Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jonny Nexus" data-source="post: 2503400" data-attributes="member: 14664">And who precisely are they? As fair as I recall, most (perhaps all) of the people you disagree with have repeatedly said that they have no beef against D&D, and in many cases are fans of it.But if you didn't want to know why people like me were offended by the review, why did you ask? (Especially, when we'd already answered that question, multiple times). And when I did take the time to answer your question, did you not think that it would be courtious to reply, if only to thank me?The impression I got was that when you said, "I still do not see why so many people are "offended" by the review" it was not meant as any kind of question, to which you desired an answer, but as a rhetorical statement proclaiming what you felt to be the illogicality of those who were offended by the review.I cannot understand why you say that you do not disagree with my points when I have been pubically disagreeing with you, such as when you claimed that the review would have a benefit for WFRP:If anything, he wrote a review targeted to the D&D crowd that will make them look at the game rather than just dismiss it. A lot of people will not touch anything that does not have a d20 label. By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer....and I replied by saying that it didn't matter if it gave a sales boost to WFRP because that still didn't make what he said acceptable:It's a bit like someone "reviewing" a novel by saying, "XXXX is a very good novel, which is not surprising because it is largely derived from the novel YYYY, which I wrote some years ago". If - in that example - it turned out that the novel XXXX was not in any way derived from the novel YYYY, the author of XXXX - and his or her supporters - would rightly be very aggrieved. Defending the actions of the "reviewer" by saying that his actions were likely to encourage people who'd read and enjoyed YYYY to go out and read XXXX would, in my opinion, be somewhat missing the point.You can't have agreed with what I was saying because I was totally disputing your point.Moreover, you keep on using dismissive, sarcastic and near-abusive language to describe fans of WFRP (I count myself among their number), such as: ...and:...and:...and:...and:...and:...and:Hint: Saying that we are *acting* offended implies that we're lying when we say that we're offended (i.e. that we are faking it for some reason).Anyhow, I've now pretty much come to the conclusion that you're just trolling in an attempt to wind up WFRP fans up, so I'm going to stop replying to your posts.</blockquote>

Verification