Dead Before Start

[Isaac Zephyr]

I think the community has killed this game for me. I like aspects of this game, and dislike others. Nothing is perfect. However in trying to keep up with the forums and get answers to questions, the sea of toxicity against this game has permeated into my every interaction with it.

I was hyped to run this game, the same as I was back in the days of the 5e playtest. In the month it took for my normal hangout to open up again and let me run it, the reputation of Doomsday Dawn had spread to the point most people in my city have written it off. And the Playtest itself, despite being free, is so dry that I cannot convince anyone to actually read it. Hell our store is still fully stocked on copies of the Rulebook, both regular edition and the special edition with the leather-looking cover. And they've had them out on the shelf since the day before the digital release.

So we're sitting on a game no one wants to play, and nobody can say anything positive about. The only points of discussion are the game's flaws, of which it does have many, but none of what it presents new to the table is being explored.

[Elleth]

Sorry to hear that. Hope you do get a chance to try it out some way or another.
I feel like some of the hype got killed for me by constantly trying to keep up with the forums, but for me at least my hype came back into existence after running the first session.

[Unicore]

I agree with Elleth. Playing it instead of discussing it makes a big difference. Maybe offering to run DD or one of the PFS scenarios at the game store might be a way to get people to just try it out?

[The Once and Future Kai]

Ten years ago, this place was a den of negativity during the original Pathfinder Playtest. First Edition wasn't doomed because a rule wasn't changed...Second Edition probably won't be either. History repeats.

My impression has been that the Pathfinder Second Edition playtest has been generally well received outside of "expert" circles. Check out Twitter - there are some complaints, of course, but most of those are leveled by folks who generally enjoyed the system and want to see it improved before official release. I'm also under the impression that it's been generally well received in organized play events, again, with caveats. Personally, I've only had one player who had a universally negative reaction to the new rules - everyone else had complaints but the experienced players vastly preferred the new system over First Edition. (I ran two groups - each of which included one player new to TTRPGs - with nothing to compare it to these players just had a good time).

It's a playtest. There's a lot that needs polished. But playing the system is the best way to see it's strengths and weaknesses in action. I see a lot more strength than weakness, personally. I think the problem is that people are reading and analyzing without playing at all or with only playing once. It gets better with each session (as do my critiques).

In any case - I'd agree with the other replies. Try running it for a group. If the usual suspects aren't willing to give it a try (I suspect some of the cynics would secretly welcome a chance to play), invite new players. In my experience it's much more friendly to new players than Pathfinder First Edition.

[Schadenfreude]

If Twitter is a more positive environment than the Paizo messageboards, something terrible has gone wrong somewhere.

[Arrow17]

I don't know. PF2 seems eerily representative of D&D 4E. I really don't think the designers are really focused on their customers and instead are trying to give people something they don't want and thus the negativity.

At first I was super enthused! I bought the collector edition, map pack and adventure and another player in my group printed three copies of the playtest for the group. I could not wait for each blog to come out each week and looked to YouTube for Black Dragon and other pod casts reviewing each blog post. I could not wait!

Then I got some later blogs that dampened my enthusiasm and the rule book came. So I have some MAJOR issues with PF2 so far.

1) Spell nerfs - Power, scaling and number usable per day. Now fights take much longer and MORE rather then less resources are wasted in fights. (hit points, spells, consumables. I consider them resources)

2) Forcing general PF1 feats into certain class silos (Power Attack being a prime example. Ranger missing out on archery feats that fighters get being anoter prime example)

3) Very weak ancestory choices making you feel incomplete as a member of your race. Perhaps by level 10 my PF2 elf will feel like a PF1 elf.

4) Absurdly extreme penalties to weak starting skills makes even heroic characters feel meh untill around level 6.

5) Weapon traits being very underwhelming, especially for swords

It really seems like the PF2 developers lost touch with PF1 roots and instead of just streamlining the system and reining in the excesses of the splat books they decided it was time to throw out the baby with the bath water and start anew. It will take alot for me to come back and spend hard earned money like I did in anticipation of the playtest launch and that money was optional spend as I could have easily just reviewed the free downloads but I decided to put my money where my mouth is. I was grateful for Paizo saving D&D from the horrors of 4E. Now that 5E is a great game, Paizo will have to do much better if they want to see my money

[Steve Geddes]

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

I think the community has killed this game for me. I like aspects of this game, and dislike others. Nothing is perfect. However in trying to keep up with the forums and get answers to questions, the sea of toxicity against this game has permeated into my every interaction with it.

I was hyped to run this game, the same as I was back in the days of the 5e playtest. In the month it took for my normal hangout to open up again and let me run it, the reputation of Doomsday Dawn had spread to the point most people in my city have written it off. And the Playtest itself, despite being free, is so dry that I cannot convince anyone to actually read it. Hell our store is still fully stocked on copies of the Rulebook, both regular edition and the special edition with the leather-looking cover. And they've had them out on the shelf since the day before the digital release.

So we're sitting on a game no one wants to play, and nobody can say anything positive about. The only points of discussion are the game's flaws, of which it does have many, but none of what it presents new to the table is being explored.

Ultimately this is a development process, not a new game - PF2 is coming out in August. If you're not enjoying the process (I generally share your perceptions) then it's probably worth stepping away from that and waiting until the previews of the actual game start trickling out - probably around April/May next year, I'd guess.

I'm not doing much more than scanning the forums for posts by the development team and Deadmanwalking, waiting for the furore to die down. I'm hoping things return to a more normal level of grar come January (albeit when the game releases there'll be the inevitable "Paizo were warned!" posts by people who don't see the changes they want).

[Ecidon]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Ten years ago, this place was a den of negativity during the original Pathfinder Playtest. First Edition wasn't doomed because a rule wasn't changed...Second Edition probably won't be either. History repeats.

Luckily for us, Paizo do keep an archive of these discussions.

I see a lot more negativity here than in those boards...

Where I did see the negativity was in boards about another product released a few months before the Pathfinder Playtest was announced...

[graystone]

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

I think the community has killed this game for me.

For me, playing the game killed it. I was never thrilled with the preview info but I went through to see if I couldn't steer things in a better direction but things turned out worse than expected. Two chapters of the playtest adventure and TPK of each one drove off the players AND the DM. I still haven't found another group.

For myself, when everything looks awful to you it's not overly negative to say so. There are so few things to be happy about I'm sure it looks like a sea of negativity. It's hard to positive that you can roast marshmallows while the ship is on fire and sinking.

[Lyricanna]

For me, I literally canceled the 2e game I had been planning for several months on August 2nd when I got my hands on a copy of the rulebook. In the span of 72 hours I went from one of the largest defenders of 2e, to worried and skeptical of the system (Aug 1st, /tg/ was leaking the rules), to literally canceling all plans to run the system (Aug 2nd).

Since then, I basically rearranged my schedule to be able to playtest the game once a week with one of Colette's groups. Why? Because I want Paizo to rebuild their game from the ground up, and I feel like forcing myself trough TPK after TPK is the best way I can do this.

Tomorrow I am going to be standing in front of 50+ students --many of whom are first-time roleplayers -- and helping most of them find games of D&D 5e or Pathfinder. As it currently stands, I can not think of a single reason why I would ever recommend PF2e over these two other games.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Lyricanna wrote:

Since then, I basically rearranged my schedule to be able to playtest the game once a week with one of Colette's groups. Why? Because I want Paizo to rebuild their game from the ground up, and I feel like forcing myself trough TPK after TPK is the best way I can do this.

I had no idea who Colette was but found the thread and read it. It's great feedback - very detailed and accurate. It's interesting how different The Lost Star sessions went from mine but die rolls, party comp, and so on make a big difference. Just by reading Colette's accounts I also noticed that I'd been running some of the rules incorrectly in the players' favor! My players did come close to a TPK because they decided to break the idol by throwing into the room with the next encounter (adding the quasits to that encounter). I think they would have had a TPK with that if I'd been in closer adherence to the rules. Anyway, thanks for putting in the effort - I still love many of the changes in the playtest but can definitely see more of the gaps now.

[Telefax]

Seconding everything, i had high hopes for the system, and i've been expecting a pf2e for years, and was scheduling to run the playtest.

And then i read the book....

I tend to see new material that comes out late in a products cycle as playtesting for a new edition, and a lot of stuff (unchained etc) definitely seemed that way, It is just that the developers took a lot from it noone wanted, and removed things that made the game work.
For me, the advantages of pf1e over its competitors is a really engaging character generation minigame, the AP:s and high level play making you feel like demigods (unless you are a martial).

I was hoping for starfinder style stamina, martials raised up at higher levels (I thought grit was a decent mechanic that could have been expanded upon), and less add fraction of level to x style abilities and a game balanced around full attacks being standard actions. with two of those i would have happily run the game. With all i'd be over the moon.

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

[puksone]

I was pretty hyped when I saw the first blog posts and then extremly disappointed after reading the playtest rulebook.

Even so there are some promising rule changes, I don't see me playing it over a long period. Main reason are the terrible design choices regarding the classes. Look at feats like warded touch! Is that a sexy feat? Hell no. Now I have ancestry feats, skill feats, class feats and general feats. But none of those feats are designed cool or awesome (or matter).

Looking through the book... I don't want to play any of those classes. Playing PF1 i can't decide what I want to play, because there is so much cool stuff.

Balance and game stability is important but not the main goal to achive. The main goal (for me at least) is to have classes/races/feats that are fun to play and feel good.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Ecidon wrote:

Luckily for us, Paizo do keep an archive of these discussions.

I see a lot more negativity here than in those boards...

It's telling that the archive includes threads complaining about negative overly dramatic posts...but few to none of those posts themselves. For instance I distinctly remember Frank Trollman's exit thread but can't find it in the archives. Not accusing Paizo of whitewashing - they only have so much server space - but let's not pretend that the alpha period wasn't contentious.

And yes, almost everyone hated Fourth Edition...that did not mean that everyone loved the Alpha. There were numerous loud voices declaring that they'd just stay with 3.5 forever because their preferred rule change didn't get included.

[magnuskn]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm not doing much more than scanning the forums for posts by the development team and Deadmanwalking, waiting for the furore to die down. I'm hoping things return to a more normal level of grar come January (albeit when the game releases there'll be the inevitable "Paizo were warned!" posts by people who don't see the changes they want).

If it turns out that way for me, it will probably be more of a "Goodbye and thank you for all the good times, I'll see if it's still worth purchasing the adventure paths and retrofit them back to PF1E".

[magnuskn]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

It's telling that the archive includes threads complaining about negative overly dramatic posts...but few to none of those posts themselves. For instance I distinctly remember Frank Trollman's exit thread but can't find it in the archives. Not accusing Paizo of whitewashing - they only have so much server space - but let's not pretend that the alpha period wasn't contentious.

And yes, almost everyone hated Fourth Edition...that did not mean that everyone loved the Alpha. There were numerous loud voices declaring that they'd just stay with 3.5 forever because their preferred rule change didn't get included.

I joined a little late into the process (I think it was only already into the beta playtest, since I own that softcover), but the mood was pretty different. The thing was, Pathfinder 1E was a clear upgrade over the rules of 3.5. About every class got something really cool and though there were a few nerfs (spell durations and the Cleric got heavy armor proficiency removed), they were heavily offset by all the good stuff.

PF2E feels like someone slapped me in the face with a frozen fish in comparison. Nerfs all around, lack of customization options, a very much too tight mathematical skeleton around all that. I guess if Fighter and Rogue were my favorite classes and I'd been envious of spellcasters all along I would feel better, but being in the position where I'm in, it has been depressing and making me feel quicly diminishing motivation.

[Steve Geddes]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Ecidon wrote:

Luckily for us, Paizo do keep an archive of these discussions.

I see a lot more negativity here than in those boards...

It's telling that the archive includes threads complaining about negative overly dramatic posts...but few to none of those posts themselves. For instance I distinctly remember Frank Trollman's exit thread but can't find it in the archives. Not accusing Paizo of whitewashing - they only have so much server space - but let's not pretend that the alpha period wasn't contentious.

It’s probably a function of the more egregious posts being deleted and threads being locked (meaning they drift to the bottom).

I found the PF1 playtest ugly but I think this one is worse. I don’t think it’s a function of how well the rules are being received, I think people are less concerned with being polite now than they were then.

We shouldn’t object to people posting negative opinions - that’s useful and almost the whole point of the process. There ware ways to say it though.

[Tiona Daughtry]

I was brought into a game in Pathfinder 1's playtest. More or less because our group switches out between campaigns/gms, at the last time I've been playing Imara, my human (varisian) cleric of calistria, she was 16th level and just finished runeforge. I thoroughly enjoyed the pathfinder 1 playtest. The game was, very clearly, an enhancement on 3.5. Perhaps more telling is my almost instinctive reaction to this one. Historically, I'm the girl who has often spent 3-4 hours rolling up 7-8 random characters in whatever system happens to be available, for the sheer joy of seeing what I could create. It is very, very telling that I found it almost impossible to finish creating one in this playtest. It flat out cannot even get to actual playing, because I feel entirely personally demeaned by the way the game seems to imply that more than maybe a 2 point variance in stat placement is in fact 'dangerous and unwelcome'. There is really no chance to diversify your characters using the normal character generation rules. And that is very distressing in a game where you're supposed to invest yourself in that character, their strengths, weaknesses, and quirks. The fact is, I can tell already that it is actually impossible for me to feel for a character generated in here, because they are absolutely average. They really can't be distinct. I have good reason to believe my entire gaming group will have the same general perception. Yes, I said that it was personally demeaning. It is, in fact, personally demeaning to be told by the game designers that having a distinct, unique character endangers the playability of the game. It says that I am not actually trusted to be able to create a character that both can survive and work in a group effectively if that character is anything other than average. Yeah. Not acceptable in any way, shape, or form. Which, I guess, means that I need to look elsewhere, because I really can't see how they'll fix this problem without scrapping their entire idea, and that's unlikely.

[necromental]

Steve Geddes wrote:

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Ecidon wrote:

Luckily for us, Paizo do keep an archive of these discussions.

I see a lot more negativity here than in those boards...

It's telling that the archive includes threads complaining about negative overly dramatic posts...but few to none of those posts themselves. For instance I distinctly remember Frank Trollman's exit thread but can't find it in the archives. Not accusing Paizo of whitewashing - they only have so much server space - but let's not pretend that the alpha period wasn't contentious.

It’s probably a function of the more egregious posts being deleted and threads being locked (meaning they drift to the bottom).

I found the PF1 playtest ugly but I think this one is worse. I don’t think it’s a function of how well the rules are being received, I think people are less concerned with being polite now than they were then.

We shouldn’t object to people posting negative opinions - that’s useful and almost the whole point of the process. There ware ways to say it though.

I really don't know where are you coming from because since the playtest dropped I've seen maybe two threads locked. There has been a fair amount of flamewaring during the previews, but I think the atmosphere currently is one of debate. An i remember the i avoided the Paizo forums because of serious flamewaring during the playtest even though I was lurking because i was interested in the rules. The amount of negativity is a different thing altogether, and IMO signals that the rules are not in a good place right now.

[Steve Geddes]

necromental wrote:

I really don't know where are you coming from because since the playtest dropped I've seen maybe two threads locked.

I was referring to locking of threads in the PF1 alpha forum.

[necromental]

Steve Geddes wrote:

necromental wrote:

I really don't know where are you coming from because since the playtest dropped I've seen maybe two threads locked.

I was referring to locking of threads in the PF1 alpha forum.

I meant with your statement that this playtest feels worse as nobody is trying to be polite.

[Steve Geddes]

necromental wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

necromental wrote:

I really don't know where are you coming from because since the playtest dropped I've seen maybe two threads locked.

I was referring to locking of threads in the PF1 alpha forum.

I meant with your statement that this playtest feels worse as nobody is trying to be polite.

Ah. Well I didn’t mean nobody, but yeah it seems to me there’s generally less concern with politeness now than then.

I don’t object to critical comments about the game, for me the line is usually when the poster stops talking about what they like or dislike and reverts to ascribing motive, questioning others’ competence/intelligence or resorting to hyperbole when articulating an alternate view to theirs.

(I don’t think the antagonism is solely from overly aggressive critics. There are plenty of cases where “defenders” of PF2 cross the line that I consider pleasant).

[necromental]

Steve Geddes wrote:

necromental wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

necromental wrote:

I really don't know where are you coming from because since the playtest dropped I've seen maybe two threads locked.

I was referring to locking of threads in the PF1 alpha forum.

I meant with your statement that this playtest feels worse as nobody is trying to be polite.

Ah. Well I didn’t mean nobody, but yeah it seems to me there’s generally less concern with politeness now than then.

I don’t object to critical comments about the game, for me the line is usually when the poster stops talking about what they like or dislike and reverts to ascribing motive, questioning others’ competence/intelligence or resorting to hyperbole when articulating an alternate view to theirs.

(I don’t think the antagonism is solely from overly aggressive critics. There are plenty of cases where “defenders” of PF2 cross the line that I consider pleasant).

I get that part, but it seems to me that those types of comments (which I'm also guilty of) were very much a bigger part during the previews and that PF1 playtest is in my memory as a great big flamewar.

EDIT: what I'm trying to say is that things seem more civil rather than less. Not saying they are civil enough, just that it was worse several months before.

[Steve Geddes]

It’s possible I’ve become too sensitive to it.

A (small) part of my training was philosophy. An essential skill there is being able to argue cogently for a view you don’t hold. In addressing an issue, it’s preferable to address the other side’s strongest points and to address the weakest elements of your own position.

Although it’s unreasonable, it always bugs me in debates when those standards aren’t applied since the level of discourse is so obviously superior when they are.

[Steve Geddes]

necromental wrote:

EDIT: what I'm trying to say is that things seem more civil rather than less. Not saying they are civil enough, just that it was worse several months before.

I was comparing PF1 to PF2. I agree with you that the preview period was worse than the playtest period for PF2.

[vestris]

I hated it to hear there was a second edition coming. I found it out too late to preorder some playtest material. Then I downloaded the PDFs and started reading and I hated it even more.

Finally I started to create my first character, a wizard and it felt bad in many ways as so many things had changed. However going for the wizard was very good as it forced me to reread plenty of the book. And the reread was awesome. I took more time to get to know everything and sure there are some things I am opposed against and some things that need to be tweaked but overall my impression changed from very bad to pretty good.

I then proceeded to call in my players and some new folks (overall most of my players are not very experienced).
We created some new characters it went smooth and quick, I helped them with the creation part. Then we started play-testing and after 2 games and a couple of solo testings I was actually thinking about converting my current campaign to 2E.
I loved it my players loved it we started to play more regularly with 2E and plenty of them me included went ahead to create more and more characters to explore the different options.

[Brondy]

The game at least at present is awful, i would say that a bit of negativity is a normal consequence. Those who do not become aware of it will probably find it difficult to read in the forum.

Actually a negative behavior I see in the "defenders of pf2" that easily go into escalation, criticism serves otherwise the game can not improve.

[Isaac Zephyr]

This exploded last night.

As a point of interest, my normal group is still trepidatious of the game, however I have convinced a table of four to run with me. Also, I did open the floor. I have been working with a good friend of mine to run an open table at my game store starting next week. Let anyone come with a compatible character and run 2 2 hour games a day. We'll see if I can at least spark interest.

I am still worried though that my own biases will ruin these tables. I do have strong feelings about aspects of this game, and I'm known for being vocal about it. However, I will be going in with the same thing I do to my normal games. "No matter what happens today, I'm going to have fun." Because if I'm not having fun running, then my players will not have fun playing.

[Dire Ursus]

I've ran through the first 2 chapters (4 actual play sessions) and had a blast everytime. In fact the last session was the most fun we've had playing pathfinder period (been playing since 3.5).

:

Our cleric had died the session before (he tried to use a fly scroll and meet a certain enemy in the air and got mauled). So the remaining party was without a healer and hadn't even made it into the tomb yet. Thanks to some really smart planning and lucky rolls they were able to make it straight to the target. They grabbed it and left with a day to spare before the rival party arrived. Meaning the rival party did in fact catch up to them. They opted to rest for the night across the river from a camp they had cleared out before hand. They woke up to the rival party searching the camp. Desperate and wanting to help his friends get away. The draconic sorcerer decided he would cast invisibility on the other party members and try to hold off the rival group for as long as possible. Earning a hero point for this decision he held them off for quite a while before the rival party slew him. Enough time for there to now be survival roll offs each day to make it back to the destination (with a bonus for the PCs since they had already traveled through this way). The party made it back with the object and completed the mission.

So yeah. I think you'll have fun with it! I think an upgrade that cannot be argued in my eyes is how fun it is to actually run monsters now. They all feel unique and there's a lot of room for tactical decisions.

[The Once and Future Kai]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ah. Well I didn’t mean nobody, but yeah it seems to me there’s generally less concern with politeness now than then.

That's a fair point. I don't think it's limited to this sphere... Society, in general, seems to be going through a period of rebellion against long established codes of conduct and has not yet moved on to setting new acceptable standards of behavior.

[neaven]

A lot of the "oh this community is so negative" looks to me like complaining about people not liking the game. And what are we supposed to do if we don't like it? Just not give any feedback that might be negative?

Overnerfed magic, lack of healing options outside of a cleric, many monsters being as good generally as an optimised PC will be at one thing, replacement of actual multiclassing with a system more like VMC in P1e, no granular customisation of character skills, untrained and legendary being only +5 apart, aggressive siloing of character options, characters getting more skilled as they level at everything even if it doesn't make narrative sense, optimised characters having almost coin-flip success chances in many cases, and an overall lower-power feeling to the game are all reasons I've seen cited and backed up with both evidence and arguments as to why people dislike the game.

Now many may not agree that all of those are bad (or as bad), but that doesn't mean that myself and many others aren't seeing these problems as major turnoffs, especially since P1e exists as a point of comparison. Heck, if someone gave me a choice between 2e as it stands and not playing anything, I'd go right for not playing anything.

[Vic Ferrari]

neaven wrote:

A lot of the "oh this community is so negative" looks to me like complaining about people not liking the game. And what are we supposed to do if we don't like it? Just not give any feedback that might be negative?

Yeah, every time a new edition comes out you get a cadre of new warriors determined to shout down any one who opposes them (different views, likes/dislikes) and the new and shiny they love so very much. It's like seeing the same old played out play at this point.

[Scythia]

I started the playtest with interest and curiosity. Having heard some of the early scraps before the release, I was looking forward to seeing a more complete picture. When I got the book, I read it through, and was kind of excited to try it out. Made several characters to test the system, and I liked that each felt like they were distinctly a member of their class. I also enjoyed the character building system, where stats felt more like they developed from who the character is rather than who the character is deriving from the stats.

Once I began actually running the system, things became less rosy. At first I attributed the extremely swingy and roll dependant feeling to the party being first level. As sessions went on, I boosted the characters a level each session to see if things improved. They really didn't. The PCs have a few more options now, but don't really feel any better at using them than they were. Maybe I've just had bad luck in picking monsters, but so far most of the monsters of the same level seem to have almost the same stats, which is not very exciting. Now we're getting to the point where the monsters get extra damage dice just because, which while that can make sense for actual creature monsters it is just silly for humanoid monsters since they don't have the magic gear that would allow that (so as to avoid giving too much treasure out presumably). Between feeling a lack of improvement, and seeing the lengths the game works has to bend to support this structure, my interest was pretty well sapped. Now I'm more focused on salvage, identifying what aspects I like enough to convert for use in a PF1 game.

[master_marshmallow]

graystone wrote:

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

I think the community has killed this game for me.

For me, playing the game killed it. I was never thrilled with the preview info but I went through to see if I couldn't steer things in a better direction but things turned out worse than expected. Two chapters of the playtest adventure and TPK of each one drove off the players AND the DM. I still haven't found another group.

For myself, when everything looks awful to you it's not overly negative to say so. There are so few things to be happy about I'm sure it looks like a sea of negativity. It's hard to positive that you can roast marshmallows while the ship is on fire and sinking.

plz no

I've got my fair share of negative feedback, but I always try and back it up with both playtest data (even on things I know I don;t want to play) and with hard stat analysis.

Despite my contention towards the current state of the play test, I've had nothing but good experiences with the play tests for the ACG and UI, and we even got updates during those play tests that updated every single class.

I forgot I said this.

This thread was my warlock playtest, and if you'll remember what state that class was in then you may notice just how much Paizo is willing to listen.

So hold out for optimism.

[Vic Ferrari]

Scythia wrote:

Now I'm more focused on salvage, identifying what aspects I like enough to convert for use in a PF1 game.

Yes, cannibalisation has already started: Bonus hit points for race, monster reactions (no AoO for everything). Have been using the Unchained RAE for some time now, so that is not really new.

[graystone]

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

However, I will be going in with the same thing I do to my normal games. "No matter what happens today, I'm going to have fun." Because if I'm not having fun running, then my players will not have fun playing.

Good luck, I hope you can. I tried and failed with my playthroughs.

neaven wrote:

Heck, if someone gave me a choice between 2e as it stands and not playing anything, I'd go right for not playing anything.

Yep. I have a backlog of video games, books, movies, shows, other RPG games, ect... And that's the rub. The current playtest feels like laborious and painful work and fun seems few and far between. It's hard for me to work up the energy to try to find a new group willing to spend time not having fun in the hopes that it might some time in the future result in a fun game. It's a hard sell when you have things that you know WILL be fun that you could do.

master_marshmallow wrote:

So hold out for optimism.

*sigh* That's a really difficult request. I didn't start off this playtest with a whole lot of optimism and things have gone south from there. For me the telling part was when I, with my general lack of enthusiasm with the game, was the one that held out the longest with our playtests: people that genuinely seemed excited to play bailed before I did... It's not filling me with a lot of hope. :(

[PossibleCabbage]

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.

[neaven]

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.

Firstly, that's not bad faith criticism. Bad faith implies an intent to deceive, which your example doesn't give. Unhelpful criticism? Maybe. Bad faith? No. Besides which, you don't need to provide a solution to be able to criticise - I can't cook coq au vin, but I can still know when the chicken is raw.

Furthermore, there is absolutely bad arguments on the pro 2e side - just look further up in this thread where someone was claiming that negativity is from "not understanding the rules" or "wanting to min-max" when they would know full well otherwise by reading almost any negative thread or even other comments in this one. I actually don't think that it's representative of people who like 2e - the vast majority are simply people who have different priorities to me in what they want out of a game. So why should the odd bad argument against 2e invalidate all other arguments against it?

It's not just a matter of disliking change - there are certainly good changes that could be made from 1e. It's that we think the changes are not good changes. If I took your favourite videogame and made a sequel that changed or removed most what you liked about it, would you not say the same thing? And then the shoe would be on the other foot, with people complaining that you're being "overly negative" and "toxic". while you're sitting there thinking "but... I don't like what they're doing with this property I am invested in" having done nothing actually wrong.

[ikarinokami]

the game plays phenomenally. love it

the big issues for me in order

1. the layout of the book is terrible, there is no nice or kind way to say it

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

3. ancestries are terrible, awful. all your feat choices should be done at level 1, and move on. also they destroyed the lore of a lot of these races. no cared that dwarves were allegedly more powerful in pf1. I say alleged because humans were in fact the best race easy. because dwarves somehow had more points, did not make them more powerful.

4. the death system, seriously it's ok if people die, when people lose in all games they feel bad, it's ok, people still play the games, even ones where they can lose, in fact most people don't have long term enjoyment for games for which they can't lose. it's ok that a dragon has a better chance of killing you at high level, than a goblin does has at low level.

5. Orc > goblin

6. still annoyed that the iconic ranger is a dwarf who uses a crossbow. instead of a elf/half-elf/human with a comp long or comp short bow

7. happy about the changes of wizard and druid spells that ruined the game banished to the uncommon list, but now those classes don't seem to have a "niche". at least in the sessions we have run, these two classes seem a little rudderless.

[Vic Ferrari]

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.

Wow, compared to the dark days of 2008 and 2012, this place seems like a Kumbaya singalong.

Not even close to toxic, actually, for some reason, saying that this place has become toxic and makes one sad, is toxic (and disingenuous, agenda-laden creepiness, but that's neither here nor there).

[That kid from that region]

neaven wrote:

If I took your favourite videogame and made a sequel that changed or removed most what you liked about it, would you not say the same thing?

Too soon man, too soon.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

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.

Conversely, those of us who dislike P2 get told we are stupid, acting in bad faith and are Doing It Wrong because we don't like it. You have a*%@#@~&s on both sides.

Some other places seem overwhelmingly unimpressed with P2, like GitP. OTOH, pretty much every Youtube review I've seen has been pretty impressed. This place seems mostly pleased with it and a few nay-sayers work hard and loud to undo changes to things we liked in P1, though I'll admit my own biases may be coloring my impression.

But it comes down to this: if you want a playtest you'll have to accept that the discussion gets heated. One shouldn't be impolite about it and flat out flaming should be harshly dealt with, but this being a game we're all rather invested in (otherwise we wouldn't be here) and it's hard to stay entirely polite when you're told that your preferences are wrong just because. We all want to see the game do what we want it to do and will be loudly supportive of any change we like and loudly critical of ones we don't in hopes that our voices are heard and the game changes (or doesn't) to match.

[Nox Aeterna]

To be fair, i can understand why people would leave this book on the shelves. I personally also gave up getting a copy after checking the pdf.

I literally have no use for this book outside the playtest.

Sure, for the playtest purpose of feedback, the rules are relevant, but that is it. Outside this playtest i wouldnt ever run this system.

Now i do have hope that changes can happen and PF2 might be this amazing thing that i would love to play. I also believe doesnt matter how much people dislike the current playtest, they also believe so, they are here on these forums giving feedback too after all.

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.

[Vic Ferrari]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

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.

And that would indeed be sad, as Andy Dufresne said "...hope is the best of things...".

[neaven]

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.

Precisely. While I don't know for sure, I certainly have a suspicion that there are design priorities that directly contradict what I would like. If such a list came out, I could just sigh relief and avoid the playtest forums entirely, as there'd be no reason for me to try and give feedback if I know it goes against a stated design goal. Same with many others.

[Lyricanna]

Agreed. If the low magic, Sword and Sorcery theme was actually their design goal, I'll probably stop posting on here or participating in the playtest. Sure I'd consider it a betrayal by Paizo, but I'd get over it eventually.

Besides, someone would end up making an actual successor to Pathfinder, even if I had to wrangle cats on /tg/ and do it myself.

[Chess Pwn]

One of the things I'm curious about was in the Alpha playtest where the DEVs more active in the forums? My personal belief is a lot of toxicity is from feeling unheard and trying to be heard.

For this topic I was slightly hopeful, the blogs had some good things and some bad things for me so I was kinda neutral. After a few days of reading I almost cancelled all my playtest plans, it felt so lifeless and uninspiring looking at many of the classes and the math, lots of the feelings looking at the math and realizing that there is only the coinflip and you live or die by the dice. Now having done the first 2 of Doomsday and the lv5 PFS and GM 4/5 of part 1, I can say that most my concerns have shown up in actual gameplay. When I make a melee alchemist and miss on a 11 against a random guy it felt really bad. Finding in play that PCs basically can only ever crit on a nat 20 while enemies need like an 18. Players have grown very bored and dissatisfied by missing so much and feeling like they have nothing better to do than missing.

Now one thing that I didn't know before starting that I do now is crits are king. Lots of the stories I hear about parties having no TPK or struggles in the playtest go along with getting one or two nice crits in in early fights. And the normal are enemies crit a bit to no crits for anyone. And the slaughter is the enemy starting off with a crit.