magic? Or, if you'd like something more modern, Kvothe without his magic against any group of guards...

That has nothing to do with simulationism vs gamism, but with the kind of story those books are telling, and how wizards are in those books. I'm pretty confident Gandalf can beat 20 goblins using a staff. He can stale a combat against a Balrog, after all. Geralt of Rivia is another example of a wizard who probably can beat a lot of low level fighters into a bloody pulp using his hands. In Wh40k, a chaos sorcerer will spank those guards. If we widen the genre a bit, Jedi will do as well, even naked and without light saber.

Just wanted to say, Geralt of Rivia isn't a wizard by any stretch of the imagination (and certainly not by Pathfinder standards, or the standards of his own universe); a Chaos Sorcerer would beat them because he's a 7 foot tall supersoldier in power armor (assuming a Chaos Space Marine) or get completely obliterated (assuming a human sorcerer); and Jedi got slaughtered by mooks even with lightsabers.

Plus, PF2 is an evolution of PF1, so you'd need to look at those stories. And you won't find a PF1 story about an unarmed, magic-less wizard beating up twenty 1st level fighters. Because it didn't happen.

It can totally happen now though. The numbers are just incredibly skewed by level, it isn't even funny.

It actually probably won't happen, even now, unless the wizard is significantly tougher than he is strong. Wizard takes an average of 3 turns punching (assuming no critical failures) to down a single dwarven fighter (Con 14) with a shield. He'll also get hit for 8.5 damage (assuming a warhammer) every other turn. A goblin wizard with 14 Con has 134 HP. Assuming no rolls out of the ordinary, he'll probably take out 11 fighters before he goes down.

The fighters not actually using their shields have a good chance of speeding up the process. The wizard takes out a fighter every two turns in that case, but gets hit by an attack every turn (sometimes more than one). If we assume that the fighters only use their shield once they go below half, wizard's going down fast, in an average of about 13 turns - I think this requires about 14 fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Formatting of PDFs (Scrolling issues while trying to read the PDFs)

I don't really know where to put this so I hope this gets seen and taken into account by the staff at Paizo.

While trying to take a cursory look through the rulebook PDF I kept getting more and more frustrated because if I scroll through it with the down arrow on my keyboard it goes half way down the page then jumps back to the top of the page before scrolling half way down again then jumps to the top again before quickly jumping halfway etc. For me this almost makes the PDF unusable.

Plain and simple there's 2 columns of text so it should scroll all the way down the first column before jumping back to the top of the page for the second column then go all the way to the bottom of the page and onto the next page.

I also noticed at one point that as I was scrolling through it jumped back to the previous chapter for some reason and then very quickly jumped forward again.

If the idea was to make using the arrow keys a pain in the backside then mission accomplished otherwise I would change it and replace the file in your downloads section because this makes me not really want to spend any more time looking through the book and that's really too bad cause I was looking forward to joining a playtest group on Roll20. I might try again come morning but for now I'm just going to close it for the night. It might not have been so bad if this had happened on a night when it wasn't 32 degrees C with humidity at 66% and no AC but then it is summer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate how much I miss during the day so much builds up I don't even feel like diving back into the conversation. I lose track of where things were and where they have gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old School Canuck wrote:


Formatting of PDFs (Scrolling issues while trying to read the PDFs)

I don't really know where to put this so I hope this gets seen and taken into account by the staff at Paizo.

While trying to take a cursory look through the rulebook PDF I kept getting more and more frustrated because if I scroll through it with the down arrow on my keyboard it goes half way down the page then jumps back to the top of the page before scrolling half way down again then jumps to the top again before quickly jumping halfway etc. For me this almost makes the PDF unusable.

Plain and simple there's 2 columns of text so it should scroll all the way down the first column before jumping back to the top of the page for the second column then go all the way to the bottom of the page and onto the next page.

I also noticed at one point that as I was scrolling through it jumped back to the previous chapter for some reason and then very quickly jumped forward again.

If the idea was to make using the arrow keys a pain in the backside then mission accomplished otherwise I would change it and replace the file in your downloads section because this makes me not really want to spend any more time looking through the book and that's really too bad cause I was looking forward to joining a playtest group on Roll20. I might try again come morning but for now I'm just going to close it for the night. It might not have been so bad if this had happened on a night when it wasn't 32 degrees C with humidity at 66% and no AC but then it is summer.

I think that is probably a problem with your PDF reader than with the source, it worked fine for me using arrow keys(using the Foxit Reader free pdf reader). But two column does work better for print than on a (small) computer screen as you don't have to scroll up to see the next column.

Also try setting your PDF reader to "continuous scroll" rather than single page scroll.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I hate how much I miss during the day so much builds up I don't even feel like diving back into the conversation. I lose track of where things were and where they have gone.

Don't feel so bad - I've kept on top of this thread and it just kind of went off into the weeds about 20 posts ago. I think there are 7 different topics being discussed at the same time at this point.


Ckorik wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I hate how much I miss during the day so much builds up I don't even feel like diving back into the conversation. I lose track of where things were and where they have gone.
Don't feel so bad - I've kept on top of this thread and it just kind of went off into the weeds about 20 posts ago. I think there are 7 different topics being discussed at the same time at this point.

Well just as long as I'm not missing anything important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

None of this has anything to do with what I'm saying: they can never be as successful as ikea BECAUSE of the type of company they are. I was never implying that they shouldn't try to be the best company they can be or should neglect profits.

That is actually a very good example to make your point across, and I can see now what you mean. Yes, I agree it is a picture of only a part of the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the most interesting elements of this community's reaction to the playtest is having the confirmation that there's a huge disalignement between Paizo and its audience.

Paizo created Pathfinder the way Pathfinder was not because that was the system they had dreamed and pursued, but because they foundt themselves out of a job and had the rights to work with that engine.

Yet a lot of people with different agendas (traditionalists, simulationists, you name it) latched onto the project as if it was the staltwart defender of some greater values they deemed all important in RPG Gaming.

Now that Paizo gets to create their own system, using the design ethos they can choose (instead of having to carbon copy an existing system) they - like pretty much everyone else in the market - distance themselves from the game design nightmare that was the 3.5 engine. This is the system Paizo believes in, not the one they have to use.
And a lot of those people from before now feel disenfranchised because they discover simulationism and fighting back any form of innovation weren't, after all, that integral to Paizo's vision.

I can totally see how those people would feel betrayed. Rough awakening, also because there's fundamentally nobody now that is producing a game that adheres to the most strict definitions of simulationism. To be clear, I'm working on a yet unreleased RPG system and while the dev team agrees that simulationism is one of our core goals, I'm convinced in its current status our game wouldn't satisfy the definition of "simulation" a lot of people are asking for here. Weird situation, and I hope someone with more interest in strict simulation will raise to meet that demand eventually.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Visanideth wrote:
...

Funny, from what I have seen, the majority consensus is that overall framework of PF2E is reasonably sound, but there are serious problems with the implementation.

Even the OP's problems basically boiled down to the playtest book being rather impenetrable, which has nothing to do with anti-change or simulationist sentiments.


Visanideth wrote:


I can totally see how those people would feel betrayed. Rough awakening, also because there's fundamentally nobody now that is producing a game that adheres to the most strict definitions of simulationism. To be clear, I'm working on a yet unreleased RPG system and while the dev team agrees that simulationism is one of our core goals, I'm convinced in its current status our game wouldn't satisfy the definition of "simulation" a lot of people are asking for here. Weird situation, and I hope someone with more interest in strict simulation will raise to meet that demand eventually.

Funnily enough, I find that virtually any d20 game out there, including Pathfinder, is rather gamist. If I want simulationist, I want a system with fatigue rules, realistic encumbrance, *much* better outdoor survival rules, preferably a non-level/class structure, and most importantly, an engine that isn't adhering to some sort of "balanced on combat value" measure. GURPS would be better, for instance, or HERO, or any number of other offerings. Heck, even Rolemaster would trump d20. I would also prefer a randomizer with more of a bell-curve, which rather tosses RM out on its ear, of course.

Mind, I'm not sure that the above systems are more enjoyable, as they tend to not work nearly as well for adventuring in the "heroes versus pre-ordained evil" power fantasy style that a lot of gamers prefer. At the end of the day, a game is only as enjoyable as the company you keep while playing it, so some appeal to available audiences is critical.


Makarion wrote:


Funnily enough, I find that virtually any d20 game out there, including Pathfinder, is rather gamist. If I want simulationist, I want a system with fatigue rules, realistic encumbrance, *much* better outdoor survival rules, preferably a non-level/class structure, and most importantly, an engine that isn't adhering to some sort of "balanced on combat value" measure. GURPS would be better, for instance, or HERO, or any number of other offerings. Heck, even Rolemaster would trump d20. I would also prefer a randomizer with more of a bell-curve, which rather tosses RM out on its ear, of course.

Mind, I'm not sure that the above systems are more enjoyable, as they tend to not work nearly as well for adventuring in the "heroes versus pre-ordained evil" power fantasy style that a lot of gamers prefer. At the end of the day, a game is only as enjoyable as the company you keep while playing it, so some appeal to available audiences is critical.

I don't disagree at all; I don't think Pathfinder is a particularly good simulationist system, but fans of simulationism still latched onto it.

Maybe the answer is that among a game type (the high fantasy RPG) that tends to veer toward narrativist/gamist pastures, Pathfinder may be the most simulationist option?


Snowblind wrote:
Visanideth wrote:
...

Funny, from what I have seen, the majority consensus is that overall framework of PF2E is reasonably sound, but there are serious problems with the implementation.

Even the OP's problems basically boiled down to the playtest book being rather impenetrable, which has nothing to do with anti-change or simulationist sentiments.

I'm not referring to the OP. I'm seeing a lot more positive comments lately, but it's undeniable that there's still a lot of people lamenting how Wizards can't decide to punch things harder or clerics can't do opportunity attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Visanideth wrote:
One of the most interesting elements of this community's reaction to the playtest is having the confirmation that there's a huge disalignement between Paizo and its audience.

One segment of the audience. We’re a pretty varied mob, in my view.

I think there’s a self-selection bias when considering forum posts. In my opinion, you’re much more likely to post loudly and often if you hate it than if you love it at this stage in the process (and I suspect those who love it will be more likely to fully playtest the game and answer all surveys, from go to whoah).

I also think people who love it are more likely to spend their time criticising posts of those who hate it than vice versa. (My perception is that the “pro-PF2 beta” crowd address the poster rather than the argument more than the “anti” side do).

There have been many examples over the years where what people avowed on the forums just didn’t pan out as accurate in the market as a whole. For every anti-anything, there’s someone who’s strongly pro..


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Visanideth wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Visanideth wrote:
...

Funny, from what I have seen, the majority consensus is that overall framework of PF2E is reasonably sound, but there are serious problems with the implementation.

Even the OP's problems basically boiled down to the playtest book being rather impenetrable, which has nothing to do with anti-change or simulationist sentiments.

I'm not referring to the OP. I'm seeing a lot more positive comments lately, but it's undeniable that there's still a lot of people lamenting how Wizards can't decide to punch things harder or clerics can't do opportunity attacks.

I've been pretty positive lately. But I don't like the fact power attack and AoOs are gated behind classes. But this forum is clear if you haven't playtested it you will get shouted down. So I'm waiting for a chance to playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
That has nothing to do with simulationism vs gamism, but with the kind of story those books are telling, and how wizards are in those books. I'm pretty confident Gandalf can beat 20 goblins using a staff. He can stale a combat against a Balrog, after all. Geralt of Rivia is another example of a wizard who probably can beat a lot of low level fighters into a bloody pulp using his hands. In Wh40k, a chaos sorcerer will spank those guards. If we widen the genre a bit, Jedi will do as well, even naked and without light saber.

Gandalf is a Maiar, i.e. an angel, who took human form, he's not just some old wizard.

Geralt of Rivia is the equivalent of a magus.

A Jedi is a fighter with magic powers, i.e. also a magus or (very fittingly ^^) a qui-gong monk.

WH40K is over the top crazy in everything.

So, yeah, Raistlin being super good at magic but weak at fighting in melee is simulationism, because it fits the paradigm of "smart at mathematics, but weak at sports" person we know of in the real world.

PF2E goes all-out "Smart at mathematics, does no sports at all, rips apart muscled and armored people with his bare hands" for high level characters and that is gamism, mechanics over realism.


Thats a silly comparison PF1 casters are better blasters by design. One of the design goals was to make it so that one spell wasn't going to end a encounter my its lonesome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

Gandalf is a Maiar, i.e. an angel, who took human form, he's not just some old wizard.

So what? Our friend Goblet isn't just some random goblin. He is Globerg The Dragonkiller, Son of Grafgh, heir of Magluybyet, the Widowmaker, Blood of Fiends, which is why he is lvl 16, and not some random lvl 2 goblin sorcerer. That is why is totally appropriated and a great simulation that he punches everybody in the face. He has blood of fiends, and have killed dragons, after all.

So, again, that is not "worse simulation". It is a simulation of a different story. Which might not be the kind of story you want to tell, and that is fair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think there’s a self-selection bias when considering forum posts. In my opinion, you’re much more likely to post loudly and often if you hate it than if you love it at this stage in the process (and I suspect those who love it will be more likely to fully playtest the game and answer all surveys, from go to whoah).

Indubitably so. I'm pretty much on the "dislike it" side so far, but I'm running the first playtest game this Saturday. I'm prepared to continue to do so throughout the entire playtest, because I still hope to prevent the worst with the input I'm giving. But if my players hate it as well, then I can't expect them to show up and waste their free time and I suspect that I simply couldn't get a full group together to actually run the adventures. At that point I probably won't post very much anymore, because if I can only theorycraft for half a year, then I am not giving valuable feedback after everybody else has already experienced the game as played.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I also think people who love it are more likely to spend their time criticising posts of those who hate it than vice versa. (My perception is that the “pro-PF2 beta” crowd address the poster rather than the argument more than the “anti” side do).

That is indubitably true and can be easily seen if you look at how things have already devolved in just one week. I'm pretty sure it will get worse as time goes on.

201 to 250 of 337 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / And PF2 just lost us... All Messageboards