The constant battle to pretend that we’re not playing a rules interpretation game, and that there can be such a thing as “more RAW” when it comes to vague rules is genuinely one of the most frustrating parts of online discourse.

Show Post

This was legitimately one of the most culture-shock changes for me when I was learning PF2E. The absolute vitriol that those loud community members treated creative thought with in a game with was stunning. It made me cut communication and just learn on my own. Which made it way more fun.

Show Post

throat for allowing a series of well-placed Deception/Performance checks to split a 180 XP encounter into waves of 60 XP. Was told that it was “cheating” so egregious that it was akin to “just let the Bard seduce the dragon” lol. 2/2

Show Post

Sounds about right… I feel like a good chunk of online discourses don’t really understand that “roll a d20, add a relevant modifier the GM and you think applies, compare it to a DC the GM thinks applies” is actually the standard way to resolve all checks. I once had someone jump down my 1/2

Show Post

"Why don't they write the game based on how they play it?" They do! But it's really challenging to set up table norms and tone in a rulebook without railroading the GM into a clone of yourself.

Show Post