PF1e is a great game. So is PF2e. Why are some folks treating these as mutually exclusive?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a paired down and edited version of something I posted on a thread that may got locked (unrelated to what I'm talking about).

PF1e is a great game. It's not for everyone, and that's okay. It has problems, like any game (including PF2e) and I wouldn't run it for every table.

The same is true for PF2e. For some groups, 5E is hands down the better choice. Does this make it the "perfect game" and PF2e worthless garbage? Obviously not. It's just that I have an hour for lunch and 5e plays faster and simpler than PF2e.

I'm running both PF1e and 2e games currently, and they're both fun. If you don't like ______ system - good for you. Don't play it. I don't get why everything has to be a competition - especially between two products from the same company.

Games I enjoy playing (off the top of my head):

D&D 3.5
D&D 5.0
PF1e
PF2e
Burning Wheel
Mouseguard
Stars Without Number
Apocalypse World
Urban Shadows
Monster of the Week
Broken Worlds
Pretty much anything PbtA
Blades in the Dark
Fate
Lasers and Feelings
Dread
Darkshine

There's a billion other games I'd love to try out. The idea that falling in love with a new game means abandoning previous favorites is ridiculous to me.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As someone who has maybe been misunderstood to have said this, let me share my two cents.

PF2e is an amazing game. It is my favorite RPG system I have ever played, by a significant distance. I consider it hands down a better system than PF1e and once the one game I am currently running finishes I will probably not run PF1e again.

However. That is not a diminishment of PF1e; it is strictly a praise of PF2e. My love for 2e does not change the fact that I ran 1e for over a decade and loved it the entire time. It doesn't change 1e being among my favorite RPG systems, and it doesn't change the love I have for the system or the extent to which it shaped my life and gaming.

When I talk about how PF2e fixes things I didn't like about PF1e, that is not me saying I didn't like PF1e! I wouldn't run a system for ten years if I didn't like it.

But you can like something and still acknowledge it has flaws. Saying that PF2e is a better system and fixes some of what I see as the biggest flaws of PF1e does not contradict my love for PF1e.

Put another way - Doom 2 was an amazing game for its time and will always hold a special place in my heart. But given the choice, I will always choose to play Doom 2016 instead of Doom 2 because the later game appeals more to my current sensibilities. That doesn't mean I hate Doom 2, it just means I've moved past the point where it fills that spot in my life.

If any of that makes any sense. :)

Silver Crusade

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Let the past die.

Kill it, if you have to.

*sets his PF1 PDFs on fire*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
Why are some folks treating these as mutually exclusive?

Maybe to those folks, they are mutually exclusive. I, for one, lost interest in PF1 right around the time Ultimate Combat came out. I don't enjoy that game, but I thus far do really enjoy PF2.

Defining something as a "great game" is a personal choice, while you may feel that PF1 is a great game, someone like me may feel that it is not. If someone legitimately feels that PF2e is a better game, and says so in a thread, why is it necessary to question their opinion?

Your statement here seems to be that there is some sort of objective reality of these games that must be addressed, when that just isn't the case. It is purely subjective, and that's ok.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Artofregicide wrote:
I don't get why everything has to be a competition - especially between two products from the same company.

PF1 died so that PF2 may live. Its noble sacrifice will be remembered by the people who keep playing it until they don't.

If you like PF1 and wanted more content from it, then obviously the introduction of PF2 is something hostile to you. It isn't a competition, because PF1 is no longer being developed for. There is a finite amount of content to play through now.

Lovecraft influences aside, I really enjoy the Lost Omens setting. If I want to continue to follow developments in it, I have to switch or buy books I can't use and do conversion work I don't have time for.

And if you game with people who are willing to run multiple systems or play multiple games then you're in a great position. A lot of people do not have the luxury of time and money to own multiple game systems, know the mechanics of those systems enough to enjoy it, and play them.

I play PF1 twice a week (down from three) and PF2 once a month and I consider myself someone who plays a lot. For people who have trouble getting their group together consistently, the notion of playing multiple systems is probably laughable. And the commitment of a game system for a year or two of play in a campaign means that yes, you abandon old favorites.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people can't "win" unless someone else is "losing".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
Why are some folks treating these as mutually exclusive?

Maybe to those folks, they are mutually exclusive. I, for one, lost interest in PF1 right around the time Ultimate Combat came out. I don't enjoy that game, but I thus far do really enjoy PF2.

Defining something as a "great game" is a personal choice, while you may feel that PF1 is a great game, someone like me may feel that it is not. If someone legitimately feels that PF2e is a better a game, and says so in a thread, why is it necessary to question their opinion?

Your statement here seems to be that there is some sort of objective reality of these games that must be addressed, when that just isn't the case. It is purely subjective, and that's ok.

Yes, I'm aware of the concept of subjectivity. :P

I could debate you on why PF1e is a great game (objectively), but I'd rather not completely derail the thread. Let's just say to a lot of folks, including the *creators of PF2e*, think it's a great game.

But good for you. If you don't like it, don't play it. That doesn't make it not a great game, it just means you don't like it. Folks don't frame this this as a subjective "my preference is" situation.

But yeah it's this kind of negative, game bashing, edition wars nonsense that has really turned a lot of people off PF2e before they even try it.

Sovereign Court

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And you may ask yourself
How do I work this?
And you may ask yourself
Where is that large library of supplemental material?
And you may tell yourself
This is not my favorite edition!
And you may tell yourself
My Edition is better than yours!

(Edition wars) Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
I don't get why everything has to be a competition - especially between two products from the same company.

PF1 died so that PF2 may live. Its noble sacrifice will be remembered by the people who keep playing it until they don't.

If you like PF1 and wanted more content from it, then obviously the introduction of PF2 is something hostile to you. It isn't a competition, because PF1 is no longer being developed for. There is a finite amount of content to play through now.

Lovecraft influences aside, I really enjoy the Lost Omens setting. If I want to continue to follow developments in it, I have to switch or buy books I can't use and do conversion work I don't have time for.

And if you game with people who are willing to run multiple systems or play multiple games then you're in a great position. A lot of people do not have the luxury of time and money to own multiple game systems, know the mechanics of those systems enough to enjoy it, and play them.

I play PF1 twice a week (down from three) and PF2 once a month and I consider myself someone who plays a lot. For people who have trouble getting their group together consistently, the notion of playing multiple systems is probably laughable. And the commitment of a game system for a year or two of play in a campaign means that yes, you abandon old favorites.

I'm going to be charitable and hope that you just didn't read my post very closely.

I'm not saying that Paizo should maintain two different editions. Nowhere was that brought up. PF1e has 10 years of material under it's belt, I think that's plenty.

People still play D&D1e. And have fun. Or traveller. If you want to play the newest, flashiest thing, good for you. If your group wants to play GURPS, hey, that's cool too.

Obviously, most of us have more games than time. That's just life. I'm not talking about whatever game(s) you choose to play, that 100% up to your table.

I'm talking about acting like that somehow invalidates all the thought, hard work, and love that went into previous editions.

Ironically, you're unintentionally right. Without PF1e, there would be no PF2e. And without 3.5, no PF1e and therefore no PF2e. Etc, etc.

But the system doesn't die. The books don't turn to ash as soon as a new shiny system comes out. They'll be around and probably played long after we're all dead.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This seems like a pretty over the top reaction to someone saying they thought PF2 was a more intuitive game in another thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I enjoy both games, though if I had to pick only one, it would be 1e. However, as more content comes out for 2e, that might change.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't see a point to a thread that bashes people for treating two games as mutually exclusive other than to trash talk other gamers.

Flagging this one to be closed.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Artofregicide wrote:

I'm not saying that Paizo should maintain two different editions. Nowhere was that brought up. PF1e has 10 years of material under it's belt, I think that's plenty.

People still play D&D1e. And have fun. Or traveller. If you want to play the newest, flashiest thing, good for you. If your group wants to play GURPS, hey, that's cool too.

Obviously, most of us have more games than time. That's just life. I'm not talking about whatever game(s) you choose to play, that 100% up to your table.

I'm talking about acting like that somehow invalidates all the thought, hard work, and love that went into previous editions.

Ironically, you're unintentionally right. Without PF1e, there would be no PF2e. And without 3.5, no PF1e and therefore no PF2e. Etc, etc.

But the system doesn't die. The books don't turn to ash as soon as a new shiny system comes out. They'll be around and probably played long after we're all dead.

It is what it is. Sure, a group can play a dead system, just like people can learn a dead language. But if you put in that effort, don't expect the rest of the world to care.

I think PF2 is okay. I think PF1 is pretty good. Those opinions will change with time, as opinions do. When PF1 was all people had, there were differences of opinion on what worked and what didn't, how this should be done or how that should be done, but it was all just, like, opinions, man.

PF2 comes out, and it can be read as word from on high that the things you might have enjoyed in PF1 are in fact, wrong, because those things didn't make it into PF2.

The developers of PF2 put a lot of work into making a game they want to play and develop for. So the things that got left behind can be inferred to be inferior. And if you like something that the developers of your favorite Role Playing Game thought was inferior, maybe that's too much hurt feeling.

I think the ultimate mistake people make is assuming that people will be rational about anything concerning something they care about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been a Dungeon Master, Narrator, Game Master, Barman, Computer, and several others. I don't think I'll ever stick to a single system for more than a couple years, and yet Pathfinder (1) kept bringing me back, time after time. I currently don't have a PF1 game running because my PF1 group converted, but I have run the two in parallel for several months.

Play what you like. It's about fun :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
I enjoy both games, though if I had to pick only one, it would be 1e. However, as more content comes out for 2e, that might change.

Me too.

If you forced me to decide between only playing one of the two I'm going for PF1. PF2 is still enjoyable enough, and since the friend who is the nexus of our gaming groups advocated for it I've no trouble with it. But all the same, I liked the general feel of PF1 better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree people should play what ever game they like; And, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what is good or bad. Every game has the good and bad points and people will endlessly debate which is better for the end of time.

Also, can someone explain this: PF1 lasted for 10 years, with a monthly publication, multiple companions and modules, multiple book both physical and online, inspired countless people to create their own material (whether public or private), and even got its own video game. But, as soon as PF2 came out, the sentiment on PF1 (except by people with some attachment to PF1) has been that it was a bad system for one reason or another: Heck, some people probably think its was horrible.

If it was so bad, how did it last the long?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

They are both great games and what I like is that they share the same "world/campaign/planet/mythos/history". We all know who Aroden was, who Sarenrae and Asmodeus are, etc... To me is like my favorite car but updated 10-15yrs forward.

At the end of the day, it's a game and if everyone at the table can have a good time, a good laugh, and forget about whatever troubles them for a few hours that is what important.

I play both and will for long time to come as its all about hanging out with friends, making new friends and having a good time.


Artofregicide wrote:
I could debate you on why PF1e is a great game (objectively)

You can’t actually, because for it to be objectively great we would all have to share and agree upon a common sense of taste. Which is not possible. You can say you feel it is a great game without demanding I sublimate my own opinion to yours.

Quote:
Let's just say to a lot of folks, including the *creators of PF2e*, think it's a great game.

Lots of other folks think that isn’t.

Quote:
But good for you. If you don't like it, don't play it. That doesn't make it not a great game, it just means you don't like it.

I see, if I don’t like it it’s still great I’m just wrong... that’s a lot.

Quote:
Folks don't frame this this as a subjective "my preference is" situation.

Gorbacz did in the thread you posted your initial version of this in.

Quote:
But yeah it's this kind of negative, game bashing, edition wars nonsense that has really turned a lot of people off PF2e

I don’t see how people saying they find it superior is in any way “game bashing”. Nothing I said has bashed PF1, nothing in this thread has, and nothing in the original thread did either.

The only thing feels like it’s coming from an edition wars mindset is this insistence that we all MUST give PF1 it’s due respect when referring to it. It’s again, a little much


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF2's mechanics are pale shadow of Mouseguard's advanced system synergy. But AD&D 2e weapon speed will forever be missed. /s


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
The only thing feels like it’s coming from an edition wars mindset is this insistence that we all MUST give PF1 it’s due respect when referring to it. It’s again, a little much

Just to make sure, I wasnt saying it on an edition war mentality and more on a people are weird mentality.

I mean it happens all the time where something is good for a while and when the new thing comes out the old is treated as if it was always bad (or inferior), but I never understood why. Sometimes even when the new thing is actually worse, I mean look at how kids cartoon have been going over the last couple of years, I'm sure there are parent who think they are better now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
But AD&D 2e weapon speed will forever be missed. /s

PREACH!


Temperans wrote:
Just to make sure, I wasnt saying it on an edition war mentality and more on a people are weird mentality.

I was responding to the OP who it seems is of the opinion that praise for PF2 is an insult to the legacy of PF1


Temperans wrote:
If it was so bad, how did it last the long?

The answer to that really just comes down to that a bad game can still be fun, and can still be the overall best fit for a group despite flaws it may have or ways in which it doesn't mesh with what the group would prefer.

For me, what made PF1 "bad" was the core system it inherited from D&D 3.5, which was also "bad" despite being a market leader for years because of the core design choices - I won't take up the time and space listing out everything that D&D 3rd edition did wrong that carried through even into PF1 and various attempts through that game line to patch up the errors (to varying degrees of success), but I will summarize that from D&D prior to WotC buying it to 3rd edition the most powerful character classes got more powerful while the less powerful classes got less powerful, while still not having fixed issues along the lines of "if the warrior has a decent chance to miss, the mid-grade attackers have no chance of hitting" that cropped up in higher-level play of the older games.

And that's why I played PF1 for exactly as long as it was my best option, and likely won't play it again now that there's nothing I want from it which I don't get as well or better elsewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Just to make sure, I wasnt saying it on an edition war mentality and more on a people are weird mentality.
I was responding to the OP who it seems is of the opinion that praise for PF2 is an insult to the legacy of PF1

Some people lace their praise for PF2 with plenty of insults for PF1, so I can see his point. Not to say I dont get why they like some parts better.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why people argue about games. *Starts thread to argue about games.*

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Some people can't "win" unless someone else is "losing".

Its basically the zero-sum game style thinking yeah.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Honestly, if I can blow people up just by stating my preferences, I need to do it more often. Sooooo... I play theatre of mind, grid and minis is inferior in every way.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Honestly, if I can blow people up just by stating my preferences, I need to do it more often. Sooooo... I play theatre of mind, grid and minis is inferior in every way.

Curse you bag! :p


Temperans wrote:
dirtypool wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Just to make sure, I wasnt saying it on an edition war mentality and more on a people are weird mentality.
I was responding to the OP who it seems is of the opinion that praise for PF2 is an insult to the legacy of PF1
Some people lace their praise for PF2 with plenty of insults for PF1, so I can see his point. Not to say I dont get why they like some parts better.

I don't think they are insults.

PF1 problems in certain areas have been identified years ago (some of them right when it came out, I'd say), and the developers themselves acknowledged them.
So, saying: "The second edition is better because high level play doesn't fall apart like PF1" is not an insult, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Honestly, if I can blow people up just by stating my preferences, I need to do it more often. Sooooo... I play theatre of mind, grid and minis is inferior in every way.

But if we don't have minis, what will we bobble up and down and make clang bang, pew pew noises with?

... Not that I do, you understand. Merely asking for a friend.

Hypothetically.

A hypothetical friend...


@Megistone
I agree that talking about problem areas isnt an insult, but many of those were subjective and they state it as fact; Ex: multiclassing.

Some say they like PF2 because dedications provide better multiclassing. Which is definetly true compared to Variant multiclassing, but not so much with traditional because they have different goals. But a few treat/talk about traditional MC as this horrible thing: Mostly for their dislike that some others use it to tailor make characters to fit their stories GMs and Players alike.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

Let the past die.

Kill it, if you have to.

*sets his PF1 PDFs on fire*

How's your grandmother doing these days?

Some things from the past are good and cherished and welcome in our lives. This sort of obsessive cheerleaderism is kind of revolting, really.

If you want to espouse the merits of a thing, by all means do so. But "it's from the past" isn't grounds for "killing it". Star Wars IV. Alien. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. All gone under your regime, because sequels, remakes, and newer adaptations exist. Not cool.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Let the past die.

Kill it, if you have to.

*sets his PF1 PDFs on fire*

How's your grandmother doing these days?

Some things from the past are good and cherished and welcome in our lives. This sort of obsessive cheerleaderism is kind of revolting, really.

If you want to espouse the merits of a thing, by all means do so. But "it's from the past" isn't grounds for "killing it". Star Wars IV. Alien. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. All gone under your regime, because sequels, remakes, and newer adaptations exist. Not cool.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to" is a Star Wars quote. The post was clearly tongue in cheek.


Temperans wrote:
I agree that talking about problem areas isnt an insult, but many of those were subjective and they state it as fact

Likewise much of the pushback against PF2 is stated as irrefutable, unshakeable fact about the greatness of PF1. Everyone uses the language of consensus and fact when they have neither standing behind them. It’s all subjective.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sapient wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Let the past die.

Kill it, if you have to.

*sets his PF1 PDFs on fire*

How's your grandmother doing these days?

Some things from the past are good and cherished and welcome in our lives. This sort of obsessive cheerleaderism is kind of revolting, really.

If you want to espouse the merits of a thing, by all means do so. But "it's from the past" isn't grounds for "killing it". Star Wars IV. Alien. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. All gone under your regime, because sequels, remakes, and newer adaptations exist. Not cool.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to" is a Star Wars quote. The post was clearly tongue in cheek.

What's Star Wars?


I like both 1e and 2e. I'm playing in campaigns of both right now (and as a typical forever-GM, that's just so very special to me).

Whenever I play one I inevitably feel myself longing for the other, but that's not because the one I'm playing at that moment is bad, rather it's because the other is good. And both provoke that longing in me. Both are good fun!


Gorbacz wrote:
Honestly, if I can blow people up just by stating my preferences, I need to do it more often. Sooooo... I play theatre of mind, grid and minis is inferior in every way.

I can't paint your mind though ;)

or... wait... no pretty sure that is a felony

Temperans wrote:

I agree that talking about problem areas isnt an insult, but many of those were subjective and they state it as fact; Ex: multiclassing.

Some say they like PF2 because dedications provide better multiclassing. Which is definetly true compared to Variant multiclassing, but not so much with traditional because they have different goals. But a few treat/talk about traditional MC as this horrible thing: Mostly for their dislike that some others use it to tailor make characters to fit their stories GMs and Players alike.

I call made up or misrepresented for that last bit.


Well it's not made up a few really do treat traditional MC as this thing only munchkins use to power game and destroy balance, pointing to extreme theorycraft (most damage, most ac, etc.) and bad play experience as proof. Dips are specially hated for some reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Well it's not made up a few really do treat traditional MC as this thing only munchkins use to power game and destroy balance, pointing to extreme theorycraft (most damage, most ac, etc.) and bad play experience as proof. Dips are specially hated for some reason.

And some people have written screeds about how terrible the guy at their table was for playing a “sub-optimal” character alongside their highly customized Mathfinder Wizard.

Each iteration of the game has its audience. The idea that in talking about PF2 in the PF2 area of the forum that we have to go out of our way to be fair, balanced and conciliatory of PF1 at all times or we’re seen as attacking it is way further afield than what you’re describing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Well it's not made up a few really do treat traditional MC as this thing only munchkins use to power game and destroy balance, pointing to extreme theorycraft (most damage, most ac, etc.) and bad play experience as proof. Dips are specially hated for some reason.

Conversely people ALSO point out the inverse of ye olde MCing where some poor bastard wants a druid who can lockpick and punch things (or whatever) and ends up producing a horrifically gimped character as a consequence.

Basically yeah, old MCing more often than not was riddled with traps/punishment for some person looking for those ""flavorful"" MCs unless they spent appropriate time earning entrance to the ivory tower of game design or just pillaged the internet for guides (And then you end up with the previous balance breakers generally).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And those are fair criticism to say it has traps and required some level of system mastery, its doesnt mean it's bad.

* btw druid who can pick locks and punch things sounds like a druid/brawler with ranks in disable device. Not that hard to make.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, yeah it does mean it's a pretty bad system.

"70% of multiclass options produce poor characters and 10% offer overly powerful ones. Also we the rules offer no guidance or real suggestions on which you'll end up getting. Have fun!"*

That's not good design.

*numbers made up entirely and probably underestimated for poor builds considering the sheer amount of options available that are awful*


Temperans wrote:
it has traps and required some level of system mastery, its doesnt mean it's bad.

It doesn’t mean it’s good either. It means it is a thing that exists and you enjoy. Some people enjoy the new thing more. Some people never enjoyed the old thing. Some people will never enjoy the new thing.

But take note that Tarik didn’t say PF1 was bad in his initial response. He made an argument about multiclassing that you felt the need to defend.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

PF1 and PF2 are mutually exclusive only in the sense that it is next to impossible to port over features from one game to the other (as you could do between D&D 3.5 and PF1, for example). Certainly, if you have time for two or more RPG campaigns, nothing is stopping you from playing in both. I am hoping to get a PF2 campaign started well before our PF1 campaign ends.


dirtypool wrote:
Temperans wrote:
it has traps and required some level of system mastery, its doesnt mean it's bad.

It doesn’t mean it’s good either. It means it is a thing that exists and you enjoy. Some people enjoy the new thing more. Some people never enjoyed the old thing. Some people will never enjoy the new thing.

But take note that Tarik didn’t say PF1 was bad in his initial response. He made an argument about multiclassing that you felt the need to defend.

I wasnt defending (at least consciously), just an acknowledgement that they were right.

The druid thing was a side note of a simple way to do what he described, I was not trying to defend anything. Just a statement of a possible way to do it. For example another possible way to do it is to go Druid/Vigilante taking Unarmed Vigilante talents.

I think this is enough of that derail thou dont you agree? So let's get back to talking about human mentality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I generally agree with you, but I think one reason people are treating them as mutually exclusive is that if you were hoping for new PF1 material or adventure paths, you're not going to get them now that PF2 is out... It's much better than the situation going from 3e to 4e where they simply stopped printing the 3e material entirely, but still, for people who were hoping for new and fun PF1 things from Paizo, PF2 has made that an impossibility.


Temperans wrote:
I wasnt defending (at least consciously), just an acknowledgement that they were right.

You acknowledged the point and then immediately followed up with the defensive follow up “that doesn’t make it (PF1) bad.”

He hadn’t said it was bad, there was no need to state the the game isn’t bad. Yet you did, because whether as a conscious response or as reflex you took the simple statement of a flaw in PF1 as a challenge to its quality.

I’ve seen a lot of talk about Edition wars and people trashing PF1, but I haven’t seen a lot of people actually trashing it. I’ve seen stuff more like this where PF1 proponents get defensive about any criticisms made.

Not all criticism is an attack and not all criticism needs to be met with a fair and balanced reply from a supporter.

We can, I hope, agree that the people who think PF2 is superior and the people who think PF1 are superior can just agree to disagree.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone notice the OP only ever seems to do this when someone even implies a modicum of disdain toward PF1's issues?

Doesn't seem at all concerned about people like that one poster who's openly stated his goals are to steer people away from PF2 and try to make it fail as a system so Paizo goes back to PF1.

Weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE

*lightning crashes in the distance*


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the problem is that a large portion of Pathfinder first edition players recognized the flaws in first edition (including the god-awful action system) and were really looking forward to a second edition that mostly stayed the same, but fixed all those issues that are way too systemic to be houseruled away. And instead, they got something alot closer to 4E/5E. So basically, they'll never get a fixed version of their system, nor will they get new content. Hence, some degree of resentment towards Pathfinder 2E.

To be fair, I'm somewhat in that camp. The 3-action system, for instance, I would absolutely love to have in PF1. Yet it's nigh-impossible to just plug it in without a full system overhaul. I tried doing the Unchained action system in a campaign and it just didn't work. Too many bandaids. This is also true of alot of the 3rd party system conversions of PF1. It especially irks me when people point to the 3-action system to show how much better PF2 is than PF1 -- I'm freakin aware of that...I wanted that in PF1 damnit.

But alot of people really like 2E, and more power to them. I don't wish ill on the future of Pathfinder. I just don't think there's a place there for me. Maybe when some splat books come out. Who knows. I think I'm in the fifth stage of grief.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / PF1e is a great game. So is PF2e. Why are some folks treating these as mutually exclusive? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.