Quote from: Dimitrios on December 21, 2020, 11:18:10 AM

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.

And that sort of sentiment in game development worries the hell out of me, because it doesn't bode well for gaming. We already see enough of that shit with video games.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 06:04:57 AM

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.

Its also cause "if you dont like it change it" works for any game.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 19, 1970, 09:48:50 AM
And that sort of sentiment in game development worries the hell out of me, because it doesn't bode well for gaming. We already see enough of that shit with video games.

There's a reason I switched my gameplan for my system from "we'll add the missing pieces in a future supplement" to "everything a player will ever need in one book... everything the GM will ever need in two." (I decided on two smaller books precisely to keep the cost of entry for players to a minimum).

I think "sure you can build your own monsters and dungeons and realms using the rules in the core books... but this supplement gives you a bunch of those things without all that effort" will sell with a lot more goodwill than "here's another plugin you need just for basic functionality."

Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 06:04:57 AM
PF2 was just not for him. It happens.

This is the real crux of the argument.

Everything else is just bullshit "reasoning" to get to the result you want.  You can see that right from the whole the characters do the same thing every fight - yeah you play DnD right? o_O

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 01:44:02 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 19, 1970, 09:48:50 AM
And that sort of sentiment in game development worries the hell out of me, because it doesn't bode well for gaming. We already see enough of that shit with video games.

There's a reason I switched my gameplan for my system from "we'll add the missing pieces in a future supplement" to "everything a player will ever need in one book... everything the GM will ever need in two." (I decided on two smaller books precisely to keep the cost of entry for players to a minimum).

I think "sure you can build your own monsters and dungeons and realms using the rules in the core books... but this supplement gives you a bunch of those things without all that effort" will sell with a lot more goodwill than "here's another plugin you need just for basic functionality."

I don't have a problem with the "tool kit" approach, per se, but a game should either be a tool kit and do that well or it should be a self-contained game and do that well.  Either do what you are doing or bill the thing as a tool kit clearly up front, with the expectation that the buyer can either put in the work with the kit to make their own version of the game or they can buy the later supplements that will build on the kit (and conveniently also demonstrate how to use the kit in the process).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 21, 2020, 02:08:46 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 01:44:02 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 19, 1970, 09:48:50 AM
And that sort of sentiment in game development worries the hell out of me, because it doesn't bode well for gaming. We already see enough of that shit with video games.

There's a reason I switched my gameplan for my system from "we'll add the missing pieces in a future supplement" to "everything a player will ever need in one book... everything the GM will ever need in two." (I decided on two smaller books precisely to keep the cost of entry for players to a minimum).

I think "sure you can build your own monsters and dungeons and realms using the rules in the core books... but this supplement gives you a bunch of those things without all that effort" will sell with a lot more goodwill than "here's another plugin you need just for basic functionality."

I don't have a problem with the "tool kit" approach, per se, but a game should either be a tool kit and do that well or it should be a self-contained game and do that well.  Either do what you are doing or bill the thing as a tool kit clearly up front, with the expectation that the buyer can either put in the work with the kit to make their own version of the game or they can buy the later supplements that will build on the kit (and conveniently also demonstrate how to use the kit in the process).

I hear you.

My GM book has over 200 pages of pre-built monsters in it, there's plenty of pre-built traps, afflictions (curses, diseases, long term injuries), vehicles, even a pre-built campaign region with settlements and ruins to explore.

But I also include sections on how to build those things (all the monsters in the book were built in line with the included rules that amount to 9 pages) for yourself because no catalogue could possibly include everything. The plan for continuing the line is to sell "world books/adventure sites" where, if there's any sort of unique monster or vehicle or what not in the area, it'd be included in that book... but they'd still be built using the core book guidelines.

So basically the supplements would be a service; I'm doing the design work using the system so you don't have to and am getting paid for the work done.

Probably the perfect example of this would actually be the Battletech Tech Readouts. Hundreds of Mechs/Vehicles/etc. with histories and artwork, but you could build every last one of them just with the core rulebooks. You don't NEED the Tech Readouts to play, but they're cool to read through and get ideas from.

Well we play PF2 but in my own homebrew world.

I never run anything RAW.   I always adjust the game system to my world not the other way around.

I have yet to see my players have the kind of issues the guy in the video is having so maybe its his players lack of creativity that is killing the game system for him /shrug

 

Min / Max players create their own excitement, and then their own boredom.  "This one set of actions deals the most damage.  I guess I should always do this, then?"

Zzzzzzzz........

Taking 20 has posted another video going further into "illusion of choice". But I haven't been able to listen yet- has anyone else?

Quote from: JeffB on December 22, 2020, 10:14:04 AM
Taking 20 has posted another video going further into "illusion of choice". But I haven't been able to listen yet- has anyone else?

Got to keep feeding the content train somehow.

Finally watched it. He does a good job in this one providing clear examples of his issues and addressed his critics admirably. I came to similar conclusions years and years ago- most modern versions of D&D (PF1/2, 5e, 3.x, etc) just don't provide the type of gaming experience I want to have, and if I have to choose between sub optimal but crunchy and hard to run, and sub optimal but less crunchy and easier to run, I'm going less crunchy every single time.

He sums up his choice in game types as "I'd rather make it up than look it up"- which I wholeheartedly concur with.

Quote from: JeffB on December 22, 2020, 03:13:38 PM
"I'd rather make it up than look it up"- which I wholeheartedly concur with.

Same to an extent, but if so i wonder why he went back to 5e specifically, other than money (5e attracts a bigger crowd)

Quote from: Slambo on December 22, 2020, 04:41:52 PM

Quote from: JeffB on December 22, 2020, 03:13:38 PM
"I'd rather make it up than look it up"- which I wholeheartedly concur with.

Same to an extent, but if so i wonder why he went back to 5e specifically, other than money (5e attracts a bigger crowd)

From what I gather and his age, he started playing in 3.5. I'm guessing 5E feels pretty "light" to him, but I'd say you have to ask him* I'm sure $ are a factor, especially if his income revolves around his yootoob channel. 


*And If he's like me it may be a player preference vs. GM preference. I've stuck with games that didn't do nearly as much for me  because my players had a preference vs the games I like the most.

Taking20 DESTROYS Pathfinder 2e/Proves 5e is Better*!



*which really should tell you how bad PF 2e is. 

PS: Obviously, it was more nuanced than that, but the internet and its clickbait, amirite?

Quote from: VisionStorm on December 22, 2020, 05:05:40 PM
Taking20 DESTROYS Pathfinder 2e/Proves 5e is Better*!

I tries to listen but could not get past how brilliant his game group is really if you get to know them.