Talk:Party Archetypes

The "1d4chan is not TvTropes" problem will not go away simply by putting all of this on another page, you know. Nor does it change the fact that page is still irrepressibly dull and unfunny to read.in short, it solves none of the problems that it had in the first place. --Newerfag (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fair, fair. I get it. I just don't get how this is a problem. I don't see where it's from, and I don't see how a sepereate list does anything bad to the site. Is there some sort of culture who we gotta defend? How does this freakin' list undermine anything, at all? TheWiseDane (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Its tone and writing style just clash with the wiki too much, so to speak. There's no humor value in it, it's not particularly informative since the roles are too generic to take into account the inevitable exceptions to the rule, the massive textwalls don't say anything that a sentence or two couldn't state more clearly, and half of the story and fluff archetypes listed are subjective. If nothing else, consider cutting down on unnecessary details and merging archetypes that are so similar that the difference is arbitrary- for example, I don't need to be told that "The Driver" may not necessarily drive a car, and the Brick and Tank can be folded into a single archetype effortlessly. In short, try to say more with less. --Newerfag (talk)
  • Thank you for a second chance, happy to see that we can make a compromise. I've been thinking that too, so I'll get to remaking a good portion of this soon. As in, when I can be arsed. Yeah I know I know, I'll get to it, don't worry. TheWiseDane (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Way ahead of you. I took the time to redo it all myself. (I noticed that the "fluffy roles" were ones that could still be adequately covered by crunch, so I changed "Crunchy Roles" and "Fluffy Roles" to "Combat Roles" and "Non-Combat Roles" instead, which is more accurate.)--Newerfag (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed it is. That's, eh... A start. Certainly. I actually feel like editting it now, which just goes to show how unweildy it was before! TheWiseDane (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Little sad we lost all of that alliteration, if needs must I suppose Groggarioth (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2015 (UK)