Company News Obsidian working on a Pathfinder game - could be an Eternity CRPG + card game

[Grunker]

handup: I actually don't think your post is a misrepresentation, so I think we disagree less than you probably believe. You correctly identify what I'd say were true problems with Pathfinder. See my earlier post. I really meant it when I said that unless you go all Excidium up in this shit and yearn for some kind of never released, perfect RPG, you're going to have to deal with the problems that an insanely complex medium usually handled by a very little group of underpaid guys produce.

In other words: the teams making complex RPG systems are not equipped to create perfection. When I call Pathfinder a 'fantastic system', I am comparing it to its contemporaries. I think any hypothetical argument, though interesting I suppose, ultimately misses the point. We're here. We're playing. Of course we're going to call the things that work best in practice the best, until something that meets the hypothetical and perfect standards, believed possible by people like Excidium or Roguey, comes along.

Anyway, you are most obviously wrong here:

Pathfinder is not complex

Again, compared to what? Even Pathfinder core has an ocean of choices, and saying that most aren't viable is only true if you theorycraft to quote-unquote "obviosuly broken" stuff. And, like I said, that kind of stuff extremely rarely works in practice the way it does in theory.

Pathfinder is bloated, yes, but you fail to ackknowledge the fact that the wealth of choices offered by it is impossible without bloat. Again, point me to something with similar customization that is better.

Good for you, most dms however may not be as system-savy as you though. Most people use (and expect to be used) the core rules. It's great that pathfinder gives good dms the chance to tinker the system to remove its annoyances but that should not be necessary to enjoy the game.

Let's say that you're right. Let's say that we agree that Pathfinder is fantastic for the experienced GM who actually puts in the time to understand what he's dealing with, and worse for beginners. Okay. We have now agreed upon that. Does that make the game worse for me or other experienced groups? It doesn't, does it, by virtue of the very statement "good for experienced players, worse for beginners."

This much is true of GURPS as well. In fact, it's true for any system with a level of complexity compared to these games. Their very strength is that they offer so much. It is comparable to Nu-XCOM versus Xenonauts. Though both games are good, Xenonauts clearly offers a more complex and gratifying gameplay experience, but it is infintely more demanding of its player. Is that a flaw?

If you ask me, the entire purpose of the RPG Codex - if indeed it has any - is to answer the above question with "NO."

There's also the fact that people see rules in the srd and assume that it is allowed.

It is no secret that an adult conversation in a mature group is maybe 90% of any good play experience. The rest is just gravy, really. The older I get, the more I realize that group dynamic and lead-in conversations about expectations matter more than any content and system ever could.

Edit: Pretty cool homebrew btw, just read it.

Thanks bro, much obliged. Anyone is welcome to chip in with suggestions - all documents are living, and obviously the practical play experience is influenced pretty hugely by houserules that apply directly.

 

[Grunker]

What I meant to say is that

What you meant to say is that Pathfinder is a patch, which I agree with. What we're arguing is whether it's the best way to play D&D, which I think is clearly the case. You fail to reply to my points about how any of the games you mentioned actually work as legitimate alternatives to Pathfinder, offering these things:

1) Extreme wealth of customization to my players.

2) Ease-of-use, well-written, well-tested expansive adventure paths.

3) Goes well with a campaign that takes a 50% roleplaying, 50% very gamified tactical combat approach.

4) Fantastic database (perhaps the best we've seen and will see for a very long time).

5) Somewhat polished rulesystem where an experienced player or GM can easily iron out kinks. I mean, my house-rule document isn't even that long!

6) Wealth of content beyond adventures and supplements.

No system even comes close to providing me with these things as well as Pathfinder does.

That's the crux of our argument. Your game suggestions are fine (well, I like some of them for different reasons, though I think all have problems), but none do what I require from Pathfinder - none even attempt what Pathfinder excels at, compared to other games of its kind.

Also, before you call bullshit on my argument that you have to argue comparatively, remember that I'm also defending Pathfinder (and especially its adventure paths) in a vacuum. In a vacuum and compared to hypothetical perfection, Pathfinder stands up to scrutiny, at the very least. The adventure paths do more than that; they provide the best ease-of-use play-material we've ever seen, IMO.

Standing up to scrutiny is fine by itself. It's just that compared to its contemporaries, Pathfinder fucking rocks.

Just saying that there are better systems out there that do what Pathfinder tries to do way better.

And I'm saying you're wrong.

 

[Infinitron]

I wonder if doing a CRPG might be dependent on how successful the card game will be. That'd be stupid of course, but publishers are stupid after all.

Publishers say "there will be game X" and then cancel it and say "sorry, there won't be game X after all" all the time. "Will be" means "might be", i.e. we're considering it.

I actually hope it's a Kickstarter, because otherwise they'll have no obligation not to cancel it.

Paizo is a license holder, not a publisher. I doubt they'd fund a CRPG themselves, just like TSR and Wizards of the Coast never funded any D&D CRPG.

I don't think Obsidian would want to waste effort on Kickstarting somebody else's IP, either, so funding via a third party publisher (like say, Paradox) might be likely.

 

[Crooked Bee]

That makes sense. I'm still a bit wary of there having to be a publisher for this at all, is all.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

I don't think Obsidian would want to waste effort on Kickstarting somebody else's IP, either, so funding via a third party publisher (like say, Paradox) might be likely.

Wouldn't it be a bit like Torment using Numenera though? Not sure of the exact details of that deal, but even if they paid a portion of the revenues as a license fee for using the system, they'd still 'own' most of the rights to the game. eg: If Paizo get 20% and Obsidian get 80% that's still a lot more upside than a publisher deal. And doing a kickstarter would limit any downside risk.

Anyway, I do agree with the arguments over timing, so as not to clash with their own PoE franchise.

 

[catfood]

Most of the problems that bloated systems like 3.5 have, is to not use any material apart from the core stuff. Theres enough crunch there to satisfy any player for a long period of time.

 

[Grunker]

Crooked Bee, Infinitron: Honestly, for someone who has followed Paizo for a long time, it seems that they have understood that the key to their success is a solid basis that perhaps doesn't make a ton of money - i.e. the Pathfinder RPG - and then producing shitloads of content, add-ons, and expansions (like the cardgame) that must be purchased physically. Sounds like a lame approach, but even I must admit to owning a Fumble deck, a Critical deck, and several other similar add-ons that we use actively in my game.

Making the Pathfinder card game on tablet seems like a natural extension of that "milking the brand" approach. What chances this leaves for a full-fledged PC-RPG I have no idea, but I think that if such a thing is produced, Paizo will care more about the merchandise they can spin off of that RPG than the RPG itself, at least monetarily. I could see them being big on DLC, for example.

Most of the problems that bloated systems like 3.5 have, is to not use any material apart from the core stuff.

I disagree. Using Core only, handup has a point that there are other systems that are more appealing for a number of reasons. One of 3.5 and Pathfinder's core strengths (and one of the 6 points I listed) is breadth and wealth of content.

While that also causes the breaks and scratches in the game, those are necessary biproducts, not flaws that make the game unplayable. And for experienced playgroups, they are easy to iron out in practice. Just keep a well-constructed, living house-rule document and talk about these things like mature adults.

 

[Infinitron]

Wouldn't it be a bit like Torment using Numenera though? Not sure of the exact details of that deal, but even if they paid a portion of the revenues as a license fee for using the system, they'd still 'own' most of the rights to the game.

inXile and Obsidian are different companies; Obsidian seem a lot more anxious about having their own IP.

That said, Numenera is very new and untested, so I'm guessing Monte Cook's demands were fairly modest. Pathfinder, in contrast, is a PnP juggernaut.

 

[J_C]

Ok, they have a Icewindale remake in the works. But Icewindale sucked and the overall balance is shitty

 

[Roguey]

In other words: the teams making complex RPG systems are not equipped to create perfection. When I call Pathfinder a 'fantastic system', I am comparing it to its contemporaries. I think any hypothetical argument, though interesting I suppose, ultimately misses the point. We're here. We're playing. Of course we're going to call the things that work best in practice the best, until something that meets the hypothetical and perfect standards, believed possible by people like Excidium or Roguey, comes along.

JES sez if someone wants to play a fantasy RPG, they should just use Toon's rules. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/35419-does-anyone-else-share-my-dislike-of-d20/page-8#entry391706

He's also fond of CoC: Delta Green, though it isn't the fantasy people tend to think about when you say "fantasy rpg." And Ars Magica which is a proper mage-playing game, as opposed to a mage-playing-game-with-trap-classes.

 

[set]

After announcing a tablet game I don't know how anyone can have faith in Obsidian anymore. I thought they were better than that. There's no RPG worth playing that a company heavily invested in tablets/mobile has made.

 

[Zed]

After announcing a tablet game I don't know how anyone can have faith in Obsidian anymore. I thought they were better than that. There's no RPG worth playing that a company heavily invested in tablets/mobile has made.

did pillars of eternity fly over your head?

 

[LarsWestergren]

Sure, companies that start out on mobile usually have a slightly different ideas of what constitute a good game, but for a company that has done many previous PC RPGS, does porting a single card/boardgame to mobile really count as heavy investment? Something the rights holder said was "easier for them to get up running fast" than making a full title?

I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of people involved.

 

[Roguey]

After announcing a tablet game I don't know how anyone can have faith in Obsidian anymore. I thought they were better than that. There's no RPG worth playing that a company heavily invested in tablets/mobile has made.

Content-wise, Dragonfall is better than several Obsidian products.

 

[Sensuki]

Is Chris Avellone the lead

 

[Scruffy]

I thought they were better than that.

everyone likes money

 

[handup]

Also, this is without going into the fact that the adventure paths are some of the best ease-of-play things ever crafted for P&P, and since you only do adventure paths when you need something easy that isn't too taxing on the GM to run, going "you could just convert that" is a very poor argument.
Pathfinder is the best system for half-n-half roleplaying adventure and tactical combat with focus on character development. Since that is what we like to play when we don't play super-duper serious games, Pathfinder is perfect for us. Other stuff we run of those types of games are Shadowrun in GURPS, for example.

Okay, retracing my steps here. I myself prefer more complex systems that encourage the dm to play around with the system, but you said quite clearly that you only use Pathfinder for quick roll and play games and that for other situations you use GURPS, did you not? I was merely going by what you said and trying to point out that Pthfinder is not that good for those kinds of games, which you then claim is an asset. (I ignored the thing about half roleplaying half combat because every single dm I've met says that and it doesn't tell me anything about what you want from the game) Then you say you like the complexity and breadth of content that Pathfinder has. Well, why not play GURPS Dungeon Fantasy then? I'm sure you're familiar with it.(or Harnmaster)

Also, I should have been focusing more on providing the alternatives, you're right.

Extreme wealth of customization to my players.

Dungeon Fantasy: It's GURPS
Castles and Crusades: The relative minimalism that the characters have makes homebrewing extremely easy. The Castle Keeper's guide very much encourages that. You can Dual and Multiclass just like in 2nd Ed. There are feats in the Castle's Keeper and you can quite easily port many from 3.5 and Pathfinder to it. The choice of what stats you make prime gives quite a lot of depth. While the ways in which you customize your character are more subtle, the options are there.
Fantasy Craft: Increased flexibility and customization is one of its main selling points and I think it pretty much succeeded. While there are fewer options than Pathfinder most of them are clear, intuitive and don't require you to jump through hoops.You won't build an Acrobat Thief only to be outclassed by a mage with fly and knock.

Ease-of-use, well-written, well-tested expansive adventure paths.

I don't use them so I really don't have any clue about them. I heard C&C's are quite good. But I heard that from people who are diehard C&C fans so take that with a grain of salt.

Goes well with a campaign that takes a 50% roleplaying, 50% very gamified tactical combat approach.

Illusion of moderation and all that. I'll just say that I feel all of three that I mentioned manage to do that quite well. Fantasy Craft does have a more gamified social system, but I've never seen it get in the way of roleplaying.

Fantastic database.

GURPS needs a database so badly. At least 3rd edition had the advantages and disadvantages divided by physical, mental and social, but 4th edition? Oh god. But Dungeon Fantasy has all the relevant adv, disad and skills in a nice list.

Somewhat polished rulesystem where an experienced player or GM can easily iron out kinks. I mean, my house-rule document isn't even that long!

I don't use homebrew in any of those systems except for case-by-case examples.

Wealth of content beyond adventures and supplements.

Both C&C and FC are being constantly updated and while neither of them has been around for as long as Pathfinder there is a lot to pick and choose from.

Both of these are better balanced and more intuitive, while at the same time allowing the dm to branch out and make the game more complex if he feels like it. Wading through a ton of shit to get to the good parts and homebrewing fixes, when in other systems the good choices are already presented front and centre to you seems senseless. But, anyway yeah I can see where you're coming from, I guess I just value good groundwork more in my RPGs.

 

[handup]

In other words: the teams making complex RPG systems are not equipped to create perfection. When I call Pathfinder a 'fantastic system', I am comparing it to its contemporaries. I think any hypothetical argument, though interesting I suppose, ultimately misses the point. We're here. We're playing. Of course we're going to call the things that work best in practice the best, until something that meets the hypothetical and perfect standards, believed possible by people like Excidium or Roguey, comes along.

JES sez if someone wants to play a fantasy RPG, they should just use Toon's rules. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/35419-does-anyone-else-share-my-dislike-of-d20/page-8#entry391706

You do know he was being ironic, right?

 

[Grunker]

In other words: the teams making complex RPG systems are not equipped to create perfection. When I call Pathfinder a 'fantastic system', I am comparing it to its contemporaries. I think any hypothetical argument, though interesting I suppose, ultimately misses the point. We're here. We're playing. Of course we're going to call the things that work best in practice the best, until something that meets the hypothetical and perfect standards, believed possible by people like Excidium or Roguey, comes along.

JES sez if someone wants to play a fantasy RPG, they should just use Toon's rules. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/35419-does-anyone-else-share-my-dislike-of-d20/page-8#entry391706

He's also fond of CoC: Delta Green, though it isn't the fantasy people tend to think about when you say "fantasy rpg." And Ars Magica which is a proper mage-playing game, as opposed to a mage-playing-game-with-trap-classes.

Toon, lol. Apparantly Sawyer has a sense of humor where your lack of empathic ability sends you into a trap

Come back when you have something that fits just a single one of my 6 points

I'm surprised he likes Delta Green. The game is awesome, but the system leaves much to be desired. Ars Magicka is obviously awesome.

Okay, retracing my steps here. I myself prefer more complex systems that encourage the dm to play around with the system, but you said quite clearly that you only use Pathfinder for quick roll and play games and that for other situations you use GURPS, did you not?

No, I did not. You misunderstood me quite a lot. I said:

Pathfinder is the best system for half-n-half roleplaying adventure and tactical combat with focus on character development. Since that is what we like to play when we don't play super-duper serious games, Pathfinder is perfect for us. Other stuff we run of those types of games are Shadowrun in GURPS, for example.

As in: if I want to run a heavily realistic medieval campaign, we go for GURPS. If I want a one-shot about the inner workings of man, I will use no system at all. If I want to do horror, I might do any number of things, but usually a low-maintenance system.

Pathfinder is for games that need complex rules but little or easily done but vast amounts of preparation. It's my junkfood, in other words. Not in the sense of "bad food" but in the sense of "food easily prepared, easily eatable and obviously not a three course meal on a fine restaurant."

Well, why not play GURPS Dungeon Fantasy then?

I refer to points #2, #4 and #6:

2) Ease-of-use, well-written, well-tested expansive adventure paths.

[...]

4) Fantastic database (perhaps the best we've seen and will see for a very long time).

[...]

6) Wealth of content beyond adventures and supplements.

Also, GURPS is not class-based. You might as well ask me why I don't go see Lord of the Rings when I'm in the mood for a SCI-FI thriller.

To the rest of the points, I belive your post is more a defense of my position than your own really. By going through each point, you clearly underline that none of the systems you suggest even come close to matching every point the way Pathfinder does. I would even give you a hand-out and say we drop the database requirement.

Wading through a ton of shit to get to the good parts and homebrewing fixes

You're grasping for straws now, bro. "Wading through a ton of shit" is a gross overstatement.

My current playgroup has TWO veteran D&D players that were mildly famiiar with Pathfinder before we begun. All have managed to build competent characters with tiny bits of guidance from me, and no one feels left over or superflous when we fight.

Pathfinder has problems of the kind you identify, sure. But don't stretch it mate.

But, anyway yeah I can see where you're coming from, I guess I just value good groundwork more in my RPGs.

You do? I'm still contesting that the RPGs you mention have "better groundwork."

What do you think of 5E, by the way? It seems to consider many of the things you have problems with. As I understand it, "mathematical soundness" was one of the goals.

 

[handup]

GURPS is not class-based

Dungeon Fantasy is, and you can only buy advantages according to your template, unless you take a multiclass lens which does exactly what it sounds like it does. It's still not level-based, but I consider that a pro rather than a con.

if I want to run a heavily realistic medieval campaign, we go for GURPS

Rumors of Gurps' strive for realism have been greatly exaggerated.

2) Ease-of-use, well-written, well-tested expansive adventure paths.

[...]

4) Fantastic database (perhaps the best we've seen and will see for a very long time).

[...]

6) Wealth of content beyond adventures and supplements.

I can't really help you there since this is all stuff I don't care about. Most of these factors are caused by the fact that the system is popular rather than inherent in the system itself. Also, could you specify what you mean by 6), like pathfinder decks and stuff?

You're grasping for straws now, bro. "Wading through a ton of shit" is a gross overstatement.

Unarmed Monk, acrobatics-based rogue, sword and shield fighter, one weapon duelist, "mundane"(no spell-casting) high-Int skillmonkey. These are all concepts that frequently come up at our table and which are almost always sub-par in this system. When I was playing an alchemist and I was genuinely trying to play as an alchemist using potions to augment my players rather than a grenadier or whatever the vivisectionist is I found that pretty much all of the options were some kind of Mad Scientist style grow a tentacle or clone yourself stuff. If you want to play as a bard and then decide to pick a template you will find that most of them are rubbish even though they sound cool in concept and many of them have nothing to do with the bard as a character. Archivist is a cool archetype too bad no player who wants to play as one will look at the bard archetype list. They will just roll a wizard, same with arcane duelist or the archeologist or the Sandman. None of these have anything to do with singing songs (Well the Sandman does have the Sumber song thing, but all in all it still feels like only someone who likes rogues would play as him.) You also have buccaneer, daredevil, sea singer all representing more or less the same character. And what about Celebrity, court bard, demagogue same deal. Do we need all these? This is what I mean when I say wade through shit. Is it an overstatement? Maybe, but not a gross one.

You do? I'm still contesting that the RPGs you mention have "better groundwork."

Well we are on the internet so short of both going full plane tickets bitch and playing a game together you're just gonna have to take my word for it.

What do you think of 5E, by the way? It seems to consider many of the things you have problems with.

I have been plenty busy this past month but from what I skimped it's trying to appeal to fans of earlier editions. I'm already a pretty big retroclone fan so I didn't feel like it brought anything new. But if someone offers to dm it and I have fun I'll give it another look over.

 

[Grunker]

Rumors of Gurps' strive for realism have been greatly exaggerated.

Another comment right up Excidium's alley. There is no realistic system. 360 degree simulationism does not exist. Fine, can we get on discussing real things now? GURPS is great at simulation. This was my point, and you know that it was. You also understood my junkfood metaphor, so the above is just an aside to show off or whatever.

Whatever it is, it is irrelevant to our discussion.

I can't really help you there since this is all stuff I don't care about.

"I think Pathfinder sucks but only because I don't care about the things it does well" is an exceedingly poor argument for the claim that Pathfinder sucks.

Unarmed Monk, acrobatics-based rogue, sword and shield fighter, one weapon duelist, "mundane"(no spell-casting) high-Int skillmonkey. These are all concepts that frequently come up at our table and which are almost always sub-par in this system.

All those things can be made to work just fine in a game except the skill-monkey. In fact, in my last campaign, our flowing monk was often MVP because of battlefield control and defensive abilities.

The rest of your stuff suffers from Theorycraft mentality as well. I just finished Citadel of Pain with a potion-focused, bomb-chugging Alchemist being the best member of the party.

Well we are on the internet so short of both going full plane tickets bitch and playing a game together you're just gonna have to take my word for it.

Why don't you take my word for it instead then? Right. Burden of evidence is on the one making the claim, brother. So no, your word is useless to me.

All in all, your complaints seem to fit three categories:

1) Your first claim is that Pathfinder is bad, but you seem to recognize that Pathfinder's advantages - whether you care about them or not - do not exist elsewhere.

2) You overstate, in my mind, the flaws in the system for experienced players. The obvious pit traps are easily dealt with and even during play you can fix imbalances in your group with relative ease. I conceded to the point that for new players, this sucked major ass, but refered you to the fact that some games are simply more demanding than others.

3) You claim that several other games are better than Pathfinder at doing what Pathfinder does, but since you are unwilling to show exactly how, and I deny this point though I know the games you speak of, this is a moot point unless either of us are willing to some serious referal-posting. I know I'm not.

 

[Duraframe300]

Is Chris Avellone the lead

I don't think he would be needed on a card game port.

He might be for the crpg though.

 

[Athelas]

I assume he would be the creative lead (rather than the lead designer), while letting someone else handle all that pesky gameplay stuff.

Meanwhile, at the Wasteland forums:
https://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=8119

Obsidian Fails Again
http://pathfinder.obsidian.net/
http://pathfinder.obsidian.net/


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

People like to bag on InXile, but at least since Kickstarter was proved viable they have been consistent in only making traditional/hardcore cRPGs and ONLY going through Kickstarter to make games (which means only making games their core fans wan), meanwhile OE continues hypocritically milking nostalgia with PoE (while tearing up D&D mechanics and using MMO mechanics) while doing casual rubbish on the side. F2P Tank MMO, South Park RPG, tablet card game, lololololololololol

 

[handup]

Another comment right up Excidium's alley. There is no realistic system. 360 degree simulationism does not exist. Fine, can we get on discussing real things now? GURPS is great at simulation. This was my point, and you know that it was. You also understood my junkfood metaphor, so the above is just an aside to show off or whatever.

Whatever it is, it is irrelevant to our discussion.

I know it's irrelevant to the conversation. It was just a joke. You can tell because it's a movie reference, which we know are always funny.

"I think Pathfinder sucks but only because I don't care about the things it does well" is an exceedingly poor argument for the claim that Pathfinder sucks.

I wasn't trying to make that argument. I was simply conceding that point. For all I know, what you're saying is very true, no use in me arguing that point.

Your first claim is that Pathfinder is bad, but you seem to recognize that Pathfinder's advantages - whether you care about them or not - do not exist elsewhere.

I never said that Pathfinder is bad. I simply dislike: a) the unintuitive character creation and b) the lack of balance between casters and non-casters, both problems that it promised it would fix and did not, but which are solved in those two games I mentioned. That does not mean I hate Pathfinder or that I think it sucks. I've played some good games on it.

Why don't you take my word for it instead then? Right. Burden of evidence is on the one making the claim, brother. So no, your word is useless to me.

I didn't really want to convince you of anything. I just wanted to suggest that there were games that I feel did the thing I had a problem with better. Now, you obviously think Pathfinder has other advantages, but I don't care about them. And that's fine. I was just trying to say "Agree to disagree" while also suggesting I wouldn't mind playing with you sometime with that comment. I was not literally suggesting you believe me.

You claim that several other games are better than Pathfinder at doing what Pathfinder does, but since you are unwilling to show exactly how, and I deny this point though I know the games you speak of, this is a moot point unless either of us are willing to some serious referal-posting. I know I'm not.

That is because we have differing opinion on what Pathfinder does.(or should do) I'm not unwilling I simply realized this and was trying to finish the argument. I'm sure you realized this too going by your previous comments, but I think you sensed hostility on my part or something.

 

[Grunker]

I know it's irrelevant to the conversation. It was just a joke. You can tell because it's a movie reference, which we know are always funny.

Didn't catch the reference, not native English speaker.

I wasn't trying to make that argument. I was simply conceding that point. For all I know, what you're saying is very true, no use in me arguing that point.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your concession.

I never said that Pathfinder is bad. I simply dislike: a) the unintuitive character creation and b) the lack of balance between casters and non-casters, both problems that it promised it would fix and did not, but which are solved in those two games I mentioned. That does not mean I hate Pathfinder or that I think it sucks. I've played some good games on it.

Quick note: I find the balance is tilted in favor of non-casters much more in practice. Like, most games don't go beyond 12 or 13, and in practice, with resource drain, casters are screwed more. It's not that I don't recognize this problem, it's just that your opinion (and the default theorycraft opinion it overlaps with) isn't my experience in practice.

but I think you sensed hostility on my part or something.

Not really, I just like arguing. I think we agree on most things at this juncture, or at least agree on what we disagree on. Thank you for the conversation.