60
edits
Changes
no edit summary
::Lastly, yes, balanced ''does'' a fun game make. Perhaps if you give up the needle and try to think a little before you type, you might even realise why having a game where some characters become irrelevant while others rule the world is a lame experience for everyone concerned. But then again, I hardly expect it. - [[User:MisterSinister|MisterSinister]] 21:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
:::Thank you for correcting me. I had no idea that I and all the people I game with could not exist, as it was entirely unclear to me that we did not have fun playing the terrible and unfun games we were playing. I had no idea that fun and taste were entirely defined and non-subjective concepts, and until your response I had no idea that I had never had fun with any game once in my life prior to D&D 4.0, at which point I had so much fun that I never wanted to play again. I will now take the lessons of your response and apply it to the rest of my non-existance, then share it with my non-existant gaming group and listen to their fictional laughter.--Change=Chaos. Period. [[User:Spazalicious Chaos| SC]] 05:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Oh, you can totally have fun playing Pathfinder, SC. This means nothing at all of the system's virtues. If you had a fun enough group of friend, you could hypothetically enjoy getting your balls pounded flat. My own dim view of Pathfinder stems from this: I see no reason to learn it over 3.x. It made a lot of changes just to make changes, the effects be damned, then claimed they'd fixed D&D 3.x's problems when they hadn't in the least(so the designers are either incompetent or dishonest to their fanbase, but that's another rant). There's a lot of minor changes that equate to most things functioning a little bit differently for no reason whatsoever, and ''I don't feel motivated to learn the system'' when I already know one that's mechanically more solid, leaving less time spent haggling over rules and more time spent playing the game. --Genowhirl 06:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
