My response to "Stop recommending Pathfinder 2e to D&D players"


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I made an extended response on my channel responding to June/July statements saying Pathfinder 2e players should stop recommending it to others. It's a little late, but I thought it was still worth making. (It was delayed by Dark Archive coverage)

Making this, I realized I should share this over on these forums as well! There was a lively discussion here, linked below, about this issue.

I thought would help the conversation and itself be a source of discussion.

0:00 Introduction
2:32 Why Pathfinder advocacy?
9:18 To the D&D content creators:
12:11 To PF2e players:
13:15 To people in the hobby:
21:22 Good and bad examples

Paizo CEO Lisa Stevens on network externalities (Paizo.com blog from 2012)

Twitter thread generating the discussion (Twitter thread)

D&D creator talking about Pathfinder players (Youtube video)
[url=Follow-up stream: "Pathfinder - Addressing this last week":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOCfydBKTYQ]His follow-up stream "Pathfinder - Addressing this past week"[/url]

Paizo.com discussion "Allegations of toxic community - A discussion" (discussion thread)

"Fixing my BORING D&D combat // DM tips & advice" (Youtube video)
Video's comments, Pt. 1 (PDF)
Video's comments, only those mentioning Pathfinder (PDF)

D&D Next poll favoring more choices in characters, including how PF2 does characters (dndnext subreddit)

What lessons can D&D learn from Pathfinder? (dndnext subreddit)

Well-received post about houseruling PF2 ideas into 5e (dndnext subreddit)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the reference to my thread, love your channel keep up the great work ^^


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There's a big difference between, "You like 5e. Have you given PF a try?" and, "Drop the training wheels already! Just play PF and thanks me later."

I feel the kneejerk reaction was to tell people, "Stop. Just... stop," and that wasn't the correct response either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So... Where is the 'extended response'? I see only other links.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I take the inverse.

Oh you guys playing ttrpg? Nice!

Oh you want me to play? What system are you playing? 5e? Eh, right now my interest begins and ends with pathfinder 2e. Thanks for the offer though.

And the wheel keeps turning.

That said. I do feel like everyone just has terrible takes on both sides.

I see pro DND videos making bad faith arguments left and right. That Puff video was god awful.

And I see pf2e players just snapping at 5e players.

My group has a couple that mechanically prefer 5e DND, 2e pf and some that like anything.

I have no interest in 5e and when they go back to it I'll just sit the game out most likely. I see no reason to force myself to play something I don't like and see no reason to force people to cater to me either


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they both have their uses (for me). However indeed the overlap for people who prefer only one style of game could be limited. D&D is mechanically simple (could have gone simpler) and good for stories and I like it for gaming with my kids. It is (generally) a bit higher on the role playing axis of role playing game.

PF2 is mechanically complex - and effectively more on the game axis of role playing game.

But then I have played dozens of different RPGs, and don’t see the need for them to be exclusionary. So while you can explain differences and what you like about a game it isn’t like a monotheistic religion or Highlander…….. there can be more than one.

Only personal challenge these days is that I have less time…….. so end up doing more limited different games - but even then I don’t dislike the others.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I simply don't understand people in this hobby that don't want to learn multiple games.

Learn D&D, Learn Pathfinder, Learn FATE, Learn Mutants and Masterminds, Learn Shadowrun, Learn Rifts, Learn GURPS, Learn whatever weird indie game that you run into that sounds cool, etc. You're never going to be worse off for having learned multiple games.

It's not like you're ever worse off for having learned a game well enough to play or run it. You might not have an unlimited budget for game books, but you have the capacity to learn a lot of games.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I simply don't understand people in this hobby that don't want to learn multiple games.

Learn D&D, Learn Pathfinder, Learn FATE, Learn Mutants and Masterminds, Learn Shadowrun, Learn Rifts, Learn GURPS, Learn whatever weird indie game that you run into that sounds cool, etc. You're never going to be worse off for having learned multiple games.

It's not like you're ever worse off for having learned a game well enough to play or run it. You might not have an unlimited budget for game books, but you have the capacity to learn a lot of games.

If I had a lot of free time I'd be more inclined to the idea. But my time is very limited. Even now my games are once a month.

I've played a lot of different games before 2e. I honestly don't feel the desire to keep exploring at this point. At most, I'll read about them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:

I take the inverse.

Oh you guys playing ttrpg? Nice!

Oh you want me to play? What system are you playing? 5e? Eh, right now my interest begins and ends with pathfinder 2e. Thanks for the offer though.

And the wheel keeps turning.

That said. I do feel like everyone just has terrible takes on both sides.

I see pro DND videos making bad faith arguments left and right. That Puff video was god awful.

And I see pf2e players just snapping at 5e players.

My group has a couple that mechanically prefer 5e DND, 2e pf and some that like anything.

I have no interest in 5e and when they go back to it I'll just sit the game out most likely. I see no reason to force myself to play something I don't like and see no reason to force people to cater to me either

In my experience a lot of the “snapping” came after the bad faith / ill informed videos on PF2 first started rolling out. They almost set the playing field that they wanted the discussion to take place on ( the 2E sucks compared to 5E and is too complicated and hard one). Starting with the one from that guy Cody that first triggered responses from pretty much every 2E creator

I am aware that the 5E creators that are now complaining are not those who “started it” in that regard. But other 5E creators seemed to really be the first to take active shots that ruffled feathers. And there have been others since the that almost seem to wilfully and stubbornly ignore any potential system upsides. And not to mention the channels that make videos whenever a humble bundle is released for charity claiming that it means pathfinder isn’t selling and is getting desperate and is about to go out of business / be sold to wizards. This take is usually only from tiny channels though but the YouTube algorithm is bizarre

As to the 5E content creators complaining - I think I weighed in on the toxic community thread but I have relatively limited sympathy for someone who is effectively asking the world (that is what Twitter is) “I want to make more money, how could I do that?” - and then having what amount to a tantrum at not getting both the response they wanted and a universally positive response.

There is a reason not many people seek to make money from performing to the public, and, indeed, why rpg content creation space has been taken over by actors - struggling or otherwise, many of whom potentially only had a tangential interest in gaming at the start. Because you need thick skin for it. Or at least the you used to. Barriers to entry have come down - especially in online twitch type content - so more people enter without really considering the difficulties or if it is right for them.

The same is true with reduced barriers to entry for anything. But online content creation of all forms is a big one especially as the pandemic had a big and quite quick impact on barriers coming down.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

5e players should stop complaining about all the same things that are easily fixed by playing something else then.

Especially something else that's entirely free to play. That guy that brings up having to buy new books is an idiot, there's zero monetary cost to trying 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is Ronald's Video

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Berhagen wrote:

I think they both have their uses (for me). However indeed the overlap for people who prefer only one style of game could be limited. D&D is mechanically simple (could have gone simpler) and good for stories and I like it for gaming with my kids. It is (generally) a bit higher on the role playing axis of role playing game.

PF2 is mechanically complex - and effectively more on the game axis of role playing game.

But then I have played dozens of different RPGs, and don’t see the need for them to be exclusionary. So while you can explain differences and what you like about a game it isn’t like a monotheistic religion or Highlander…….. there can be more than one.

Only personal challenge these days is that I have less time…….. so end up doing more limited different games - but even then I don’t dislike the others.

Both DnD5e and PF2e are simple mechanically as written. You can overcomplexify (sniglet) ANY game system just like you can oversimplify (existing word) ANY game system with optional/modified/gm adjudicated rules. Heck, you can make checkers be more complicated than almost any game.

THe key to enjoyment is which system allows you to make the characters you want and the playstyle you enjoy.

That is why I actually went from PF2e to DnD5e with my groups with me being the only one who still thinks about PF2e periodically


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Hsui wrote:
Both DnD5e and PF2e are simple mechanically as written.y

No, they're medium (5e) and medium-high (PF2) complexity games. A "simple mechanically" game is something like Tales from the Loop or Tails of Equestria.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
No, they're medium (5e) and medium-high (PF2) complexity games. A "simple mechanically" game is something like Tales from the Loop or Tails of Equestria.

Also FATE, Cypher System games, Mörk Borg or even Old School Essentials are all good examples of rules lite games. Mörk Borg being the lowest complexity listed.

I would say 5e is medium low rules complexity at its core with poor presentation that makes it medium weight to learn. PF2e I would actually say is pretty high complexity by comparison but with generally clear mechanical presentation that makes it feel medium heavy instead because of how easy it is to absorb the complexities.

PF2e has a lot of moving parts, but it was also put together by people who weren't afraid of the players and game master seeing those moving parts imo.

The difference between a well organised and logical large kitchen, and a perfectly functional but ecclecic house kitchen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The discussion of the standards of rules heaviness is drifting a little from the topic. Mind you that there are many TTRPGs whose rules fit entirely on a single double sided page. In light of this, even 5e is a fairly complex game which only seems medium or low complexity when it stands among much more complex games like Pathfinder or its predecessors (or GURPS, of course).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Rules ultralight: Lasers and Feelings
Rules light: Tails of Equestria
Rules medium: 5e
Rules medium-heavy: PF2
Rules heavy: PF1
Rules too heavy: RIFTS


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Rules to be ignored: Shadowrun


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Rules to be ignored: Shadowrun

Shadowrun is pretty edition-dependent too. Like, it has seen some serious shifts back and forth over the years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually like Shadowrun, it's just a lot lmao.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Rules too heavy: RIFTS

Come on, it's *funny* the extent they have gone to prevent any of the books they've released in the last 30 years to not apply to the current game.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:

5e players should stop complaining about all the same things that are easily fixed by playing something else then.

The next thread over is full of people complaining that spell attack rolls are too hard.

I could post on there, "This is only a problem because you're playing PF2! Just play D&D 5e instead!"

It is technically correct that they could solve that one problem that way, but they'd have to abandon all the stuff they like about their system and learn a new one that has its own issues. People wouldn't be grateful to me for my advice. They'd just think I was an annoying D&D fanboy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Guntermench wrote:

5e players should stop complaining about all the same things that are easily fixed by playing something else then.

The next thread over is full of people complaining that spell attack rolls are too hard.

I could post on there, "This is only a problem because you're playing PF2! Just play D&D 5e instead!"

It is technically correct that they could solve that one problem that way, but they'd have to abandon all the stuff they like about their system and learn a new one that has its own issues. People wouldn't be grateful to me for my advice. They'd just think I was an annoying D&D fanboy.

5e doesn't actually address that though. Attack roll spells aren't exactly game changing there either.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Guntermench wrote:

5e players should stop complaining about all the same things that are easily fixed by playing something else then.

The next thread over is full of people complaining that spell attack rolls are too hard.

I could post on there, "This is only a problem because you're playing PF2! Just play D&D 5e instead!"

It is technically correct that they could solve that one problem that way, but they'd have to abandon all the stuff they like about their system and learn a new one that has its own issues. People wouldn't be grateful to me for my advice. They'd just think I was an annoying D&D fanboy.

I wouldn't say it's technically correct: I've been complaining there about how ubiquitous 'but true strike' is to issues in PF2 [including spell attack rolls], so a suggestion of a game where 'get advantage' is the solution to any issue is, IMO, not a good one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I simply don't understand people in this hobby that don't want to learn multiple games.

Learn D&D, Learn Pathfinder, Learn FATE, Learn Mutants and Masterminds, Learn Shadowrun, Learn Rifts, Learn GURPS, Learn whatever weird indie game that you run into that sounds cool, etc. You're never going to be worse off for having learned multiple games.

It's not like you're ever worse off for having learned a game well enough to play or run it. You might not have an unlimited budget for game books, but you have the capacity to learn a lot of games.

Want to Learn CULT and this game called I think the 7 seas really bad. There’s load to TTRPGS I want to play haha. However Pathfinder 2E is my favorite.

As far as my other hobbies I love how Wrath & Glory plays which is a 40K TTRPG and I’d love to play Age of Sigmar: SoulBound because I super love fantasy games. I have the Rulebook just don’t have anyone to play with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Rules ultralight: Lasers and Feelings

Rules light: Tails of Equestria
Rules medium: 5e
Rules medium-heavy: PF2
Rules heavy: PF1
Rules too heavy: RIFTS

heh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Rules to be ignored: Shadowrun
Shadowrun is pretty edition-dependent too. Like, it has seen some serious shifts back and forth over the years.

understatement of the year right here, chummer.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.

In my experience these people state their declaration to go off and make their own 5e variant of (system), with blackjack, and hookers. And then they are promptly never heard from again.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

It's for the best, really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.

Sucks for them, LANCER's dope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.
Sucks for them, LANCER's dope.

I don't think I've ever gotten so excited reading a player option as I did when reading the stuff that Horus mechs can do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.
In my experience these people state their declaration to go off and make their own 5e variant of (system), with blackjack, and hookers. And then they are promptly never heard from again.

Actually, forget the 5e variant... ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.

It's part of the broader problem that a solid chunk of PF player base are people who never played anything else than D&D and its offshoots, and in extreme cases, the only RPG they ever played is 3.5 D&D --> PF1.

This leads them to various weird ideas, such as desiring to have rules simulate everything (down to how fast the temperature in a cave goes up when you light a bonfire, in C/F, the cave is European, the moon is full) and thinking that a game with 43 skills on a character sheet is rules light.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.

This is kind of a big issue with people trying to force a game to be something it isn't which has resulted in plenty of other interesting TTRPGs just not getting any attention at all. One major example is just that none of these games are designed for fully automatic weapons at all. Even Starfinder turns them into a AoE cone, which is so extremely unlike a real automatic weapon. Don't get me wrong I love Starfinder, but if you want a game with automatic weapons you have to play a system designed from the ground up with those in mind. Horror is an example I see a lot where the number of tweaks you have to make to D&D 5e results in just designing a whole new game when Dread and Call of Cthulhu exist ready made for people to pick up. Dread even just uses a Jenga tower! Such a simple game, perfect for horror in a way the charged up super heroes of D&D(or Pathfinder) are so incredibly unsuited for


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems a pretty common scenario to me.

Players that tend to play with the same system for a long time, or that are not simply used to experiment and try something different, may find a themselves more comfortable tweaking the system they are used to, rather than trying to find ( or even just learn ) something diffent ( maybe excplicitly made for that specific purpose ).

In addition to this, being part of a group, part of which might not be so incline to trying something different, may result into holding back even those who'd wanted to try something new.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
AestheticDialectic wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.
This is kind of a big issue with people trying to force a game to be something it isn't which has resulted in plenty of other interesting TTRPGs just not getting any attention at all. One major example is just that none of these games are designed for fully automatic weapons at all. Even Starfinder turns them into a AoE cone, which is so extremely unlike a real automatic weapon. Don't get me wrong I love Starfinder, but if you want a game with automatic weapons you have to play a system designed from the ground up with those in mind. Horror is an example I see a lot where the number of tweaks you have to make to D&D 5e results in just designing a whole new game when Dread and Call of Cthulhu exist ready made for people to pick up. Dread even just uses a Jenga tower! Such a simple game, perfect for horror in a way the charged up super heroes of D&D(or Pathfinder) are so incredibly unsuited for

Automatic weapons are something that you either do abstract or you end up in "how many bullets does it take to kill a person, I fire that many" nonsense that plagues so many "simulationist" games.

Call of Cthulhu is a bad horror game. It wants to be game about mundane people investigating cosmic horror, but in most cases it turns into D&D in 1920s with people calculating how much damage their 12-gauge shotgun does because fighting the cultists is the only option after everyone failed their Spot Hidden check for a clue in a library, because it's primarily played by middle-aged D&D grogs and they never knew any other way of playing RPGs, so they tend to recreate the D&D experience, just with different props. Try Trail of Cthulhu for a better take on the same material.

Dread is fun, but the problem is that Jenga evokes the "fun party game" vibe that kills horror for some.

Horror, in RPGs, is less about rules and more about effectively s~*%ting the pants of PLAYERS, not characters. For that, it's mostly about GMs ability to narrate things and the setting/material being unsettling. You can make horror work in 5e, it's rules light enough not to get in the way of freaking your players out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.

It's part of the broader problem that a solid chunk of PF player base are people who never played anything else than D&D and its offshoots, and in extreme cases, the only RPG they ever played is 3.5 D&D --> PF1.

This leads them to various weird ideas, such as desiring to have rules simulate everything (down to how fast the temperature in a cave goes up when you light a bonfire, in C/F, the cave is European, the moon is full) and thinking that a game with 43 skills on a character sheet is rules light.

What does this tirade about Pathfinder players have to do with my specific example of a guy that plays 5e


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I saw someone ask how to turn 5e into a sci-fi mech game and they got really mad when people responded that they should try Lancer. It is shockingly hard to get people to do new things even when the thing that they are already doing could never satisfy and is not even intended to satisfy what they want.

It's part of the broader problem that a solid chunk of PF player base are people who never played anything else than D&D and its offshoots, and in extreme cases, the only RPG they ever played is 3.5 D&D --> PF1.

This leads them to various weird ideas, such as desiring to have rules simulate everything (down to how fast the temperature in a cave goes up when you light a bonfire, in C/F, the cave is European, the moon is full) and thinking that a game with 43 skills on a character sheet is rules light.

What does this tirade about Pathfinder players have to do with my specific example of a guy that plays 5e

That they're fundamentally the same - unable to move from one game to another one because they're used to this one, and they believe that you can have a realistic WW2 psychological horror game using PF1 rules because they're so universal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:


Players that tend to play with the same system for a long time, or that are not simply used to experiment and try something different, may find a themselves more comfortable tweaking the system they are used to, rather than trying to find ( or even just learn ) something diffent ( maybe excplicitly made for that specific purpose ).

In addition to this, being part of a group, part of which might not be so incline to trying something different, may result into holding back even those who'd wanted to try something new.

I consider myself the groggiest of the grog and I have like 20 different game systems sitting on my shelf. I just got done playing Alien RPG last night, and two nights prior it was Conan 2d20. The idea of playing, say, Aliens with Starfinder rules or Conan with Pathfinder rules sounds about as appetizing as using a ball-peen hammer to cut 2x4's.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:

I consider myself the groggiest of the grog and I have like 20 different game systems sitting on my shelf. I just got done playing Alien RPG last night, and two nights prior it was Conan 2d20. The idea of playing, say, Aliens with Starfinder rules or Conan with Pathfinder rules sounds about as appetizing as using a ball-peen hammer to cut 2x4's.

Love alien, people coming into it hoping for aliens will get a rude awakening (although I haven't read the colonial marines supplement). Easily my favourite horror rpg.

Conan 2d20 deserves a 2e, it reads horribly and has some issues with allowing minmaxing to get out of hand. But is super easy to fix with a couple of houserules and plays the best to the sword and sorcery genre of any system I have run while really encouraging group cooperation and improv.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The always trying to crunch 5e into something it's not is what has soured me to it as a cultural phenomenom. There have been so many IPs or settings that could have made for amazing TTRPGs, that have hamstrung themselves mechanically to tap into the 5e market.

Biggest and latest example I think was the Dark Souls TTRPG. Yeah putting 5e on the cover got you more sales, but at the end of the day you made a bad game because 5e fundamentally is not the right system to capture the Dark Souls feel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:

The always trying to crunch 5e into something it's not is what has soured me to it as a cultural phenomenom. There have been so many IPs or settings that could have made for amazing TTRPGs, that have hamstrung themselves mechanically to tap into the 5e market.

Biggest and latest example I think was the Dark Souls TTRPG. Yeah putting 5e on the cover got you more sales, but at the end of the day you made a bad game because 5e fundamentally is not the right system to capture the Dark Souls feel.

I mean, given the history of the company that wrote it, that was going to be a bad game no matter what they put on the cover


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Rules to be ignored: Shadowrun
Shadowrun is pretty edition-dependent too. Like, it has seen some serious shifts back and forth over the years.

I think of it as "Shadowrun is a big system, and 80% of it works". It's just that the 20% of it that doesn't work changes dramatically from edition to edition.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Rules to be ignored: Shadowrun
Shadowrun is pretty edition-dependent too. Like, it has seen some serious shifts back and forth over the years.
I think of it as "Shadowrun is a big system, and 80% of it works". It's just that the 20% of it that doesn't work changes dramatically from edition to edition.

And then there's the piss poor book editing and review.

I remember one of the 5e books had an endless reference loop for drones and just.... No rules for drones when you parsed it. Despite drones being actively a thing that was in the game !


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Rules to be ignored: Shadowrun
Shadowrun is pretty edition-dependent too. Like, it has seen some serious shifts back and forth over the years.
I think of it as "Shadowrun is a big system, and 80% of it works". It's just that the 20% of it that doesn't work changes dramatically from edition to edition.

And then there's the piss poor book editing and review.

I remember one of the 5e books had an endless reference loop for drones and just.... No rules for drones when you parsed it. Despite drones being actively a thing that was in the game !

In Kill Code within three sentences they establish Agents have a persona, and then that they augment a persona and can't be installed on any device without a persona on it already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kekkres wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

The always trying to crunch 5e into something it's not is what has soured me to it as a cultural phenomenom. There have been so many IPs or settings that could have made for amazing TTRPGs, that have hamstrung themselves mechanically to tap into the 5e market.

Biggest and latest example I think was the Dark Souls TTRPG. Yeah putting 5e on the cover got you more sales, but at the end of the day you made a bad game because 5e fundamentally is not the right system to capture the Dark Souls feel.

I mean, given the history of the company that wrote it, that was going to be a bad game no matter what they put on the cover

Fair enough if that's the case, but it doesn't dilute the point too much. No matter the pedigree of the developers, 5e could never have served as a base for it.

Almost every ttrpg crowd funding project is labelled 5e compatible regardless of its suitability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Automatic weapons are something that you either do abstract or you end up in "how many bullets does it take to kill a person, I fire that many" nonsense that plagues so many "simulationist" games.

Call of Cthulhu is a bad horror game. It wants to be game about mundane people investigating cosmic horror, but in most cases it turns into D&D in 1920s with people calculating how much damage their 12-gauge shotgun does because fighting the cultists is the only option after everyone failed their Spot Hidden check for a clue in a library, because it's primarily played by middle-aged D&D grogs and they never knew any other way of playing RPGs, so they tend to recreate the D&D experience, just with different props. Try Trail of Cthulhu for a better take on...

Automatic weapons work very well in Friday Night Fire Fight, the system used by cyberpunk 2077, firing additional bullets decreases accuracy, combat is extremely lethal. It evokes exactly what you want a fire fight to be

On the lays bit, 5e I would say absolutely is not rules light enough and is so rules intensive like all d20 systems, with such powerful PCs that tension is just not possible. A major component of horror is stress and anxiety and a way to facilitate that is how much danger exists for the PCs. Dread works because Jenga towers are tense, the danger is real. I do think if Call of Cthulhu doesn't work because of those same reasons then it kind of reinforces my original point. That to get a certain kind of game you need a system that is designed to deliver that and simple house rules aren't enough. I don't know how scared I could ever be if I can cast time stop, force cage, suggestion, reverse gravity, or whatever other insanely powerful 5e spell

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was completely unaware of any social media shenanigans because I avoid social media, but I do want to add that I find it funny that in recent video where she roasts her old video she comments that "Basically I lumped everyone who came before me on one group" (regarding lumping together the min max crowd as the "old guard")

Its bit different here, but I think its kinda ironic when people who are clearly smart and self aware don't realize they are doing same thing again but differently ^_^;


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
in recent video where she roasts her old video she comments

... but... who's 'she'?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ah I was referring to old thread about Ginny D's twitter thread in one of the op posts.

Either way, I do agree its extremely obnoxious to tell other people play different systems than their preferred one so I do get why it results in people slipping up and saying generalized statements in social media.

(this is kinda why I don't want to ever become super active in social media, I think it doesn't matter how self aware or smart you are, you are going to say statement you are going to regret at some point especially because of toxic people on internet)

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / My response to "Stop recommending Pathfinder 2e to D&D players" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.