Dead Before Start

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the sheer amount of bad faith criticism for PF2 has really made this place unpleasant. Like the amount of people who will rail on how a thing is bad, without attempting to see any way it could be made better without completely reverting it to the way that it used to be.

Like I understand that people are inclined to dislike change, but people around these parts take it to an almost absurd degree.

Like I get that literally every gaming community that's more than like 6 people is toxic, but this place just makes me sad.

From my perspective, "the sheer amount of bad faith" praise "for PF2 has really made this place unpleasant." It seems that any opinion that isn't 'PS2 is great in every way' gets claims of negativity and toxicity. Like the amount of people who will rail on how a thing is said to be bad, without attempting to see the reason behind it or why they might feel that way. Like I understand that people are inclined to dislike change, but people around these parts take it to an almost absurd degree in not wanting anything to change with the playtest and it gets toxic when any complaint is seen as disliking a change from PF1 instead of an informed complaint with the new system.

[N N 959]

Telefax wrote:

The main reason I left 4e was that i prefer more simulationist systems to gamist ones, and pf2e is a lot more gamist than its predecessor. I've come to appreciate healing surges and simplified monster math in hindsight, but for everything else i really preferred the simulationist touch of 3.pf

This nails it for me. Going back to AD&D, you felt like you played in a world that continued on while you slept. That you might come back in five years and see your old adventuring buddies in a tavern talking about far away lands.

3.5 took the game into a rules controlled environment. As a GM, this made the game an order of magnitude easier for me to adjudicate, but the game lost some of its cinematic qualities.

PF 1e, did feel like a flat improvement to 3.5. A better version. Golarion had its own lore and the game was fun.

2e...it's feels like I'm playing a board game. The rules are so incredibly contrived to effect the mechanics. The idea that a Companion does nothing unless commanded because classes with companions are getting too many actions, the creation of Doubling Rings so that two-weapon fighters aren't screwed over by the +1 = Extra damage dice, and a host of other mechanics that are not about making the game feel organic or an attempt to capture or represent a real world element, but instead, employed to predetermine the range of outcomes.

1e certainly has its problems. But 2e seems to be driven by mechanics, not art and I think that's going to come back to bite it in the rear-end.

[Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!]

The internet has had 10 more years to improve fan toxicity since the PF1 play test. It is now Master levels and training hard for legendary levels.

But remember as these boards will be quick to point out that is only +2 better at toxicity levels so really not that much more toxic. Why even bother practicing to be mean and rude to each other for a crappy +2.

[N N 959]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Probably much of this would die down and many of us who are negative about this system would leave if the devs simply came foward and gave a list of design goals they think are going to happen for sure, since this would mean there wouldnt be change to certain things.

Like for example that they think magic should be this weak. Or that they think keeping the success rate of players around 50% (or maxed around 60%) is a thing they think is a must...

If they told people are not going to take certain changes that they will happen no matter what, then chances are the negativity will die down due to people simply leaving and finally then giving up hope.

I would disagree with this. There's a formula used in marketing.

Customer Satisfaction = Performance - Expectations.

If the Devs came out said, X and Y are non-negotiable, then people who adjust their expectations. Sure, some might walk, But there are far more of us who would say, okay, let me try and solve my problems within that framework. And, if I don't, at least I understand why X and Y exist and I can accept that and enjoy B, C, and W.

Conversely, you keep people hanging on, believing they are being listened to and that their suggestions are changing the game, when the game comes out and it's clear their suggestions were ignored, you create animosity and wrath. You'll have posts filled with vitriol and acrimony from posters who spent 12+ months thinking they were going to get what they wanted.

Hell hath no fury like a gamer scorned.

I'll tell you from my dating experience, you tell someone, right on the very first date that this is where you're at, you're going to get a LOT more acceptance than if you wait several months later to give them the bad news. And, if they walk, they walk away not hating you and despising you for wasting their time.

Now, maybe Paizo there is a lot Paizo is willing to reevaluate, but it would behoove them to be straight up with the customers about where this game is going.

[N N 959]

Hastur! Hastur! Hastur! wrote:

The internet has had 10 more years to improve fan toxicity since the PF1 play test. It is now Master levels and training hard for legendary levels.

But remember as these boards will be quick to point out that is only +2 better at toxicity levels so really not that much more toxic. Why even bother practicing to be mean and rude to each other for a crappy +2.

Funny. And you know and easy way to fix that? Outside of attack rolls, let each Skill level roll another d20 and take the best. So someone Trained in Toxicity gets 2 rolls to get it right where someone Legendary gets 5. But we'll see if Paizo goes that route. If not, I'll be back here rolling the die five times.

[Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!]

N N 959 wrote:

Hastur! Hastur! Hastur! wrote:

The internet has had 10 more years to improve fan toxicity since the PF1 play test. It is now Master levels and training hard for legendary levels.

But remember as these boards will be quick to point out that is only +2 better at toxicity levels so really not that much more toxic. Why even bother practicing to be mean and rude to each other for a crappy +2.

Funny. And you know and easy way to fix that? Outside of attack rolls, let each Skill level roll another d20 and take the best. So someone Trained in Toxicity gets 2 rolls to get it right where someone Legendary gets 5. But we'll see if Paizo goes that route. If not, I'll be back here rolling the die five times.

I do sort of like this idea but the crits would be insane. What about allowing at legendary allowing 5 times during the adventuring day you can roll advantage another 20 sided. Then if I really want to be mean, rude, and toxic I can tell the GM I am spending one of my additional dice to craft my post.

[magnuskn]

N N 959 wrote:

Now, maybe Paizo there is a lot Paizo is willing to reevaluate, but it would behoove them to be straight up with the customers about where this game is going.

That sound like really good advice for the Paizo devs. If we'd know in advance what is negotiable and what is not, it would be much easier to judge if we should even invest energy and time into further arguments. And that applies to both sides of the debate.

[Ryan Freire]

Toxicity is the single most overused term in existence right now and holds no more meaning than "attitudes and opinions I don't like"

Wrangling about rules, themes, feel of a game is not toxicity. Even heated arguments about it is not toxicity.

[neaven]

magnuskn wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Now, maybe Paizo there is a lot Paizo is willing to reevaluate, but it would behoove them to be straight up with the customers about where this game is going.

That sound like really good advice for the Paizo devs. If we'd know in advance what is negotiable and what is not, it would be much easier to judge if we should even invest energy and time into further arguments. And that applies to both sides of the debate.

125% this. If they came out and said "we aim for a low-powered, low-magic experience where every die roll is tense" I'd pack up my account and not talk about PF2e any more, because I directly oppose all of those things - I want high power, high magic, and I think it's okay for die rolls to lack tension because it's hardly good for player agency if even level-appropriate tasks depend on a die roll more than their choices in making their character.

But on the other hand, if they came out and said "we aim to evolve from 1e by trimming the fat and tightening the maths without sacrificing the it's magic or power" then I'd still participate because that's a goal I can get on board with. I very much doubt this is the goal, as there are lots of little things that point towards not just a willingness but an outright desire to sacrifice both magic and power at the altar of Balance.

[Steve Geddes]

magnuskn wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Now, maybe Paizo there is a lot Paizo is willing to reevaluate, but it would behoove them to be straight up with the customers about where this game is going.

That sound like really good advice for the Paizo devs. If we'd know in advance what is negotiable and what is not, it would be much easier to judge if we should even invest energy and time into further arguments. And that applies to both sides of the debate.

They said at the start that almost everything was negotiable, based on feedback. (The three action economy, was one example they listed as potentially changeable - though that’s obviously been pretty well received).

In reality, that probably means if 80% of the fans were against something they’d take it out, no matter how core it was. I don’t think strength of feeling is going to be as determinative.

I also suspect that with every passing week it gets firmer and firmer. Although they did say that, if necessary, they’d delay release beyond 2019. I haven’t seen anything that suggests they’re at that point yet though.

[Tridus]

I don't think books sitting on a shelf means much. Even if I thought the playtest was the greatest game ever, I still wouldn't spend money on a physical book that's going to be replaced in a few months when the final edition comes out (that's the book I would buy).

I also can't really compare to how this place was during the original playtest since I wasn't around, but the scenarios are not the same. PF 1e was functionally not trying to drastically change stuff. It was aimed at 3.5 fans and tried to improve 3.5 without deviating massively from it. As such, someone who knew 3.5 could get up to speed very quickly and know how most things work.

You can't do that this time. The playtest has some drastic, breaking changes. There's naturally going to be people who loved how things worked before and will hate those changes. If those people give honest feedback, there's nothing "toxic" or bad faith about it. They're part of the market, and part of the point of a playtest is to learn how the market will react.

There's a bunch of things I don't like right now, and some things I do. I've probably made more negative posts than positive ones, but there's more to stay about stuff I want to see changed than stuff I thought worked great as there isn't a lot of conversation when everyone likes something. But when I played, we had a fair bit of fun... so despite the negativity, I think there's a framework that can work here.

However you feel about the current state of the game itself, people shouldn't assume others posting here are doing so in bad faith. Because that's very rarely actually the case. If someone loves it and someone else hates it, both of those positions are useful feedback when it comes to developing the game. Even when people are playing things incorrectly and don't understand the rules... that's also useful feedback, because some of the rules could use clarification and examples.

[PossibleCabbage]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Toxicity is the single most overused term in existence right now and holds no more meaning than "attitudes and opinions I don't like"

Wrangling about rules, themes, feel of a game is not toxicity. Even heated arguments about it is not toxicity.

I have an alternative explanation. From how I see it, the real phenomenon is that "bad behavior" has been so thoroughly normalized on the internet these days that people think it's unreasonable to be called on it.

But that doesn't make it acceptable or desirable.

[Ryan Freire]

Who's the final judge on what is "bad behavior" ?

Moreover "bad behavior" is not synonymous with the boards being toxic.

[neaven]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Toxicity is the single most overused term in existence right now and holds no more meaning than "attitudes and opinions I don't like"

Wrangling about rules, themes, feel of a game is not toxicity. Even heated arguments about it is not toxicity.

I have an alternative explanation. From how I see it, the real phenomenon is that "bad behavior" has been so thoroughly normalized on the internet these days that people think it's unreasonable to be called on it.

But that doesn't make it acceptable or desirable.

What bad behaviour? Where? Most I've seen on the forums is frustration and some self-censored naughty words (or maybe they're auto-censored, I don't actually know or particularly care).

Well, that and more than a few people making disingenuous insinuations that people who don't like 2e "haven't played enough" or "just don't understand the rules" or "just want to minmax" or are nebulously "toxic" rather than trying to actually provide any counterargument at all for any of the genuine reasons given for disliking it.

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

"bad behavior"

I have no issue with people being called out for bad behavior. I have an issue when anything not positive about the new rules is seen and called out as toxic. I see far more people on the 'positive on PS2' side behaving, IMO, badly.

[Steve Geddes]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Who's the final judge on what is "bad behavior" ?

Paizo.

[EberronHoward]

neaven wrote:

What bad behaviour? Where? Most I've seen on the forums is frustration and some self-censored naughty words (or maybe they're auto-censored, I don't actually know or particularly care).

Well, that and more than a few people making disingenuous insinuations that people who don't like 2e "haven't played enough" or "just don't understand the rules" or "just want to minmax" or are nebulously "toxic" rather than trying to actually provide any counterargument at all for any of the genuine reasons given for disliking it.

There's several threads in August where people said they made up their opinion about the system, proudly declaring that they didn't need to play the game to know that. We've had threads where people bemoan the system for their PCs failing skill checks, when no character in the party was trained in it or had an ability bonus for it greater than 1. And we've had several threads that decry this playtest and predict the new edition's failure, with no constructive criticism on where to go from except "Start all over".

There has been constructive criticism, and those have been helpful, but the unconstructive criticizers have been too visible to miss.

[Ryan Freire]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Who's the final judge on what is "bad behavior" ?

Paizo.

In which case it seems silly to call the boards toxic, given the lack of locked threads and bans handed out

[PossibleCabbage]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Who's the final judge on what is "bad behavior" ?

Paizo.

In which case it seems silly to call the boards toxic, given the lack of locked threads and bans handed out

Considering how unpleasant this place is generally of late, I would venture they could improve things by being much quicker on the trigger for both of those things.

[Ryan Freire]

I suspect that if you're finding this milquetoast forum conversation unpleasant you'd be better served by taking a wellness break.

People aren't going to like the things you like occasionally and they're going to talk about it.

[Scythia]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Who's the final judge on what is "bad behavior" ?

Paizo.

In which case it seems silly to call the boards toxic, given the lack of locked threads and bans handed out

Considering how unpleasant this place is generally of late, I would venture they could improve things by being much quicker on the trigger for both of those things.

Beware of dreams of rapid response locks and bans, for you might find the targets don't align with your desires.

[neaven]

EberronHoward wrote:

neaven wrote:

What bad behaviour? Where? Most I've seen on the forums is frustration and some self-censored naughty words (or maybe they're auto-censored, I don't actually know or particularly care).

Well, that and more than a few people making disingenuous insinuations that people who don't like 2e "haven't played enough" or "just don't understand the rules" or "just want to minmax" or are nebulously "toxic" rather than trying to actually provide any counterargument at all for any of the genuine reasons given for disliking it.

There's several threads in August where people said they made up their opinion about the system, proudly declaring that they didn't need to play the game to know that. We've had threads where people bemoan the system for their PCs failing skill checks, when no character in the party was trained in it or had an ability bonus for it greater than 1. And we've had several threads that decry this playtest and predict the new edition's failure, with no constructive criticism on where to go from except "Start all over".

There has been constructive criticism, and those have been helpful, but the unconstructive criticizers have been too visible to miss.

I hadn't seen the threads you mention, and I'm hesitant to cause them "bad behaviour" - perhaps "unhelpful behaviour" but in my mind "bad behaviour" implies some sort of harm like forum members being threatened or harrassed, which I've not seen.

Ryan Freire wrote:

In which case it seems silly to call the boards toxic, given the lack of locked threads and bans handed out

This. I'm fairly certain that for cultural reasons (being an Australian, rudeness or pigheadedness below a certain amount doesn't even really show up on my radar) that Paizo would have a more sensitive trigger than myself, so if they aren't handing out many (or even any as far as I can tell) bans or locking threads left and right then toxic is pretty hyperbolic. I know there was that one politics thread that got locked, but politics is the ultimate flame bait on any forum, so that's hardly a surprise.

Scythia wrote:

Beware of dreams of rapid response locks and bans, for you might find the targets don't align with your desires.

Crackdowns on opinion sound fun until the person doing the cracking down doesn't like yours.

[Steve Geddes]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Who's the final judge on what is "bad behavior" ?

Paizo.

In which case it seems silly to call the boards toxic, given the lack of locked threads and bans handed out

I wouldn’t use the word toxic, but we must be watching different discussions. I’ve seen many more threads locked since the playtest started than usual and although it’s harder to tell since they’re not openly advertised, I think the number of tempbans has gone up too.

[Ryan Freire]

More than usual does not a toxic environment make when the usual is 1 in every 100 threads or so.

[Steve Geddes]

I agree. I wouldn’t call it toxic, I just think it’s worse that it used to be and worse than it should be.

[Ryan Freire]

We could always start up some more goblin, paladin, and alignment threads.

Just for comparisons sake, to remind us how good we have it right now.

[Steve Geddes]

Like I say, we must be watching different threads. I’d much rather watch two stubborn people shout about paladins than some of the threads I’ve seen in recent weeks. Not much else to say, I guess.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

I'm taking 10 on my usual terseness. Is that still possible? Does my Ancestry (I'm Adopted by Australia) give me Legendary bonus?

[graystone]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I’ve seen many more threads locked since the playtest started than usual and although it’s harder to tell since they’re not openly advertised, I think the number of tempbans has gone up too.

For myself, it's been less: I've only seen a single thread locked that I was following. That and I haven't noticed and tempbans. For myself, if people are having anywhere close to the awful time I've been having with the playtest then they've been acting like saints.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Considering how unpleasant this place is generally of late

You and Steve must be frequenting a different section of the forum than I have been. I haven't noticed a change in the overall tone of the threads. Now if you're equating "unpleasant" with 'not liking various parts of the playtest', then I could see that. There is a lot to complain about and when you do, 'defenders of the faith' crawl out of the woodwork to tell you you're doing it wrong: but from your posts, I don't think that's what you mean be it.

[Steve Geddes]

Certainly not me. I don’t think either camp is virtuous (plus I’m technically in the anti-PF2 camp, I guess so I suppose my biases would tend me to notice the defenders).

What I’m talking about are imputing motive to others, resorting to hyperbole/caricature when purporting to portray an opposing view and blatant attacks on other posters’ intelligence or staff professionalism/competence.

You can take any position on any rule and be guilty of those things.

(In terms of where I’ve seen it, the forum I’ve noticed most vitriol is the playtest - general discussion sub forum).

[Malthraz]

I certainly have some misgiving about the PFe2 rules. But the main reason I have stopped reading and positing on the forums because it is an ocean of immature nerd rage.

I will likely be back once the seas have calmed.

[graystone]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Certainly not me.

I was mostly talking to PossibleCabbage in the second part.

Steve Geddes wrote:

What I’m talking about are imputing motive to others, resorting to hyperbole/caricature when purporting to portray an opposing view and blatant attacks on other posters’ intelligence or staff professionalism/competence.

Ok, I can see that. I don't think that the actual number of posters doing that have increases dramatically, just that a few people keep doing it in every thread that they can get too. I know when I notice it, it's the 'usual suspects'.

And I'm not totally blameless. I'm a naturally snarky person and sometimes come off with a stronger reply than intended.

Steve Geddes wrote:

You can take any position on any rule and be guilty of those things.

*nods* True. I'm noticing it much more on one side, but like you said that might be my bias.

Steve Geddes wrote:

(In terms of where I’ve seen it, the forum I’ve noticed most vitriol is the playtest - general discussion sub forum).

Hmmm... *looks at subthreads* I've been more looking at the playtest page that shows the top threads in each subforum. I've only been going to individual subforums if nothing interesting shown up on the main page. I might be missing threads if they get quickly locked and fall off the top of the subthread.

[Steve Geddes]

Steve Geddes wrote:

so I suppose my biases would tend me to notice the defenders).

Ugh. I wish I’d caught that wording before the edit window closed.

[avr]

I think the arguments round in circles are more because there's nothing new to look at, and less because of terrible people. Until something major changes in the playtest (a revised bestiary or rulebook, something on that level) there's not going to be much more to learn or say about PF2.

[Freder1ck]

ikarinokami wrote:

the game plays phenomenally. love it

[…]
2. there needs to be a section that summarizes what things have changed

A million times, yes. It added about 10 hours for my first character trying to figure out how to do things that didn't need to be done now. Oof.

[neaven]

Malthraz wrote:

I certainly have some misgiving about the PFe2 rules. But the main reason I have stopped reading and positing on the forums because it is an ocean of immature nerd rage.

I will likely be back once the seas have calmed.

Everyone I don't like is an immature neeeeeeerd.

Feel free to ignore this bit.

[rant]
Seriously, this kind of smarmy high-horsing is exactly what I keep seeing all the time, and I don't like saying it but I'm not exactly seeing it come from both camps. In fact, this thread is about how the community "killed the game" and has complains about "toxicity", "not understanding the rules", "minmaxers", and "nerd rage", with calls for more bans and thread locks.

And they're all coming from the camp that dislike criticism of 2e, which I have to pretty firmly distinguish from the camp that likes 2e. There are quite a few people that like 2e that I have found to provide refreshing and clear statements on what they like about the new rules and why, even if I don't agree with the reasoning, and have generally added to my experience on the forum. But I had to put that bit in because I feel like if I don't specify that I don't hate people just because they like 2e I'll get accused of it by the same sort of person who has been complaining about this non-specific, nebulous and impossible to actually pin down "toxicity" because other people have opinions they don't like.
[/rant]

Sorry, that's been bothering me for a little while.

[Isaac Zephyr]

I feel like this has gotten out of hand from what I was trying to convey. As the OP, I used the term "Toxicity" as I understand it in League of Legends. You enter a game, and either play poorly or against the grain on opinion and someone quite literally attacks you over it. From their that negative experience either leads to self doubt, or your own poor mood you then extend onto others.

How this has been in practice, comes out at the table. As said, I do like aspects of this game, and dislike others. I want to give it the chance and see where it ends up, as well as be part of the process that gets it there.

During character creation, one of our players wanted to play an Alchemist. My first word on that, as a result of my time in among the forums with the complaints and vitriol, was "you'll have a hard time due to the Resonance system". Another player asked about two-weapon fighting and I immediately went into trying explain many of the mechanics behind it were locked behind the Fighter class. Those two players nearly left the table because of the things I ended up saying about the game, before even having played it.

This is what I mean by the toxicity, this negativity born on the forums that has bled out into my other interactions with the game. I want to run it, but I feel like there's a six page obligation based just on my own forum posts and the threads I've read to say "some things may be bad or hard". Monsters overtuned, the game built for PFS, TPKs, magic weapon dependency, bad spells, on and on and on.

Both positive and negative feedback are necessary. Very necessary. I do not want the end result of PF2 being shaped by yes-men, especially because I have problems with it. The problem is the same reason I start sessions saying "Whatever happens, I'm going to have fun today." Because it sets the expectation and takes it away from anything particular needing to happen. The sea of "this is bad" does the same thing though. While playing you will be expecting those bad aspects and they'll be what you focus on over the good aspects.

[neaven]

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

During character creation, one of our players wanted to play an Alchemist. My first word on that, as a result of my time in among the forums with the complaints and vitriol, was "you'll have a hard time due to the Resonance system". Another player asked about two-weapon fighting and I immediately went into trying explain many of the mechanics behind it were locked behind the Fighter class. Those two players nearly left the table because of the things I ended up saying about the game, before even having played it.

This is what I mean by the toxicity, this negativity born on the forums that has bled out into my other interactions with the game. I want to run it, but I feel like there's a six page obligation based just on my own forum posts and the threads I've read to say "some things may be bad or hard". Monsters overtuned, the game built for PFS, TPKs, magic weapon dependency, bad spells, on and on and on.

From the sounds of it, the rules themselves are what's putting these players off. These are barriers to your players playing the game the way they want regardless of if you had been on the forums or not. You will have a hard time as an alchemist due to double-dipping from the same pool that governs your equipment uses. TWF is locked behind the fighter. These two things are just true about the game. The things that are bad for you and your group about the game will be bad whether you read about them here, worked them out by reading the rules, or simply just ran up against them in play.

Simply put, the forums are negative because there's a lot to be negative about. That's it. If the playtest didn't have the issues that people are complaining about, they wouldn't be complaining about those issues. I really don't mean to be rude, but complaining that people are complaining doesn't get anyone anywhere. Especially if you aren't debating the validity of the complaints, just saying that you don't like the fact that they are affecting your enjoyment of the game.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Chess Pwn wrote:

One of the things I'm curious about was in the Alpha playtest where the DEVs more active in the forums?

I think the developers have engaged more this time...but not on the forums. They've been attending organized play events, interacting on social media, and participating in actual play broadcasts. It's noteworthy that the last blog post mentioned interacting with players through the Facebook group with only a passing mention to "other forums".

[Isaac Zephyr]

neaven wrote:

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

During character creation, one of our players wanted to play an Alchemist. My first word on that, as a result of my time in among the forums with the complaints and vitriol, was "you'll have a hard time due to the Resonance system". Another player asked about two-weapon fighting and I immediately went into trying explain many of the mechanics behind it were locked behind the Fighter class. Those two players nearly left the table because of the things I ended up saying about the game, before even having played it.

This is what I mean by the toxicity, this negativity born on the forums that has bled out into my other interactions with the game. I want to run it, but I feel like there's a six page obligation based just on my own forum posts and the threads I've read to say "some things may be bad or hard". Monsters overtuned, the game built for PFS, TPKs, magic weapon dependency, bad spells, on and on and on.

From the sounds of it, the rules themselves are what's putting these players off. These are barriers to your players playing the game the way they want regardless of if you had been on the forums or not. You will have a hard time as an alchemist due to double-dipping from the same pool that governs your equipment uses. TWF is locked behind the fighter. These two things are just true about the game. The things that are bad for you and your group about the game will be bad whether you read about them here, worked them out by reading the rules, or simply just ran up against them in play.

Simply put, the forums are negative because there's a lot to be negative about. That's it. If the playtest didn't have the issues that people are complaining about, they wouldn't be complaining about those issues. I really don't mean to be rude, but complaining that people are complaining doesn't get anyone anywhere. Especially if you aren't debating the validity of the complaints, just saying that you don't like the fact that they are affecting your enjoyment of the game.

I am not debating that they are there, or that they are true, or even that they are things I have complaints about. However, as a player, I am the type in PF1 to have played a blind divination wizard, an arachnid wildsoul vigilante, and a dhampir mysterious stranger gunslinger with racial blood drinking feats. This that were arguably bad, and/or hard to play. Me being someone to dissuade a player from doing something isn't me, and again, by that being my interaction it sets the expectation.

I know that had I said nothing, the Alchemist may yes, have had a hard time, but they also may not have. I in ranting the problems with Resonance have set the expectation it will be a problem. Even if I don't like something doesn't mean someone else can't, or that there's anything wrong with that.

That's what I'm trying to get at. Not that there aren't problems, because there are. But that no one seems to be able to look around those problems enough to give the game a try. Because there are good things like the new action economy, and the abundance of ability scores that do make improvements on PF1 and are pretty fun. The latter is part of why I enjoy Starfinder so much.

[neaven]

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

<stuff>

I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to explain to me what the issues you were having are - I feel like I understand your point of view a lot better and I can certainly sympathise. I think where you and I differ is that the problems for me are enough to entirely turn me off, regardless of what does work, where - and correct me if this isn't an accurate characterisation of yourself - you feel that although there are problems that the good of the system outweighs the bad, and you're disappointed that this isn't a view shared by more?

[Isaac Zephyr]

neaven wrote:

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

<stuff>

I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to explain to me what the issues you were having are - I feel like I understand your point of view a lot better and I can certainly sympathise. I think where you and I differ is that the problems for me are enough to entirely turn me off, regardless of what does work, where - and correct me if this isn't an accurate characterisation of yourself - you feel that although there are problems that the good of the system outweighs the bad, and you're disappointed that this isn't a view shared by more?

You're close. Honestly first read, the bad outweighs the good for me. I though also want to accept something that I view as bad on the surface, may not be in play. I wish is more people, particularly for me locally, were willing to give it that chance.

I was actually one of the ones in my city who decided to run the 4e Encounters program in my city. And while many of us agreed it wasn't a great edition of D&D, it to this day remains as a joke at our store that it was "the best MMO on paper". We ran from Neverwinter to the beginning of 5e, and always had a trickle of people willing to come in and have that good time.

[John Mechalas]

Freder1ck wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

the game plays phenomenally. love it

[…]
2. there needs to be a section that summarizes what things have changed

A million times, yes. It added about 10 hours for my first character trying to figure out how to do things that didn't need to be done now. Oof.

I have no idea how they would do such a thing in a form shorter than the full rule book. Literally everything has changed except the names of things, and sometimes those don't even mean what they used to mean.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

neaven wrote:

From the sounds of it, the rules themselves are what's putting these players off. These are barriers to your players playing the game the way they want regardless of if you had been on the forums or not. You will have a hard time as an alchemist due to double-dipping from the same pool that governs your equipment uses. TWF is locked behind the fighter. These two things are just true about the game.

Actually, I think your second example is a great idea and I am all for it.

[neaven]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

neaven wrote:

From the sounds of it, the rules themselves are what's putting these players off. These are barriers to your players playing the game the way they want regardless of if you had been on the forums or not. You will have a hard time as an alchemist due to double-dipping from the same pool that governs your equipment uses. TWF is locked behind the fighter. These two things are just true about the game.

Actually, I think your second example is a great idea and I am all for it.

Mind if I ask why? I can certainly understand wanting to play Fighter as a TWF-er specifically, but why should something as basic as "a fighting style using two weapons" be something that only that class can do to any actual advantage?

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

neaven wrote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

neaven wrote:

From the sounds of it, the rules themselves are what's putting these players off. These are barriers to your players playing the game the way they want regardless of if you had been on the forums or not. You will have a hard time as an alchemist due to double-dipping from the same pool that governs your equipment uses. TWF is locked behind the fighter. These two things are just true about the game.

Actually, I think your second example is a great idea and I am all for it.

Mind if I ask why? I can certainly understand wanting to play Fighter as a TWF-er specifically, but why should something as basic as "a fighting style using two weapons" be something that only that class can do to any actual advantage?

It's part of a strong general preference for well-defined classes with flavour-defining unique abilities where the progression of each class all the way through can be tested, and against mixing and matching to a degree that is practically impossible to test for game-breaking combos.

[avr]

In particular why wouldn't TWF be a rogue thing? It's not just in pen and paper RPGs which have embraced that, a couple of easily concealed weapons is something you may see in roguish characters in books which have little to do with RPGs.