Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5724263" data-attributes="member: 6957">Sorry for the delay in replying - E N World disappeared on me for a while, and it had not yet returned when I headed off for my game. Maker. BadAxe is one person. He posts on these forums sometimes (hi Wulf!). I like his stuff, there are things that I use in my games from Trailblazer. But he is not 'most'. In short the 'most critics'  you wrote of is in fact, are you ready? Anecdotal. Frankly, most critics don't give a dang either way. They are not waving flags and singing 'We Love It-er-a-tive Attacks!' but neither are they shouting them down. So there is no 'vast sea of critics' (my words, not yours) but rather there are a few, sometimes impassioned, sometimes talented, vocal critics. In short a much more accurate replacement would be 'most critics, if they mention iterative attacks at all think that there are better ways to handle things' or just plain 'some critics', which is more accurate and shorter.In my response to the thread you quoted I mentioned 'Availability Heuristics' - in this case you noticed the few critics mentioning the iterative attacks as a problem, but not the fact that most critics don't mention it as a problem, or even mention it at all. Yes, it is. (I was tempted to leave that as a one word answer - 'Yes', but I am more verbose than that.) Look around these very forums for how many posts talk about how badly balanced, badly edited, badly laid out, etc.. But I am not going to say that 'most critics' feel that Palladium is something that can be singled out for an attack, but I can point to more than the one that you chose for your own  'most critics' claim.Many feel that any success for Palladium games (small 'g') is in spite of the publisher, not because of it. And you were not comparing Palladium Role Play to Pathfinder, but rather Palladium Games to Paizo.  If you had compared the games rather than the publishers, this would have been an entirely different thread. There still would be screaming and yelling, but a different thread. Thank you for that, I take it back, your mama doesn't dress you funny, and I liked the article about the giraffes.Yes, very much so. And, as I mentioned, it appeared that you were trying to use that article s a shield. And I still think that you were.A discussion, with conflict, is an argument. If you were not looking for folks to agree with you then you were looking for an argument. Odd as it sounds, I am not condemning that - I have no problem with it. Using the article as a shield? That bothered me. Perhaps you could have just said 'Keep this cordial, folks'.Look for how many threads say things about Rifts along the lines of 'Great setting, great idea, horrible system' and a few that add 'if it were under anybody other than Simbieda...'. And discussions about balance, and the complete lack thereof....Once upon a time Simbieada would complain that White Wolf Magazine never had any support for his games. He was both vocal and obnoxious about it. When White Wolf finally got an article for his game, and asked if they could print it, he said 'No!' and threatened to sue.White Wolf, being obnoxious in their own way, did an article about how Simbieda was being a complete kneebiter.But, since you are spending time defending Palladium games, I retract that you were using it as an insult. A poorly chosen example, surely, but perhaps not a deliberate insult. Though I note that at this point you have said kinder things about Palladium than you ever have about Pathfinder.... I think the simplest way to put things is that you like4e, and that you are disgruntled by the fact that at this point it looks like Pathfinder is the more popular game. And yes, you do come across as disgruntled, and it is likely that you are. (And I agree with pulling out your grudging praise for Paizo leading last quarter is acceptable in a supportive argument. You have a horse in that race, and are not a neutral observer.)If you go looking back to the days when 4e was new and, umm, shiny, you can find plenty of posts where I was disgruntled. I did not like what I was seeing, and hadn't since seeing the preview books. (I blame those preview books for much of the divide.)My viewpoint now is 'I don't like 4e, but if you are having fun playing it, then go and kill monsters'. But when 4e was new.... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />I don't have to like 4e, or respect WotC (or Palladium) for you to enjoy those games. Pathfinder meant that the architecture that I preferred would stick around. The funny thing is that I thought that I was in the minority, and now it looks like that instead we have a two party system.As for other companies to use as insults, there are games far... worse... than Palladium. (Cinnibar, F.A.T.A.L. and the short lived 4th Edition' that had nothing to do with WotC.) Heck, some people will tell you that Spawn of Fashan was a bad game, but they lie! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />And I will point out that even you are not defending Palladium the company, but merely their games.... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel    :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" /> And the comparison was not Rifts v. Pathfinder but rather Palladium v. Paizo.We disagree on over balancing, but I think that is one of the core arguments that 3.x and 3.P fans have against 4e, and vice versa - I do not think that is a resolvable argument, because each group, speaking only for themselves, is right. It is when either camp starts saying that the other camp is wrong that the complaining camp becomes wrong.Opinions are shaped by personal experiences, and mine are not yours. You apparently got burned by some inequity you saw in 3.X, but neither I nor my players ever had that problem. Since I am an egotistical sort I will now take this opportunity to pat myself on the back for running a good game. *Pat, pat, pat.* <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />You have likely done a better job of seeing the OP's point than I have. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The Auld Grump</blockquote>

Verification