Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2 and support for other playing styles/subgenres
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JmanTheDM" data-source="post: 8239839" data-attributes="member: 6791902"><p>Interestingly (to me at least) there was a thread over at /r/[pathfinder...???] subreddit. the difference was stark and instantly relatable back to the PF2 forum discussions here on enworld.</p><p></p><p>over on /r the question asked was (grossly paraphrased)</p><p>"what are the things that bug you about Pf2?"</p><p></p><p>and then there proceeded to be dozens of comments and replies to individual rules, subsystems and minutia that bugs players. without exception, the comments were framed as:</p><p></p><p>"<strong>I</strong> don't like rule X because of the following reason" and then a short exposition of why rule X feels broken to the user making the post. the replies sometimes commiserate with the OP, or pushed back by perhaps showing a gap in knowledge or why / how that certain issue can be handled in place.</p><p></p><p>here, the message is: [exaggerated language used to emphasis the difference between the 2 posts - but only IMO slightly exaggerated]</p><p>"Paizo utterly broke PF2 for the following reason. X is simply crap and it beggars belief why Paizo would ever implement this broken rule when they have 5e to reference in full. Its obvious to anyone that Paizo didn't spend even 1 second learning about other rules, else they wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake in game design. here is the <strong>only </strong>logical way to handle this broken system which should have been used to begin with"</p><p></p><p>the difference is stark. in /r the criticism was about the system or rule, but framed as a personal opinion. in enworld, the criticism was about the system or rule but framed is ad hominem towards the publisher. one is constructive, the other is destructive. to engage with the enword mode, by default, one who agrees with the criticisms is also objectively also agreeing that the <em>company</em> is (at best) incompetent or (at worst) actively sabotaging their IP. </p><p></p><p>/r <strong>invites</strong> engagement while here <strong>demands</strong> acquiescence</p><p></p><p>so, in the spirit of not only outlining a problem but also laying out a solution, I propose a subtle language shift that may see increased engagement. May I suggest the following templated example:</p><p>"Hey everyone, I'm struggling with Crafting, I'm finding that its really hard to achieve goal X through the use of this skill. anyone else having similar issues? one thing that I though might help would be to modify X by introducing Y. what do you think?" </p><p></p><p>Cheers,</p><p></p><p>J.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JmanTheDM, post: 8239839, member: 6791902"] Interestingly (to me at least) there was a thread over at /r/[pathfinder...???] subreddit. the difference was stark and instantly relatable back to the PF2 forum discussions here on enworld. over on /r the question asked was (grossly paraphrased) "what are the things that bug you about Pf2?" and then there proceeded to be dozens of comments and replies to individual rules, subsystems and minutia that bugs players. without exception, the comments were framed as: "[B]I[/B] don't like rule X because of the following reason" and then a short exposition of why rule X feels broken to the user making the post. the replies sometimes commiserate with the OP, or pushed back by perhaps showing a gap in knowledge or why / how that certain issue can be handled in place. here, the message is: [exaggerated language used to emphasis the difference between the 2 posts - but only IMO slightly exaggerated] "Paizo utterly broke PF2 for the following reason. X is simply crap and it beggars belief why Paizo would ever implement this broken rule when they have 5e to reference in full. Its obvious to anyone that Paizo didn't spend even 1 second learning about other rules, else they wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake in game design. here is the [B]only [/B]logical way to handle this broken system which should have been used to begin with" the difference is stark. in /r the criticism was about the system or rule, but framed as a personal opinion. in enworld, the criticism was about the system or rule but framed is ad hominem towards the publisher. one is constructive, the other is destructive. to engage with the enword mode, by default, one who agrees with the criticisms is also objectively also agreeing that the [I]company[/I] is (at best) incompetent or (at worst) actively sabotaging their IP. /r [B]invites[/B] engagement while here [B]demands[/B] acquiescence so, in the spirit of not only outlining a problem but also laying out a solution, I propose a subtle language shift that may see increased engagement. May I suggest the following templated example: "Hey everyone, I'm struggling with Crafting, I'm finding that its really hard to achieve goal X through the use of this skill. anyone else having similar issues? one thing that I though might help would be to modify X by introducing Y. what do you think?" Cheers, J. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2 and support for other playing styles/subgenres
Top