Watching these videos is like locking two spergs in a small room and encouraging them to fight.

Everything I've heard about Pathfinder 2 suggests that it leans more toward tactical complexity then build speciality.  (Which doesn't appeal to me personally - if I want tactical complexity I'll play a game where I can win against a real opponent not a GM's encounter).

I don't give much credit to anyone with a Youtube channel, it's seems so driven by clicks and views and an element of cult of personality.

I still think that if you're a serious person you'll put your views in writing.

Quote from: Shasarak on December 19, 2020, 12:01:03 AM
A Response to @Taking20 Regarding Pathfinder 2e

This guy seems like he knows a bit more then Cody.

And still at 5:40 says the optimal play for 3.5 wizard againt a goliath spider is casting fireball.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2020, 10:17:40 PM
Seriously, Paizo was in a no-win situation.

I think they could have done very well if they'd embraced 5e ca 2016, when it was clearly a big success and 5e was OGL. 5e hardback versions of their better regarded APs would have sold extremely well, possibly better than the WoTC hardbacks. Even a 5e based 2nd edition of Starfinder.

Paizo's biggest problem is not their politics, it's their delusion that they are games designers, rather than magazine publishers. The AP model (which was really Continuity Dungeon magazine) worked great while they were piggybacking on 3.5e. They could have done just as well piggybacking on 5e.

Quote from: S'mon on December 19, 2020, 06:59:46 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2020, 10:17:40 PM
Seriously, Paizo was in a no-win situation.

I think they could have done very well if they'd embraced 5e ca 2016, when it was clearly a big success and 5e was OGL. 5e hardback versions of their better regarded APs would have sold extremely well, possibly better than the WoTC hardbacks. Even a 5e based 2nd edition of Starfinder.

Paizo's biggest problem is not their politics, it's their delusion that they are games designers, rather than magazine publishers. The AP model (which was really Continuity Dungeon magazine) worked great while they were piggybacking on 3.5e. They could have done just as well piggybacking on 5e.

Oh come on! They have game designers, much of their content has been game design and generally better than 3.5. They got more things right than wrong in their update to 3.5 for sure.
Its easy to be critical after the fact.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 18, 2020, 10:53:04 PM

Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 06:16:28 PM
...But I also think his problem is he has been running one of the APs for the past year. IME, APs are a poor way to run a game anyway unless you want to play out a  movie script (which is truly an "illusion of choice" problem in gaming) , and  to top it off the general conclusion is that Paizo did a subpar job on the first one they released because it was being written and whatnot as final development was being done (like Tyranny of Dragons, and 5E)....

That is on Baizuo.

They designed the game with the intention to sell AP's to run it. They are in no position to cry foul now just because they stuffed it on release.

Absolutely legitimate to critique the game when played as presented by Baizuo on release.

Once you put out the product - no backsies!

Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 06:22:22 PM

Quote from: Slambo on December 18, 2020, 03:22:41 PM

I bet, i saw a ton of comments basically telling him he cant have a negative opinion on PF vause he has a youtube channel and people might not try it if he does. A few mentioned the game is hurting for players, but im not sure if theyre reliable for the purpose of this thread.

Yeah, those were funny. I mean, the guy has a quarter million subscribers and is apparently a big influencer on yootoob, so it has the potential to hurt, but still- he cannot have an opinion and post it? 

He played the game for a year. He didn't run a couple of one shots then post a scathing diatribe. Ran it RAW for a whole year.

He has a right to his opinion.

He must know that putting his opinion up for the world to see has cost him any future free books or friendly relations with Baizuo. Which IMHO takes a bit of conviction on his part.

And while it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with his views (after all they must be selling that thing to someone...) The fact that he publicly nuked his warm relationship with Baizuo in the process does give some weight to his criticisms.

Of course he has the right to his opinion. I was just summarizing some of the points in his video.

I don't have any judgement of the game one way or the other, because I have only run a brief test using the Demo adventure when it released in 2019.

He may be spot-on, or maybe not.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 09:23:55 PMUh, no?

Not an argument.

QuoteFirst, im pretty sure most of us play RPGs to escape the constraints of the real world, not replay them.

So you play omnipotent grey blob with the rest of your party?

Sounds like RPG communism comrade! 
So no one person would ever be encouraged to do specific actions over another. Specialization is tripple plus unfun and gets you sent to punishment room.

QuoteNot every system is built so that you are an expert in a handful of things and a noob at everything else.  It is a common design problem in RPGs, but not every one suffers it to the same extent.  If you abstract enough, a shark is a camel, because they both are living creatures.  That doesn't make a shark a camel...

Your logic seems utterly pedantic. I get what you mean where overspecialization lends itself to repitition (to a boring degree) but your engaging in a level of pedantry as to what counts and what doesn't.

I also don't get what you mean with the camel thing. If you abstract enough a camel will become in practice like a shark. 'I like abstraction and any amount more or less of what i like is octuple plus unfun and anybody that has fun with it is just wrong;.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 19, 2020, 10:44:48 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 09:23:55 PMUh, no?

Not an argument.

QuoteFirst, im pretty sure most of us play RPGs to escape the constraints of the real world, not replay them.

So you play omnipotent grey blob with the rest of your party?

Sounds like RPG communism comrade! 
So no one person would ever be encouraged to do specific actions over another. Specialization is tripple plus unfun and gets you sent to punishment room.

QuoteNot every system is built so that you are an expert in a handful of things and a noob at everything else.  It is a common design problem in RPGs, but not every one suffers it to the same extent.  If you abstract enough, a shark is a camel, because they both are living creatures.  That doesn't make a shark a camel...

Your logic seems utterly pedantic. I get what you mean where overspecialization lends itself to repitition (to a boring degree) but your engaging in a level of pedantry as to what counts and what doesn't.

I also don't get what you mean with the camel thing. If you abstract enough a camel will become in practice like a shark. 'I like abstraction and any amount more or less of what i like is octuple plus unfun and anybody that has fun with it is just wrong;.

Dude, since you are so enamored with arguing against ideas I never expressed, I'll leave you to continue the discussion with the rest of the voices in your head...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 19, 2020, 01:00:50 PM
Dude, since you are so enamored with arguing against ideas I never expressed, I'll leave you to continue the discussion with the rest of the voices in your head...

I apreciate it.

Quote from: Shasarak on December 19, 2020, 12:01:03 AM
A Response to @Taking20 Regarding Pathfinder 2e

...some rando's video retort....

This guy seems like he knows a bit more then Cody.

Ehhh...

His chief arguments seem to be:

- Don't fully engage in the system mastery that is designed into the game. Ummm ok...

- Then gives an example of anti-optimal "creativity' that is wholly dependent on the magic items his party happened to have. Which I would say actually is the optimal strategy for the situation, as it defeated the monster in the fastest way possible!

- Then talks about changing the AP which Paizo released at launch...

Paizo designed the game with the intention to sell AP's to run with it. If they stuffed the release AP; that is on them.

Also: "change what you don't like" is not an argument.

Sure, I could probably change enough stuff to make the Cyborg Commando RPG work at my table, with my play style.. The ability to do that is in no way a counterargument to any critique I may make of the of the game system as presented by its creators.

I had no idea PF2's fanbase took his video so seriously! Poked around on youtube for a bit, and holy shit dude's...

It's just an RPG...

Quote from: Jaeger on December 19, 2020, 07:21:44 PM
Ehhh...

His chief arguments seem to be:

- Don't fully engage in the system mastery that is designed into the game. Ummm ok...

- Then gives an example of anti-optimal "creativity' that is wholly dependent on the magic items his party happened to have. Which I would say actually is the optimal strategy for the situation, as it defeated the monster in the fastest way possible!

- Then talks about changing the AP which Paizo released at launch...

Paizo designed the game with the intention to sell AP's to run with it. If they stuffed the release AP; that is on them.

Also: "change what you don't like" is not an argument.

Sure, I could probably change enough stuff to make the Cyborg Commando RPG work at my table, with my play style.. The ability to do that is in no way a counterargument to any critique I may make of the of the game system as presented by its creators.

I had no idea PF2's fanbase took his video so seriously! Poked around on youtube for a bit, and holy shit dude's...

It's just an RPG...

Don't forget those examples he gives were from his D&D 5e game (guess he couldn't even think of any for pathfinder).

I wonder if anyone enjoyed the Pathfinder 2 "Playtest" game books, and just kept playing "that" version of the game?  I mean, it was a complete game system....

Quote from: Jaeger on December 19, 2020, 07:21:44 PM
Also: "change what you don't like" is not an argument.

Lets do this first:  How exactly is "change what you don't like" is not an argument?

If hitting yourself in the face starts to hurt then stop hitting yourself in the face seems like a reasonable suggestion.

Quote
- Then gives an example of anti-optimal "creativity' that is wholly dependent on the magic items his party happened to have. Which I would say actually is the optimal strategy for the situation, as it defeated the monster in the fastest way possible!

Well that is the thing.  I have played through the adventure that Cody is talking about and the combat encounters are variable, deliberately so I would assume, so doing the same thing over and over is actually sub optimal.

Take the Ranger for example.  There are encounters where the monsters have high damage reduction to piercing attacks so it is sub optimal to stand back and try and shoot.

There are encounters with monsters that can be convinced to ally with the party so it is sub optimal to stand back and try and shoot.

There are encounters with storm weather conditions so it is sub optimal to stand back and try and shoot.

So if the party is just doing the same series of actions in every encounter then I can believe that they can be bored but it would be impossible for them to be optimal actions.

Quote
- Then talks about changing the AP which Paizo released at launch...

Paizo designed the game with the intention to sell AP's to run with it. If they stuffed the release AP; that is on them.

The main concern that I have with the AP is the lack of an overarching plot hook running through the campaign.  Really it plays more like a travelogue with the PCs traveling through the world solving pretty much unrelated problems.

There was one killer encounter in book one which, from the sounds of it, was a problem for a few parties.

And of course the woke BS stuffed into it, which I try and edit out as best as I can.

Quote
Sure, I could probably change enough stuff to make the Cyborg Commando RPG work at my table, with my play style.. The ability to do that is in no way a counterargument to any critique I may make of the of the game system as presented by its creators.

Good luck with Cyborg Commando.  I played it once about 30 years ago and that was enough for me.

Quote from: Shasarak on December 20, 2020, 03:37:04 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on December 19, 2020, 07:21:44 PM
Also: "change what you don't like" is not an argument.

Lets do this first:  How exactly is "change what you don't like" is not an argument?

If hitting yourself in the face starts to hurt then stop hitting yourself in the face seems like a reasonable suggestion.

He did stop hitting himself in the face. He has stopped playing PF2.

I set out my opinion on this with my cyborg commando example. But maybe another analogy will make my position clearer.

Imagine I put out a youtube video reviewing a car, I say: "The cars engine lacks power compared to other cars in its class.",  And then someone says "That's not a fair criticism because you could add aftermarket upgrades that can easily boost its performance!"

That is not a valid counter-argument of my car review because I am not reviewing the car with aftermarket upgrades that would change its performance. I am reviewing the car as it drives delivered from the factory.

The man ran the game for a sufficient space of time to have a valid opinion on the PF2 rules set. In my opinion none of the arguments also-sperg gave showed that take20-sperg somehow didn't understand the PF2 system he had been playing for a year.

PF2 was just not for him. It happens.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 06:04:57 AMImagine I put out a youtube video reviewing a car, I say: "The cars engine lacks power compared to other cars in its class.",  And then someone says "That's not a fair criticism because you could add aftermarket upgrades that can easily boost its performance!"

That is not a valid counter-argument of my car review because I am not reviewing the car with aftermarket upgrades that would change its performance. I am reviewing the car as it drives delivered from the factory.

This reminds me of ye olde days of the edition wars, when I was told several times that if I had only played 4e with the 3 core books then I had never tried the "real game", which apparently required a dozen additional hardbacks.