| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 there were a lot of threads in the General Discussion forum. In PF2 90+% of them (really! look!) are being moved to other forums, often to my surprise. So, like, what's up with that?
It seems like either the posters or the moderators are basically doing something wrong now. Unless General Discussion is no longer really meant for actual discussions to take place there and is just where you start a thread when you're not sure where it belongs and want that decided for you....
Just glancing at the front page I see a bunch of threads talking about rules that were moved to rules discussion.
So that doesn't feel like the moderators doing something wrong to me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a fair question. Created a thread that maybe should have gone in Advice on what to do when players don’t show up but just found it in Homebrew instead.
Probably should have phrased the title and question better but it’s hard to know what General Discussion is supposed to mean in that context.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Advice" is eating up all the "what do we think about X" threads, presumably on the theory that offering opinions is advice on how to resolve them rather than "general" discussion on the same topic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a fair question. Created a thread that maybe should have gone in Advice on what to do when players don’t show up but just found it in Homebrew instead.
Probably should have phrased the title and question better but it’s hard to know what General Discussion is supposed to mean in that context.
I took a look at your thread. You asked for help in making a system for running PCs as minions for missing players. 100% homebrew forum.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on which aspect I emphasized you could say I was looking for General Discussion and Advice on how to use existing Rules to solve a problem at my tables. Homebrew is also a reasonable interpretation so I see
Your point.
The main point made by the op is what is actually allowed in General Discussion? Isn’t very clear so I think it’s a valid question.
Wouldn’t agree on the statement anyone had made a mistake or did anything wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything seems right to me.
Discuss your personal play reactions, current and future releases, ideas and wants for future releases, and podcasts - done by or for Paizo-, blogs etc.
17 less pages arguing about armor on the main page is welcome by me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only 90% if you include all the threads moved because at one point this was literally the only forum. Obviously, some stuff got moved when that stopped being the case.
Most of the stuff getting moved recently is just to the Advice Forum, where, as mentioned, they're moving the 'How do you feel about X?" Threads.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our forum moderators all have other jobs, and moving threads that are in the wrong forum isn't generally the most important thing that our mods can do, so to be frank, we've let a lot of threads in the 1E General Discussion forum stay there when they shouldn't.
Since the 2E forum is new, though, I have personally been taking the time to try to keep it organized, and I am hopeful that the community will encourage each other to put things in the right place so that in the long term, I don't have to spend a lot of time on it.
Given the volume of thread creation, I need to assess things pretty quickly; if I were to spend several minutes digesting a thread, I wouldn't get anything else done all day. About all I can do is quickly scan the initial post trying to determine the OP's intent. Here are some of the things that I consider.
• The more specific your topic is, the more likely it is to belong somewhere other than General Discussion. "Here are my thoughts on 2E as a whole" belongs in General. "Here are my thoughts on alchemists" does not.
• If the OP seems to be asking a question about the rules—whether it's how a rule works, if a rule exists, or why a rule exists or doesn't exist—I will move it to the Rules Discussion forum. Also, please note that this forum has been renamed from "Rules Questions" for a reason: if you are discussing a specific rule or a specific subset of rules, even if you have no questions about the rules, it probably belongs here. If the OP is discussing the efficacy of a rule, or any quirks surrounding its existence, I will also move it to the Rules Discussion forum.
• If the OP appears to be soliciting or offering advice on play style (including strategic implementation), character creation, or GMing under the rules as published, I'll move it to Advice.
• If the OP has brought up the topic of modifying or adding rules, I'll likely move it to Homebrew.
• If the OP is talking about something specific to PFS, I will move it to a PFS thread.
• If the OP is talking about a specific product, I will move it to a forum appropriate for that product.
• If the OP is talking about something specific to the campaign setting, I will move it to the Lost Omens forum.
(I've been leaving all the threads about character sheets, spreadsheet utilities, and the like in General for now, but there's a decent chance that I'll end up moving most of them to the 3rd Party Product Discussion forum.)
The line between advice and rules discussion can admittedly be quite blurry. To me, if the focus of the OP is specific to a particular rule or rule subset, I will err on the side of the Rules Discussion forum; if it's a more broad application, I'll err on the side of Advice.
Some posts touch on several of those things, and could arguably fit comfortably in several places. In those cases, I'll put it where I think the OP's main point seems to fit best.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait...only posts that talk about PF2 in general remain in the General Discussion area? That sounds funny, but isn't that actually pretty narrow for General? It seems everything else is getting moved, according to that list.
Am I missing something here because how many people actually talk about PF2 in an abstract way that doesn't reference rules, the setting, or classes?
Maybe there should be a section for PF2 Feedback & Speculation. It seems Rules & Advice don't quite capture that niche, and General doesn't seem to want it.
For example, if somebody wanted to discuss Alchemists without seeking advice and not questioning rules, would they be booted to Homebrew?
Are house rules enough to get placed in Homebrew?
To me homebrew signifies far more alteration, as in the whole setting, genre, or campaign. Plus, going to Homebrew would be the death of any discussion outside normal rules, even though "outside normal" is the norm. Do we really want to alienate those with slight variance?
I'm not sure I've ever played at a table without house rules except for PFS. PFS funnily enough has variant rules for its campaign (not to mention a lot of *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge*.)
Where would speculating about an Alchemist w/ a Gunslinger Dedication go?
Gunslingers aren't in the rules, no advice is needed, and they may not be wanting to brew anything. Just discuss, perhaps have Paizo read their concepts. It's fun & engaging to wonder about such things.
Apologies as text doesn't convey tone well and I adore y'all, Paizo.
I'm baffled though by the alterations to the forums and the effect it may have on community cohesion and browse-ability. Even before this thread I noticed some of the shifts felt wonky, as in disconnected from how user's approach these forums. Hopefully efficacy won't ruin community.
Cheers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
• The more specific your topic is, the more likely it is to belong somewhere other than General Discussion. "Here are my thoughts on 2E as a whole" belongs in General. "Here are my thoughts on alchemists" does not.
• If the OP seems to be asking a question about the rules—whether it's how a rule works, if a rule exists, or why a rule exists or doesn't exist—I will move it to the Rules Discussion forum. Also, please note that this forum has been renamed from "Rules Questions" for a reason: if you are discussing a specific rule or a specific subset of rules, even if you have no questions about the rules, it probably belongs here. If the OP is discussing the efficacy of a rule, or any quirks surrounding its existence, I will also move it to the Rules Discussion forum.
• If the OP appears to be soliciting or offering advice on play style (including strategic implementation), character creation, or GMing under the rules as published, I'll move it to Advice.
• If the OP has brought up the topic of modifying or adding rules, I'll likely move it to Homebrew.
• If the OP is talking about something specific to PFS, I will move it to a PFS thread.
• If the OP is talking about a specific product, I will move it to a forum appropriate for that product.
• If the OP is talking about something specific to the campaign setting, I will move it to the Lost Omens forum.
This might be something worth making a sticky thread for so more people can see it and put threads where you think they should be, saving you time moving them.
This might be something worth making a sticky thread for so more people can see it and put threads where you think they should be, saving you time moving them.• The more specific your topic is, the more likely it is to belong somewhere other than General Discussion. "Here are my thoughts on 2E as a whole" belongs in General. "Here are my thoughts on alchemists" does not.
• If the OP seems to be asking a question about the rules—whether it's how a rule works, if a rule exists, or why a rule exists or doesn't exist—I will move it to the Rules Discussion forum. Also, please note that this forum has been renamed from "Rules Questions" for a reason: if you are discussing a specific rule or a specific subset of rules, even if you have no questions about the rules, it probably belongs here. If the OP is discussing the efficacy of a rule, or any quirks surrounding its existence, I will also move it to the Rules Discussion forum.
• If the OP appears to be soliciting or offering advice on play style (including strategic implementation), character creation, or GMing under the rules as published, I'll move it to Advice.
• If the OP has brought up the topic of modifying or adding rules, I'll likely move it to Homebrew.
• If the OP is talking about something specific to PFS, I will move it to a PFS thread.
• If the OP is talking about a specific product, I will move it to a forum appropriate for that product.
• If the OP is talking about something specific to the campaign setting, I will move it to the Lost Omens forum.
It'd be nice if an answer were added to the OP's question:
What still belongs in General Discussion?
It'd be nice if an answer were added to the OP's question:
What still belongs in General Discussion?
The example is "Here are my thoughts on 2E as a whole" belongs in General." So general is for anything mainly about "2E as a whole". Seems super niche but there it is.
I'm sorta guessing that General is mostly going to be where threads go when there's not an obvious other place for them to be? A junk drawer for threads that don't share enough in common to justify an entire subforum. So stuff like people advertising their podcast series, currently it seems like lore discussions don't have a more specific place to go, stuff addressing the culture surrounding PF2 (how much does the community value roleplaying versus mechancis?), just anything that doesn't seem to yet have a better fit in another subforum.
Which, granted, isn't really a great guideline and is still confusing, but it's not like mods are handing out bans for posting a thread in General because you didn't see a more specific but slower subforum or making passive-aggressive posts about needing to read instructions like it's a mid-aughts tech support forum. So long the mods are understanding that it's confusing to someone that is possibly new to forums conceptually, I don't see some vagueness as too concerning, it's not exactly high stakes to have your thread moved.
The example is "Here are my thoughts on 2E as a whole" belongs in General." So general is for anything mainly about "2E as a whole". Seems super niche but there it is.It'd be nice if an answer were added to the OP's question:
What still belongs in General Discussion?
Though it leaves the question "Where does "Here are my thoughts on the alchemist" go?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though it leaves the question "Where does "Here are my thoughts on the alchemist" go?"The example is "Here are my thoughts on 2E as a whole" belongs in General." So general is for anything mainly about "2E as a whole". Seems super niche but there it is.It'd be nice if an answer were added to the OP's question:
What still belongs in General Discussion?
From the sounds of it, Advice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, having had a number of my threads moved, I recognize that this means that someone at Paizo has read at least the OP, thought about the information that it discusses and moves it to the place in the message board where the developer that deals with that specific thing is most likely to look/be told about the issue. This feels like a win/win to me, even if it means less general audience folks will see it, because I trust that if it is a general discussion topic for the broader pathfinder 2nd edition community then it will probably stay here.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe there should be a section for PF2 Feedback & Speculation. It seems Rules & Advice don't quite capture that niche, and General doesn't seem to want it.
For example, if somebody wanted to discuss Alchemists without seeking advice and not questioning rules, would they be booted to Homebrew?
Are house rules enough to get placed in Homebrew?
House rules are, by definition, homebrew.
Discussion of alchemists that doesn't seek advice or discuss the rules most likely focuses on strategy, so will likely end up in advice. (That's the place not just for people asking for strategy or playstyle advice but also people offering unsolicited strategy or playstyle advice.
In general, I've been leaving speculation in General... unless the post is clearly speculating about a specific Paizo product, in which case I move it to the Paizo Products forum.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vic Wertz: House rules are, by definition, homebrew.
Citation needed.
That's not to argue, it's that I've never heard homebrew used so broadly, nor linked to the definition of house rules, which includes topics like table etiquette.
Many RPG house rules simply cover gaps in the formal rules or clarify interpretations. When does that cross over into homebrew territory?
I don't see how it does.
"I run a homebrew PF2 game." refers to setting & story, not rules.
And yet...
"I'm running a PF2 AP campaign set in Golarion circa 4719."
...may be homebrew if they judge Battle Medicine differently?
(to choose one contentious topic)
This boggles me, in that I wouldn't know how to navigate the forums intuitively with such labeling. I have minimal interest in alternate settings or genres; or revamped systems or magic. Yet I have a deep interest in how GMs have adjudicated or tweaked rules when RAW/FAQs/errata are lacking. To me, those topics are different beasts.
Vic, I think applying such a broad, perhaps rigid, definition of homebrew lessens the utility of the term, therefore the forum's label. It becomes almost akin to "General PF2 + DIY" since nearly all PF games have house rules. Having followed some campaigns from devs, this holds true within Paizo staff who are running Paizo APs.
Don't we want the majority of voices talking in the main section of the PF2 forum when they're playing essentially the same game? Isn't this the hub of the non-PFS PF2 community?
---
You're right that strategy should go to Advice. But classes by default shouldn't, nor necessarily to the book they're within. You could easily get Alchemist conversations in one area (Advice), Witch conversations in another (Products: APG), and Alchemist/Witch/Gunslinger conversations in a third (General or even Homebrew). Awkward.
Yet you know the traffic patterns of Paizo Products or Setting (et al) better than I, since I seldom go to either except for AP or scenario questions & errata. As long as shifting discussions there is aiding discussion & community-building, why not? My POV may be unusual, who knows?
Is there a list for what goes where? Admittedly I scroll past fringe text right to the topics & discussions.
Maybe when people enter a specific sub-forum there could be a description of what's included, and what might seem to be, but has a different home.
Cheers
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
nor linked to the definition of house rules, which includes topics like table etiquette.
I mean, "I made a new class" or "I made a new race" are pretty unequivocally homebrew. I don't see how "I changed the way this feat works" isn't functionally in the same vein.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nor linked to the definition of house rules, which includes topics like table etiquette.I mean, "I made a new class" or "I made a new race" are pretty unequivocally homebrew. I don't see how "I changed the way this feat works" isn't functionally in the same vein.
It's a matter of degree and user interest, as well as usage.
I've never heard somebody label any game homebrew because of an altered feat. That's not its usage, it's not the same degree.Much like a religious faith and a religious cult technically are the same thing with different emphasis.
Introducing a new race would be homebrew, but how about making stats for a Golarion race while waiting for official stats? The GM didn't intro a new race, they made patch perhaps to keep a Paizo PF1 Golarion going until official PF2 content arrives.
Not that I think there is a clear delineation, but combining the minor with the major isn't user-friendly. If "Homebrew" encapsulates nearly all tables, including some that deviate less than PFS does, as well many GMed by Paizo devs, then it loses meaning.
If somebody wants to talk about a Homebrew element, then it should go in Homebrew. If they're looking to solve a PF2 dilemma, a topic that would appeal to the community, it should fall outside of Homebrew, as the focus won't be on that element, but on the common problem (or defense that there is none).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "try to make sure the thread you're making doesn't fit somewhere else better than general discussion" and "if it gets moved, don't worry about it" are both guidelines to live by.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Introducing a new race would be homebrew, but how about making stats for a Golarion race while waiting for official stats? The GM didn't intro a new race, they made patch perhaps to keep a Paizo PF1 Golarion going until official PF2 content arrives.
Why would that not be homebrew? Making your own content for the game is what homebrew is. It doesn't matter if it already exists within the setting or not.
If somebody wants to talk about a Homebrew element, then it should go in Homebrew. If they're looking to solve a PF2 dilemma, a topic that would appeal to the community, it should fall outside of Homebrew, as the focus won't be on that element, but on the common problem (or defense that there is none).
That depends on the details. If you're talking about how to solve a PF2 dilemma with existing content, that's advice. If you're talking about solving a PF2 dilemma by creating your own content to replace it, that's homebrew.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for clearing that up, Vic! It makes sense that a lot of the PF1 stuff I'd assumed was "the way it should be" was actually suboptimal, and therefore doesn't carry over when you're making a fresh start.
I agree with graystone that a sticky post with some of that material as guidelines might be helpful (in your copious spare time).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vic Wertz: House rules are, by definition, homebrew.
Citation needed.
...
...
...
*deep breath*
In the first case you're making things up... in the second case you're making things up.
Choosing one aspect of a term and overemphasizing it isn't how definitions work. That's akin to saying anybody who's ever told a lie is a liar. Not useful, and not the way "liar" is used.
Do you call a game homebrew when the GM running an AP "makes things up" on the fly to roll w/ player shenanigans? Does anyone?That seems your argument.
But my issue isn't with the term homebrew per se, but with mainstream topics being shifted into Homebrew. One of the first things I did when engaging with the new PF2 forums was close the Homebrew portion. I'm not interested in alterations on the scale of homebrew.
Yet often "normal" games need alterations, even if it's just due to gaps in the rules or player agency. Lumping the two types of alterations together is unhelpful.
And I don't make this argument for the sake of my own browsing habits (since I'm a sporadic visitor), but because I think it's detrimental to the health of the forum community to exile topics that are part of "normal" play into the Homebrew sub-forum (as well as split similar topics apart).
I put quotes on "normal" because the normal is to be abnormal. The question is how recognizable as a PF2 game does it remain.
Cheers
ETA: I do appreciate that some of the topics re: Golarion haven't been moved to the settings forum, what with PF2 linking more strongly to it now.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with having threads being moved to homebrew is that while we all know that everyone else's homebrew efforts are lame and amateurish, and therefore that whole forum is largely to be avoided, our own homebrew efforts are insightful and show promise, and therefore are very nearly rules or just very good advice or discussion and belong in forums that people actually read.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with having threads being moved to homebrew is that while we all know that everyone else's homebrew efforts are lame and amateurish, and therefore that whole forum is largely to be avoided, our own homebrew efforts are insightful and show promise, and therefore are very nearly rules or just very good advice or discussion and belong in forums that people actually read.
That is true of me for sure. I am tired of you losers watering down my excellent homebrew content with your bad homebrew content.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most campaigns probably do incorporate house rules, but I'm not saying "if you use house rules, I'm moving you to homebrew." I'm saying if a significant focus of the OP appears to be about something other than rules as written—whether that's adding rules, ignoring rules, or modifying rules—that's homebrew. (Trying to define a line between "house rule" and "homebrew" is splitting a hair so finely as to have no meaning to most people.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Introducing a new race would be homebrew, but how about making stats for a Golarion race while waiting for official stats? The GM didn't intro a new race, they made patch perhaps to keep a Paizo PF1 Golarion going until official PF2 content arrives.
I'd put that in Conversions.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have added brief descriptions to each of the 2E subforums.
In doing so, I noted that the original 1E Homebrew forum was originally called House Rules, and recalled that our community suggested the change a decade ago specifically because they felt it was a broader term encompassing both non-rules and rules content.
I also noted that the corresponding Pathfinder Adventure Card Game subforum has always been called "House Rules and Homebrew," so I decided to rename the Pathfinder 1E and 2E forums to match that.
(Also, my autocorrect keeps trying to make the word "Homebrew" either "Hebrew" or "hombre.")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have added brief descriptions to each of the 2E subforums.
In doing so, I noted that the original 1E Homebrew forum was originally called House Rules, and recalled that our community suggested the change a decade ago specifically because they felt it was a broader term encompassing both non-rules and rules content.
I also noted that the corresponding Pathfinder Adventure Card Game subforum has always been called "House Rules and Homebrew," so I decided to rename the Pathfinder 1E and 2E forums to match that.
(Also, my autocorrect keeps trying to make the word "Homebrew" either "Hebrew" or "hombre.")
Thank you for your clarity and for engaging with us.
I think the labels + descriptions will aid.I'm glad you're looking at the focus of the OP, rather than having a sweeping, rigorous standard. :) I empathize with the troubles in differentiating the middle ground.
I would still like an area for PF2 theorycrafting & speculating. :)
Or is that what General is for?
(And you need a nerdier computer obviously.)
Cheers
Theorycrafting is Advice. Speculating could be any forum, depending on what you're speculating.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have added brief descriptions to each of the 2E subforums.
In doing so, I noted that the original 1E Homebrew forum was originally called House Rules, and recalled that our community suggested the change a decade ago specifically because they felt it was a broader term encompassing both non-rules and rules content.
I also noted that the corresponding Pathfinder Adventure Card Game subforum has always been called "House Rules and Homebrew," so I decided to rename the Pathfinder 1E and 2E forums to match that.
(Also, my autocorrect keeps trying to make the word "Homebrew" either "Hebrew" or "hombre.")
Vic, just wanted to say I am super impressed you got on this, listened to everyone and put in place a big improvement. Thank you for the excellent customer care.