Dzupakazul
Arbiter
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2015
- Messages
- 707
See, this is why I didn't actually respond to your post initially; you're so clearly fucking retarded. Nothing I said remotely implied that "all the fun happens at 0 xp"
This was your quote in response to me saying that, without exaggeration, all of my games have been about 0 XP Ratcatchers who die before they can have any sort of progress because WFRP2 can be easily twisted into a shit system for pretentious roleplay. How did youLuckmann said:that actually sounds pretty much exactly like WFRP2 should be played.
At the point where the envelope is pushed to the point where PCs don't have any reasonable need to actually do anything for anyone, which kills the entire vibe of multiple adventure hooks and campaigns that WFRP2 would be lovely with?As for the noble shitting on you, that's par for the course. Nobles are shit. They're meant to shit on you.
No, it was a polite way to suggest that I don't think this discussion is going anywhere."Agreeing to disagree" is the faggots way out. It doesn't mean anything other than "I can't defend my position, but I'll still keep it and pretend that you're wrong".
That is at least part of it, but yes, which begs the question why you felt a need to misrepresent the criticism and plant a strawman to begin with.
No, but what am I supposed to say in a debate about how 4E is literally shit and unsalvagable? By putting forward examples of good things it inspired or brought into the spotlight (vide the Book of Nine Swords' design choices) and that were reprised in a system that has been considered a great success. You can't first say that 4E was shit and history vindicated it and then go on a diatribe about how 5E's popularity doesn't mean it also isn't shit. WFRP2 is more popular here than D&D - or it was when I played WFRP2 - which doesn't mean anything, I can see past the (over)exposure to it.How, I must ask, I have I refused to acknowledge anything of the sort? I haven't even discussed 5e, or even anything tangentially related to 5e, and I haven't even touched upon any specific class elements whatsoever, of any edition. You're just pulling this straight out of your ass, likely in an attempt to divert the topic.
So is yours or James Wallis'.Your time playing 4e is really quite irrelevant
I like it, but it's shit. Like, guys, I really like running it and I really like what this game does with certain things and the itches it scratches, but it's shit. I can name so many things that this game does right, but it's shit. You keep stating that in various ways throughout this entire post in a thread about Pathfinder. It makes it really hard to discern an uniform opinion about it, and whether you shouldn't be playing some more "elite" system.I'm really not sure what you're not getting here. Yeah, I enjoy 3.5 and PF and think that parts of them can be fun, for a variety of reasons as stated.
Not in the mood for a "what is an RPG" thread or discussing why I think you aren't correct here."4e is the Final Fantasy Tactics system" is more or less the only non-retarded thing you've said. And nobody in their right mind would call Final Fantasy Tactics a good RPG.
Except 4E still had an impressive lifetime for a "failed" system.[/QUOTE]By the time any online features were relevant, the old D&D fans, fueled partially by WotC's behaviour and many already being part of Paizo's core (due to Dragon Magazine and similar things, which became a complete shit-show when it went in-house) had already kicked 4e to the curb for systemic, conceptual and thematic reasons.