Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6523837" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Neither of these alternatives are even remotely acceptable to me, for reasons I already stated. #1 says, &quot;Shame on you for liking the Fighter archetype. You should like archetypes that are more powerful--play those if you want to be effective.&quot; (Hyperbolic to be sure, but that's the gist--abandon your preferences if you want to be effective.) The second is almost as bad; &quot;sure, you can be a Fighter, but if you want to be effective you'll end up being a Wizard too,&quot; not that it needs to be specifically Fighter and Wizard, it could be any pair of classes where one loses agency and effectiveness over time while the other gains it.Again: &quot;planned obsolescence,&quot; and its nastier sibling &quot;planned transcendence,&quot; always comes across as bad game design, punishing people who like certain kinds of flavor and rewarding others (either for their preferences, or their ability to ignore preferences).Playstyle difference: I'm calculating, not emotive, and I play stingy.Yeah, that's...yeah. I'm of the opinion that people should be free to play emotively because being calculating only makes a difference between whether you use your tools poorly or well, not whether you get poor or good tools in the first place. Rewarding the calculating (and, by extension, punishing the emotive) is also something I consider &quot;bad game design,&quot; because it drives away players and seems inherently backward for a game that's all about pretending to be someone with pointy ears and a superiority complex. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6523837, member: 6790260"] Neither of these alternatives are even remotely acceptable to me, for reasons I already stated. #1 says, "Shame on you for liking the Fighter archetype. You should like archetypes that are more powerful--play those if you want to be effective." (Hyperbolic to be sure, but that's the gist--abandon your preferences if you want to be effective.) The second is almost as bad; "sure, you can be a Fighter, but if you want to be effective you'll end up being a Wizard too," not that it needs to be specifically Fighter and Wizard, it could be any pair of classes where one loses agency and effectiveness over time while the other gains it. Again: "planned obsolescence," and its nastier sibling "planned transcendence," always comes across as bad game design, punishing people who like certain kinds of flavor and rewarding others (either for their preferences, or their ability to ignore preferences). [I]Playstyle difference: I'm calculating, not emotive, and I play stingy.[/I] Yeah, that's...yeah. I'm of the opinion that people should be free to play emotively because being calculating only makes a difference between whether you use your tools poorly or well, not whether you [I]get[/I] poor or good tools in the first place. Rewarding the calculating (and, by extension, punishing the emotive) is also something I consider "bad game design," because it drives away players and seems inherently backward for a game that's all about pretending to be someone with pointy ears and a superiority complex. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification