Hmmm, I'm very sorry to hear that, honestly. I'd say the average PF2e player takes it a bit more seriously than the average DnD5e/N player, but not a whole lot.
Perhaps it's the part of the community you engaged with? Obviously every forum/chat server is going to have it's own flavor. The older communities that started with PF1e and still focus there are going to be more elitist in general just because of how PF1e came to be and it's target audience. But PF2e is much more widely targeted.
Discord isn't free, private, or open source, but it does host several great PF2e communities I participate in if you'd like a recommendation. But if you are just sharing your personal experience and aren't looking for a "solution", that's totally valid and I completely respect that.
I've always felt the community was extremely kind and welcoming, personally. The publisher even goes out of their way to support and represent LGBTQ+ in their official worldbuilding.
There's always going to be elitists in every hobby of course, they do exist in PF2e as well. But it's not the majority by any stretch.
I'd argue it's not more complex, just different. Once you play 3 action combat you'll never want to go back.
People get intimidated by the depth of PF2e, but just remember that DnD5e/N is also a fairly complex system where you only reference specific rules when you need to, same as PF2e. The advantage is that PF2e is (in my opinion) more cohesive and better covers edge cases.
I'm not sure it accounts for everything, but people tend to embrace conservatism (and yes, eventually Authoritarianism) due to fear. I was very young during the HIV/AIDS scare, but the fear was rampant and very real.
Magic Johnson making his diagnosis public and Princess Diana touching someone with AIDS was international headline news.
People are dumb and fear makes us less empathetic and even dumber.
This is correct for a given transaction, but there's no consensus needed to open a Bitcoin wallet. That is usually just a private key in an encrypted envelope.
Seems like a stand up guy with a ton of qualifications. Hopefully enough of the members see him as an agreeable alternative to MBS. All the problems he mentions are very real and very visible, and unfortunately much bigger than he carefully implies. The consolidation of power and authority and extreme lack of accountability is appalling.
Hell, just for the regulations of 2026 debacle (giving teams basically just 1 season of development is so horrible considering the huge swath of changes) MBS obviously needs to go, and likely, hopefully, the member orgs are upset.
And more pointedly, all the recent morality police bullshit and the horrific sexism, particularly demonstrated in his culling of female leadership roles and around the extremely negligent FIA disinterest in F1 Academy, which is nearly entirely run by Susie Wolff and like 3 sponsors with basically no budget or marketing support from FIA.
The Polynesian people had many ways of detecting land far beyond the horizon using ocean currents, temperatures, weather patterns, animal movements, and others which they used to island hop all the way through the Pacific Islands.
I have little doubt it was a well informed theory before they got into their vessels.
I apologize for the double reply, truly. Didn't want to add a huge amount of text in an edit since I figured you'd reply quickly.
I'll summarize my rebuttal thusly, and you can decide for yourself if you want to continue.
I think we're arguing over the definition of species using two separate definitions. Encyclopedia Brittannica indicates that genetic species is a distinct definition from the definition of biological species.
Is it fair to say that genetically these homonids are extremely closely related, but had distinct populations with distinct traits and morphology over time and across large geographies due to adaptive pressure?
So then the debate centers on when or if speciation occured with each of those definitions, which I don't think is a really productive exercise. We're basically saying the same things just differently.
And apologies, I did you a disservice by not replying to your single citation.
At the top of the definition:
however. Some examples include the ecological species concept, which describes a species as a group of organisms framed by the resources they depend on (in other words, their ecological niche), and the genetic species concept, which considers all organisms capable of inheriting traits from one another within a common gene pool and the amount of genetic difference between populations of that species.
The definition of genetic species are distinct due to more than just "can they successfully interbreed". It's more about their genetic drift and timeline.
Your own text extraction says things like "usually" and "almost always", because we have distinct examples of this happening over and over.
Like most of science and nature it's messy and categories are imperfect, but we use what we got to do the science we can.
Hmmm, I'm very sorry to hear that, honestly. I'd say the average PF2e player takes it a bit more seriously than the average DnD5e/N player, but not a whole lot.
Perhaps it's the part of the community you engaged with? Obviously every forum/chat server is going to have it's own flavor. The older communities that started with PF1e and still focus there are going to be more elitist in general just because of how PF1e came to be and it's target audience. But PF2e is much more widely targeted.
Discord isn't free, private, or open source, but it does host several great PF2e communities I participate in if you'd like a recommendation. But if you are just sharing your personal experience and aren't looking for a "solution", that's totally valid and I completely respect that.