Allegations of toxic community - A discussion


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 124 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
She makes money playing a game so she should at least try the closest competitor. I think it's a good advice but you have all the right to disagree.
Serena Williams, you make money playing Tennis so you should try Pickleball. I think it's good advice.

I'm happy we agree!


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Look. It's simple.

- The people who like playing PF2 gain advantage from other people playing PF2. That adds money into Paizo's coffers, it increases the number of potential players that they can play with, and so forth. Convincing people to play PF2 - especially large numbers of people - is in their best interests, if they can do so without undue costs to themselves. Converting even *one* streamer with significant influence is a big deal here. Suggesting that we just let people do their own thing and not attempt to evangelize in any way misses the point.

- The people who stream for D&D 5e professionally have a job. Their income is based on a number of factors, but one of the most direct factors is the size of their audience. 5e has a much larger audience than PF2 does, and will for the forseeable future. As such, continuing to be streamers for 5e rather than PF2 is strongly in their best interests, for reasons that effectively have nothing to do with their comparative virtues as games. Attempting to convince them to change is, in some ways, a hostile act. Evangelizing PF2 in general (and thus trying to pull people away from 5e, splitting their potential base) is *absolutely* a hostile act. Suggesting that "If they don't like these aspects of 5e, then maybe they should try PF2 instead" is missing the point.

PF2 players have incentives to evangelize. 5e streamers have incentives to resent them for it, and try to make them stop. Visibility that you raise in somewhat obnoxious ways is still visibility... but it's also still obnoxious. Dedicated 5e streamers have natural biases that will cause them to experience PF2 evangelism as obnoxious even when it's not. The concentration of voices where 50 different people are all independently trying to say the same thing because they're a streamer, and their opinion matters in ways that a normal player's doesn't makes this worse.

The question isn't whether or not it's rude to evangelize. Even if you conclude "yes", that's not going to stop people. It's not whether or not it is "reasonable" to get annoyed at the evangelism efforts. Those streamers are going to find the efforts annoying whether or not it's "reasonable". As far as I can see, the only question here worth answering is if there's any way that we can/should be adjusting how we evangelize to make it more effective and/or less obnoxious.

4 paragraphs later: okay. Maybe not so simple.

Grand Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it is worth, I think people misunderstood my point. I am approaching from the perspective of a possible responder. I am not making any claims on what is, or should, be expected. I am stating that if possible responders only responded to messages that specifically ask for responses, and with what is specifically asked for, we could help adjust things in a more constructive direction.

As for the...

Oragnejedi42 wrote:


If someone at your table says "I don't have dice" is it unreasonable to offer them some?

No, it is not unreasonable. But, that statement still wasn't a request for dice. Therefore, no response to the statement is what I am positing is a better route.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just as a clarification, and I've adressed this in my OP, GinnyD complained about people saying ''just play pathfinder''.

In the comments bellow the post, it seemed a lot of the times this is a ''play pathfinder 1e'' comment, not 2e, as a lot of 1e people still aren't aware of pf2e.

I've chosen to post this here because I don't really associate with the pf1e community and frankly think they should move to pf2e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty simple. On one side, people are free to comment in any way they like as long they respect the platform's rules, and nothing requires them to check every other comment to avoid repeating things.
On the other, she is not entitled to like the comments people make; if she doesn't want comments, she can disable them. I'm sure that would be detrimental to her job, though.
The fact that people can comment is the very reason platforms like those exist and thrive, and allow her to have her job. Commenting keeps you more engaged, in one way or another; it generates interest, clicks, revenues.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the issues is that even with this preference to not talk about a certain game has been stated, most people won't be aware of it.

Before I read this thread some of Ginnys videos started popping up in my recommendations (probably because of the cross-pollination going on right now.) If I watched a video referencing issues in an rpg that I think pf2 solves, I'd bring it up too, not knowing their preference as its my first encounter with their content.

It wouldn't just be a suggestion to play pf2, but in other contexts I've linked specific archive pages with subsystems etc and people have thanked me for it, some going on to say they will try PF2 as they didn't know they could for free or that they'll adapt the Social Encounters rules to 5e etc.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

No one is entitled not to not be annoyed, and I don't see community echoes to be harassment in of themselves, for it to be harassment there is a genuine malice which I belive is entirely lacking here.

If you have a chat or comment option on your articles then people will use it and because it's the Internet and everything is Inter connected it will go in weired and mysterious places.

There are reasons to restrict free speech when it comes to hate speech, insults and genuinely malicious content but I don't see this situation as that.

Compared with the masognistic vitriol that a large number of female bloggers, youtubers etc have to deal with everyday moaning about something so mundane and relativelt harmless seems pretty petty.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

From the discussion here, I kind of expected the Twitter thread to be more heated or something, but it's just a creator voicing annoyance at a category of repetitive and unhelpful comment? No accusation of a toxic community or anything, just wishing they wouldn't post PF2 recommendations on her videos about 5e.

Whole thing seemed pretty chill to me, and I'm glad the solution was as straightforward as "block Pathfinder from comments". It's fine for creators to express annoyance.


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

Ginny Di seems to be under the impression that the comments under her video are from outsiders who don't watch her content coming to 5e videos and telling people to switch to a different game system. I think it's also reasonable to think that actually a good portion of these comments are from regular viewers who switched to Pathfinder or maybe play both while consuming 5e content. Pathfinder is my main game but I also watch d&d 5e content like Critical Role (where a lot of her fanbase comes from)

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a myriad of posts for harassment, off topic, baiting. This thread will remain locked.

101 to 124 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Allegations of toxic community - A discussion All Messageboards