NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8459280" data-attributes="member: 12731">Well, maybe trivial isn't the best choice of word.What I mean is there can be various checks and balances imposed by a system. Sometimes for very good reasons, as in, the game would have been not nearly as good without them. Limitations are not inherently bad.Anyway - forcing you to advance into several careers before you can increase a certain stat very much is one approach. This ensures you need to pay XP for not only the stat increase itself, but a lot of other stuff as well, molding a more well-rounded character and, more importantly, overall delaying the time when your high stat becomes a problem.But there's another layer - not allowing you to increase your stat that much at all!WFRP2 very wisely just don't allow you to increase a Skill to more than 20% above its Characteristic, and you can't increase a Characteristic to more than 40% above your starting value (IIRC). And even then, you need a very particular set of Careers to be allowed this maximum. And even then, the game just don't use opposed Tests to nearly the same extent as WFRP4. And there are no Talent system to further abuse the freedom.The result is that you can't just swoop in and flash your very high skill score to just steamroll any reasonable opposition.Is this trivial to do for a character? Maybe not. After all, you still need to adventure a fair amount.But it is trivial for the player. There are no hoops you need to jump through. At no stage does the game try to keep you from doing this, or even suggest this is maybe a bad idea.An even bigger question is: why was this added? How does this make the Warhammer experience better?---I appreciate your concern over how my messages are perceived, Ancalagon! Honestly though, I must confess I have little patience for those that bend over backwards to not see my point, those that make an effort to find issues with my communication for the sole reason to be able to dismiss it.tl;dr: If you don't want my help, I sure won't work to give it to you.It would however be correct to claim I'm not sugar-coating my summary of this game (or indeed any other) - I don't believe in avoiding criticism merely to avoid hurting the feeling of creators. We must be able to objectively evaluate different levels of rpg design quality. And so I am not really concerned with how my communication is perceived by people that can't cope if their favorite games are shown to possess flaws. That said, I try my best to avoid personal attacks, but I am not without fault myself, and it does happen I cross a line. But I do try to keep the focus on the work, and not the person.I perceive myself as discussing with people genuinely open to the possibility a game can be objectively good or objectively bad, and that this game is straight-up better designed than that one. Unfortunately there is a far too common sentiment around that any reviews should focus on the good and avoid detailing the bad to create a nice cosy atmosphere where everybody loves the games I play. To me, that's indistinguishable from <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shill" target="_blank">shilling</a>. If a game's design is flawed we should be able to discuss that without getting dismissed as just a matter of opinion. Furthermore, I see myself discussing with readers interested in hearing the experiences of somebody that actually did the grunt work and played a game thoroughly, trying their very best to extensively house rule any wonky stuff as he encountered it, not just hating on a game for superficial reasons.Have a nice day</blockquote>

Verification