SE, go back and READ my review.
I am NOT trying to look objectively at the system. I SAID that. I am trying to give, as the title suggests, AN ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT.
I never criticised the PHB for not including information I didn't need. I criticised it for focusing on stats before character. I never said I didn't need information on how to develop a character - on the contrary, I quite like information of that nature, to read different people's ideas on it. I think that chapter should have been placed earlier in the book and earlier in the list of how to design a character.
Now, the stuff in the DMG isn't of use to me, nor does it interest me. Did I make a big deal about it? NO. Did I say the complaint was, in fact, spurious and not really fair on the book? YES.
Now, where do you get off saying I am unfair to criticise a book for making a criticism that I SAID and ADMITTED was unfair?
I also never said I wanted a system where all humans were at the same level. I said I wanted a system where all humans with a combat score are equal to other humans with the same combat score. D&D is like this, but the large number of stats make it difficult to judge compared to say, Sword 6 vs Sword 8. My preference for this simplicity is purely opinion. YOU CANNOT SAY THAT MY OPINION IS WRONG. You can disagree, but preference is SUBJECTIVE. Oh, wait, what is my article called again? Oh that's right, AN ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT. Namely, my viewpoint. I'm being unfair for expressing my viewpoint in a piece that is designed simply to do that? Did I ever say I was being objective?
I did not say the NPC chapter wasn't useful. What I said was I didn't like the way NPC classes worked. I said that it was more difficult to create NPC stats than it should be, because MY PREFRENCE (yes, that little thing the title of the article says the article is about) is for simple systems like Paranoia XP where I can make stats easily on the fly. What I DID say was that the NPC chapter is extremely useful for making the stats, I'd just prefer not to need it.
Did I say that the stuff in the book was the only information on the Planes? I said the PLANESCAPE setting had been reduced to this token information which isn't particularly useful, and the stuff in the book of planes which I havn't read. YES, I MENTIONED THE BOOK OF PLANES IN MY REVIEW. I'd really like it if when you accuse me of something, it's something I've actually freaking DONE. I happen to very much like the PLANESCAPE setting and find it more interesting to hold adventures on the planes than in generic fantasy worlds.
Now, I concluded saying that the system annoys me more than I should, but I really like it regardless. How does that make me "Determined not to like it?". I said I *DID* like it. I also gave it a thumbs up, positive overall. I said it was good.
Now, I could have agreed with you completely and made a very similar review to the ones we already have, but that would have been useless and redundant. So, I wrote an ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT to the books. This is SUBJECTIVE ACCOUNT from someone with a PREFERENCE FOR SIMPLE NARATIVE SYSTEMS. At no point have I tried to hide this fact. So, how exactly am I being unfair? Because the game isn't my style exactly, even though I still like it?
SE, the world does not centre around you. You need to learn than other people have viewpoints. I chose to share mine. You may disagree if you will. But think twice before you falsely accuse me of being unfair and unbalanced over a subjective piece of work, and then criticise me by citing factual errors proving you had not in fact properly read the piece.
