Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears

[Jiggy]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

1) As if the game wasn't poisoned enough by munchkins and minmaxers, the Forge of Combat further reduces game concepts to board game/MMO status. I appreciate build threads - I really do - but I have found that munchkin types often infect non-maximization threads with rules lawyering and other powergamer nonsense. This is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game, after all. The Forge of Combat makes this even more obscene.

Agreed. Reductionist thinking obviously has its place, but fantasy gaming is just about the worst place there is for it. It's anathema to the nature of the beast, which is to be expansive, baroque, and whimsical (of course I mean in reasoning, not necessarily tone).

People who think that anyone who discusses combat in mechanical terms must necessarily only think of the game in terms of combat or otherwise "reduces" the game from what it is to something else. As though an unfamiliarity with combat were somehow required in order to grasp the rest of the game.

[Jerry Wright 307]

People who boil down arguments they disagree with into bald statements bereft of context to create a false impression so that the resulting weaker argument can be overcome.

Must be a lawyer (or works for Fox News).

[Vincent Takeda]

General overall contrariness for contrariness's sake and ragebaiting. Must be a libra.

[TarkXT]

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

1) As if the game wasn't poisoned enough by munchkins and minmaxers, the Forge of Combat further reduces game concepts to board game/MMO status. I appreciate build threads - I really do - but I have found that munchkin types often infect non-maximization threads with rules lawyering and other powergamer nonsense. This is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game, after all. The Forge of Combat makes this even more obscene.

What part of it turns it into an mmo/boardgame more than the assumption s players start with already? Further, what part of it stops you from playing the character you want?

[Anzyr]

TarkXT wrote:

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

1) As if the game wasn't poisoned enough by munchkins and minmaxers, the Forge of Combat further reduces game concepts to board game/MMO status. I appreciate build threads - I really do - but I have found that munchkin types often infect non-maximization threads with rules lawyering and other powergamer nonsense. This is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game, after all. The Forge of Combat makes this even more obscene.

What part of it turns it into an mmo/boardgame more than the assumption s players start with already? Further, what part of it stops you from playing the character you want?

/sarcasm

Adventurers aren't allowed to be competent at tactics TarkXT, what do you think they do? Explore hazardous ruins and fight dangerous monsters for a living? I mean really what possible reason would professional adventurers have to combat tactics?

/sarcasm

[137ben]

The claims that back before Evil Videogames, roleplaying games were so much better because no one was thinking about mechanics or 'winning', and then when videogames came out they polluted people's minds and made them munchkins. Seriously, look at release dates:
Cathode ray tube amusement device: 1947
Spacewar!: 1962
Computer Space: 1971
Pong: 1972
OD&D: 1974

Seriously, widely available arcade video games like Pong (which reached a wider audience than RPGs every have) have literally been around before RPGs. Before video games came along, there were no roleplaying games.
The earliest video games (pre-1970ish) reached fairly small audiences, so there were plenty of gamers in the 1950s and 1960s who had never played a video game. But they weren't playing roleplaying games, they were playing wargames. Ya know, those things with no roleplaying or character development.
And it got even better in the 1980s when video games started introducing *gasp* detailed stories and complex characters who develop. Filthy munckins!

If video games had any effect on how this hobby has developed, they helped change tabletop wargaming into roleplaying.

[Quark Blast]

137ben wrote:

If you read the actual Eberron books (the main books that Baker wrote, anyways), he actually goes into a lot of detail as to what is inhibiting each faction back. I can't paraphrase all the reasons in this forum post, since they take up multiple books and you should just read those if you want to know.

See my comments below to Anzyr and wraithstrike but for now let me say:

Self-spawning undead would devastate three of the remaining four kingdoms of old Galifar. Only Thrane has a snowballs chance to avoid this fate. Remember true clerics are rare in Eberron but undead are not.

KB's details only make the situation worse. In FR I can ask why the Beholders and Drow don't rule Waterdeep already. But the in-setting answer is a general hand-wave that the Lords of Waterdeep have things mostly in hand. Khelben Arunsun is among them and maybe not even the most powerful member. That handwavery provides enough space to have PC's enter the adventure.

Contrast that with Eberron and the question becomes:
What could the PCs ever do to make a difference? Even an elven PC wouldn't live long enough to follow through on a plan significant enough to challenge the main forces of Big Bad Evilness.

In exchange for not being on the B-Team, Eberron sets the PCs up as marionettes.

wraithstrike wrote:

...logic holes...

It's not the logic holes that trip me up in Eberron. It's the verisimilitude. If I look at the setting as a whole, then nothing I can do as a PC will ever make any difference in Eberron at all... unless the DM orchestrates it that way.

For most settings, the logic holes are what the game is built around. Ostensibly Eberron was built to fix these types of problems. But in doing so it steps through the 4th wall, if you will.

Anzyr wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

Eberron takes a certain type of DM - one who's willing to put in ####loads of work to even get the campaign off the ground - and a group of players willing to suspend all the logical questions (like why hasn't Vol Summon Shadow-bombed her enemies centuries ago?).

Because the first time she tried it, it would bring down the unified wrath of powers much stronger then her. Also there's that dragon game around the prophecy that could prevent (or cause) it.

But her goals are actually pretty darned limited. And she has, in KB's own words,

KB wrote:

"abilities that reflect the fact that she is one of the greatest (un)living necromancers of the age..."

She's also had 3,000 years to plan her revenge and her INT is higher than anyone posting on this forum. Given all that, she is practically unstoppable in a noir pulp sort of way. The fact that she hasn't already been successful in her revenge equates to DM fiat.

But the big problems are that the Lords of Dust, the Mockery, the forces of Khyber, the Dreaming Dark, and the..., are not really trying to do anything coherent. These are groups that have goals, from a sane perspective, that equate to "Let's burn the whole place down!

And given the levels and numbers of good and neutral folks in the setting, there's no good reason why they haven't done that already.

And yes, there is always the ultimate dues ex machina for Eberron, namely the Draconic Prophecy. I alluded to that up thread. It's the ever present Get Out of Logic Free card for the whole setting. But it also means it doesn't matter what the PCs do because... well... "Draconic Prophecy".

And for that to be fun, takes one heck of a DM willing to put in a ####load of work prior to and following each game session. I'm totally looking forward to this challenge as the DM who invited me knows my 'tude and has shown me that he's prepped to handle these many issues.

[thejeff]

137ben wrote:

The claims that back before Evil Videogames, roleplaying games were so much better because no one was thinking about mechanics or 'winning', and then when videogames came out they polluted people's minds and made them munchkins. Seriously, look at release dates:

Cathode ray tube amusement device: 1947
Spacewar!: 1962
Computer Space: 1971
Pong: 1972
OD&D: 1974

Seriously, widely available arcade video games like Pong (which reached a wider audience than RPGs every have) have literally been around before RPGs. Before video games came along, there were no roleplaying games.
The earliest video games (pre-1970ish) reached fairly small audiences, so there were plenty of gamers in the 1950s and 1960s who had never played a video game. But they weren't playing roleplaying games, they were playing wargames. Ya know, those things with no roleplaying or character development.
And it got even better in the 1980s when video games started introducing *gasp* detailed stories and complex characters who develop. Filthy munckins!

If video games had any effect on how this hobby has developed, they helped change tabletop wargaming into roleplaying.

That's a bit of a stretch. I think when people talk about the influence of videogames on table top, they're talking about Computer RPGs influencing pen and paper RPGs, not Pong.

And CRPGs came directly from P&P ones.

[wraithstrike]

Logic holes and their ability to be ignored is dependent on how a person accepts certain things which is basically verisimilitude for that person.

As to Vol, depending on whether or not the dragons still want to kill her she may die if she were to try to shadow spawn the rest of the world.

It really depends on which dragon(s) care about what she does. There are probably other powers in play that might get in the way. I just dont feel like opening my book to check. :)

[137ben]

thejeff wrote:

137ben wrote:

The claims that back before Evil Videogames, roleplaying games were so much better because no one was thinking about mechanics or 'winning', and then when videogames came out they polluted people's minds and made them munchkins. Seriously, look at release dates:

Cathode ray tube amusement device: 1947
Spacewar!: 1962
Computer Space: 1971
Pong: 1972
OD&D: 1974

Seriously, widely available arcade video games like Pong (which reached a wider audience than RPGs every have) have literally been around before RPGs. Before video games came along, there were no roleplaying games.
The earliest video games (pre-1970ish) reached fairly small audiences, so there were plenty of gamers in the 1950s and 1960s who had never played a video game. But they weren't playing roleplaying games, they were playing wargames. Ya know, those things with no roleplaying or character development.
And it got even better in the 1980s when video games started introducing *gasp* detailed stories and complex characters who develop. Filthy munckins!

If video games had any effect on how this hobby has developed, they helped change tabletop wargaming into roleplaying.

That's a bit of a stretch. I think when people talk about the influence of videogames on table top, they're talking about Computer RPGs influencing pen and paper RPGs, not Pong.

And CRPGs came directly from P&P ones.

Okay, so games like Rogue (1980), Dragonstomper (1982), Dragon Quest (1986), Legend of Zelda (1986), Zelda II (1987, which, unlike the previous game, contained xp and levels), Final Fantasy (1987), and its immediate sequel (1988). While those were all heavily influenced by P&PRPGS (as you correctly pointed out), all of them predate AD&D 2e. I don't know about you, but most of the time when I see people complaining about video games influencing RPGs, they complain that the 'corruption' started either during the release of 2e supplements, at the onset of 3e, or at the onset of 4e, all of which are long after the early 1980s popularization of CRPGs.

[137ben]

Quark Blast wrote:

She's also had 3,000 years to plan her revenge and her INT is higher than anyone posting on this forum. Given all that, she is practically unstoppable in a noir pulp sort of way. The fact that she hasn't already been successful in her revenge equates to DM fiat.

And what is holding her back is explained in the books. Despite her high intelligence, she is not omnipotent, and hasn't (yet) figured out a way around those obstacles.

Quote:

But the big problems are that the Lords of Dust, the Mockery, the forces of Khyber, the Dreaming Dark, and the..., are not really trying to do anything coherent. These are groups that have goals, from a sane perspective, that equate to "Let's burn the whole place down!

Except, they aren't. The Lords of Dust aren't one strong allience--they each want to advance the goals of their own patron Rajah overlord. There are 30 Rajah's each of which have different goals. The Lords of Dust are as much enemies to each other as they are to the PCs. The Lords of Dust who follow one Rajah can't get what they want because the followers of the other 29 Rajahs are stopping them. Even if multiple Rajahs were released, they wouldn't be allies, because they want different things.

[Quark Blast]

wraithstrike wrote:

Logic holes and their ability to be ignored is dependent on how a person accepts certain things which is basically verisimilitude for that person.

As to Vol, depending on whether or not the dragons still want to kill her she may die if she were to try to shadow spawn the rest of the world.

It really depends on which dragon(s) care about what she does. There are probably other powers in play that might get in the way. I just don't feel like opening my book to check. :)

Yes but, unlike the others I listed, Vol isn't trying to just "set things on fire". Her revenge is narrowly focused and, given her abilities, she should have long since eaten that delectably cold dish.

As for the others, those listed and maybe a few I forgot, asymmetric warfare is the way to go. Those groups don't care if the whole world ends up looking like the Mournland. Look how few determined actors it takes ITRW to devastate a country.

And while I'm technically staying on topic, it's all rather academic as I've already made my point.

EDIT
Vol Solution: Summon Shadow-bomb her enemies.

The Lords of Dust may not trust each other, and their followers the same; just like ISIS and Al Qaeda don't seem to work directly together but, even without that cooperation, they do a darned good job of devastating large portions of civilization. So the Lords of Dust... who, I hasten to add, are not nearly so internationally impotent as our modern day terrors (magic, manifest zones, etc. allowing for far greater mayhem).

[TheMonocleRogue]

People going off topic in a thread and derailing the discussion because they just HAVE to post their opinion about a rule someone mentioned that isn't in the core rulebook. Had my first big thread derailed that way. Now I can only shake my head whenever someone else does this.

[Jerry Wright 307]

This thread is about logic holes and how to fill them, right?

[Quark Blast]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

This thread is about logic holes and how to fill them, right?

Only those that "Grind Your Gears". ;)

[TarkXT]

Anzyr wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

1) As if the game wasn't poisoned enough by munchkins and minmaxers, the Forge of Combat further reduces game concepts to board game/MMO status. I appreciate build threads - I really do - but I have found that munchkin types often infect non-maximization threads with rules lawyering and other powergamer nonsense. This is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game, after all. The Forge of Combat makes this even more obscene.

What part of it turns it into an mmo/boardgame more than the assumption s players start with already? Further, what part of it stops you from playing the character you want?

/sarcasm

Adventurers aren't allowed to be competent at tactics TarkXT, what do you think they do? Explore hazardous ruins and fight dangerous monsters for a living? I mean really what possible reason would professional adventurers have to combat tactics?

/sarcasm

It's a serious question.

I mean it's the first part of the first post of the thread.

And it's not exactly the first criticism I've heard. But, most of those revolve around a general distaste for having a gamist attitude that the critic feels is out of place, but that's a different subject altogether.

This however is hurled with such venom and vitriol I am somewhat surprised. Moreover given the posters history, one thread in which he starts with "I am the group's rules lawyer and I am annoying as hell."

Heck there's even a thread that explicitly encourages building a min/maxed team. Yet, somehow this single piece of work is the target of such strong languge.

And even here he doesn't have a problem with build threads which tend to only favor individual group members and are often rife with heavy optimization but the forge of combat, a work I've felt encourages minimalistic optimization and fosters teamwork, obscene?

Am I missing something here? Has anyone's experience really been hurt by a practical analysis of combat and a breakdown of how to build a successful group?

[Anzyr]

TarkXT wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

1) As if the game wasn't poisoned enough by munchkins and minmaxers, the Forge of Combat further reduces game concepts to board game/MMO status. I appreciate build threads - I really do - but I have found that munchkin types often infect non-maximization threads with rules lawyering and other powergamer nonsense. This is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game, after all. The Forge of Combat makes this even more obscene.

What part of it turns it into an mmo/boardgame more than the assumption s players start with already? Further, what part of it stops you from playing the character you want?

/sarcasm

Adventurers aren't allowed to be competent at tactics TarkXT, what do you think they do? Explore hazardous ruins and fight dangerous monsters for a living? I mean really what possible reason would professional adventurers have to combat tactics?

/sarcasm

It's a serious question.

I mean it's the first part of the first post of the thread.

And it's not exactly the first criticism I've heard. But, most of those revolve around a general distaste for having a gamist attitude that the critic feels is out of place, but that's a different subject altogether.

This however is hurled with such venom and vitriol I am somewhat surprised. Moreover given the posters history, one thread in which he starts with "I am the group's rules lawyer and I am annoying as hell."

Heck there's even a thread that explicitly encourages building a min/maxed team. Yet, somehow this single piece of work is the target of such strong languge.

I believe the phrase is "Haters gonna hate."

[TarkXT]

Oh, yeah, and reducing someone's work to the status of a "meme". Along the lines of a grumpy cat caption. Pretty disrespectful.

[Rynjin]

TarkXT wrote:

Oh, yeah, and reducing someone's work to the status of a "meme". Along the lines of a grumpy cat caption. Pretty disrespectful.

While that is the appropriated meaning of "meme" all it really means is a bit of "cultural DNA". It's something that is ingrained in a culture to the point that most people know what it is, even if they don't know the name.

The Stormwind Fallacy is a meme specific to PFRPG culture.

In a broader view, the concept of Santa Claus, or to a deeper extent "clean, well dressed, and well spoken" being synonymous with "successful".

[Kalindlara]

TarkXT wrote:

Oh, yeah, and reducing someone's work to the status of a "meme". Along the lines of a grumpy cat caption. Pretty disrespectful.

Can... can I still post my not-especially-inspired Shake It Off reference?

[Fergie]

TarkXT wrote:

Am I missing something here? Has anyone's experience really been hurt by a practical analysis of combat and a breakdown of how to build a successful group?

I think the problem is that people forget that guides like that are general advice for defeating combat encounters, or building the Most Powerful PC, not how to play the game correctly. Viewing these guides as anything more then opinion is a recipe for problems, especially when much of the advice is about winning combats, not enjoying the game. The guides themselves often contain some text or fine print about using the advice sparingly (or not in a real game), but it is often overwhelmed by the rest of the text.

Any time you use generalities, especially ones that are supposedly based on the "math" of the rules systems, to advise people how their PC best operates, you are on really shaky ground. When you are talking about assigning "roles" or "jobs" to PCs in a game where they are supposed to be personalities, you rub many people the wrong way. Getting told that your character is doing it wrong because he isn't "tanking", "striking", "hammering" or whatever turns people off to that playstyle and sometimes the game itself.

The problem with guides and optimization, arise when people fail to separate Theoretical Optimization from Practical Optimization. One is about stretching/breaking the rules system, the other is about enjoying the game.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Fergie wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Am I missing something here? Has anyone's experience really been hurt by a practical analysis of combat and a breakdown of how to build a successful group?

I think the problem is that people forget that guides like that are general advice for defeating combat encounters, or building the Most Powerful PC, not how to play the game correctly. Viewing these guides as anything more then opinion is a recipe for problems, especially when much of the advice is about winning combats, not enjoying the game. The guides themselves often contain some text or fine print about using the advice sparingly (or not in a real game), but it is often overwhelmed by the rest of the text.

Any time you use generalities, especially ones that are supposedly based on the "math" of the rules systems, to advise people how their PC best operates, you are on really shaky ground. When you are talking about assigning "roles" or "jobs" to PCs in a game where they are supposed to be personalities, you rub many people the wrong way. Getting told that your character is doing it wrong because he isn't "tanking", "striking", "hammering" or whatever turns people off to that playstyle and sometimes the game itself.

The problem with guides and optimization, arise when people fail to separate Theoretical Optimization from Practical Optimization. One is about stretching/breaking the rules system, the other is about enjoying the game.

First time I ever heard the term "DPS" was when I was listening to the power-gamer of our group advising a newbie on how to create his ranger. And believe me, the entire conversation was about mechanics. Fortunately, the newbie was a drama major and it all went over his head. He created his ranger based on social and cultural choices, not game mechanics.

EDIT: The ranger was a Cajun-style Elven alligator hunter from a swamp the party was crossing though. He fit right into the GM's world (the GM was a recent graduate of LSU).

[Lemmy]

Claims of victimhood...

Just because someone disagrees with you or criticizes a certain aspect of the game, it doesn't mean they are accusing you of having BADWRONGFUN! Stop whining and acting like you're a brave little martyr being oppressed by the evil munchkins who are "poisoning" this hobby!

[Jerry Wright 307]

Lemmy wrote:

Claims of victimhood...

Just because someone disagrees with you or criticizes a certain aspect of the game, it doesn't mean they are accusing you of having BADWRONGFUN! Stop whining and acting like you're a brave little martyr being oppressed by the evil munchkins who are "poisoning" this hobby!

How should you act when you're being oppressed by evil munchkins?

[Lemmy]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Claims of victimhood...

Just because someone disagrees with you or criticizes a certain aspect of the game, it doesn't mean they are accusing you of having BADWRONGFUN! Stop whining and acting like you're a brave little martyr being oppressed by the evil munchkins who are "poisoning" this hobby!

How should you act when you're being oppressed by evil munchkins?

Dunno. Never seen it happen.

[thejeff]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Claims of victimhood...

Just because someone disagrees with you or criticizes a certain aspect of the game, it doesn't mean they are accusing you of having BADWRONGFUN! Stop whining and acting like you're a brave little martyr being oppressed by the evil munchkins who are "poisoning" this hobby!

How should you act when you're being oppressed by evil munchkins?

I think that was the plot of a game back in high school.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Xethik wrote:

As someone who often pulls the OP's second complaint:

When someone necros a thread and replies to posts years old in a manner that seems to expect a response. Or someone comes in shortly after the necro post and does the same. If you are necro'ing a thread, I feel it's worth mentioning in your post. Otherwise you end up with people arguing with ghosts and that's always awkward.

I necromance a ton, and I sadly often forget this note. In my defense, they're usually 7-post threads about rules debates that never caught much attention.

I'd rather necromance than clutter things up with a redundant thread.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Also, my hated meme: Milk-drinking. I'm sick of people referencing that thread. Seriously, my player did it yesterday, and I was so pissed at him I kicked him out of my gaming group. Serves him right.

It makes me mad because I forgot the title of the thread and can't find it now. :(

[Thymus Vulgaris]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Claims of victimhood...

Just because someone disagrees with you or criticizes a certain aspect of the game, it doesn't mean they are accusing you of having BADWRONGFUN! Stop whining and acting like you're a brave little martyr being oppressed by the evil munchkins who are "poisoning" this hobby!

How should you act when you're being oppressed by evil munchkins?

Accept your fate and pet your fuzzy, short-legged overlords.

[Scythia]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

How should you act when you're being oppressed by evil munchkins?

You should wait for a house to be dropped on you, and your shoes to be stolen.

[Avatar-1]

Kalindlara wrote:

I had a player literally do this at the table.

Jiggy mentioned this one on the same page you posted this!

I mean, on literally the same page you posted this!

[137ben]

18 years I have waited...

[Tacticslion]

EDIT: Always ninja'd... :D

Avatar-1 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

I had a player literally do this at the table.

Jiggy mentioned this one on the same page you posted this!

I mean, on literally the same page you posted this!

This... is really hilarious, however, it's possible that a slightly different "take" on literally could bear out the results that were witnessed.

While the definition is pretty solid (and probably leans away from it) one could actually choose to interpret it in such a manner as to make Kal's statement not exactly what Jiggy was talking about.

In other words, it was as literal as it could be, barring details (most notably in this instance would be the "really" or "truly" parts of the definition, more than the "exactly" or "precisely" parts). At least presuming she didn't literally engage in the exact behavior that Jiggy was calling out, which... she might have been.

Either way: funny post. :D

[Kobold Catgirl]

Yeah, they aren't exactly intensifiers.

"Literally" is frequently used nowadays as a preemptive ward against doubt. "He literally threw me out of class on the first day!"

This person isn't saying they were literally thrown. They're saying they were removed from class, but adding "literally" to show that they aren't exaggerating or lying. It's comparable in use to "actually".

"This song is objectively awesome." I do this a lot! It means that the song can be quantifiably proven to be awesome. This isn't word misuse, it's deliberate hyperbole.

[Kalindlara]

Avatar-1 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

I had a player literally do this at the table.

Jiggy mentioned this one on the same page you posted this!

I mean, on literally the same page you posted this!

I see what you did there. :)

The thing is... I meant literally. That post I was responding to described a certain type of forum post. How it's worded, the tone, etc. And man, this guy. Look up any of those "Help me build a rogue" threads. It'll save me from having to quote what this guy said, or how he said it.

So in this case... I meant literally. Not "it was similar", not "kind of like", but "this is the exact thing, in all its subtleties".

It was kind of funny, though.

P.S. Look up Weird Al's "Word Crimes". It... addresses this issue. :)

[MMCJawa]

biggest pet peeves?

While trying to keep myself as vague as possible...

Probably my biggest is that its impossible to have a reasoned discussion about certain topics in certain forums, without the the same set of posters coming into the thread and pitching a fit, causing a thread lock. At this point I would rather have some sort of forum specific ban than have to see this repeat over and over.

People who feel the need to bring their pet cause into every single thread, even one that has absolutely nothing remotely to do with the topic in question. This gets irritating fast, especially if this is the 500th similar post that person has made.

[Auxmaulous]

Grind my gears....

Threadcrapping/badwrongfun in the suggestion forums.

We get it, you don't even like the notion that someone would want to run a Low Magic Game or even consider the mechanics behind it. But the SUGGESTION FORUMS, where someone is looking for ideas on how to do so is not the place soapbox your gameview.

And this is not specific to low magic questions/suggestions/offerings. The above comment can also be phrased with "X topic" in the place of Low Magic Game.

[Tacticslion]

MMCJawa wrote:

biggest pet peeves?

While trying to keep myself as vague as possible...

Probably my biggest is that its impossible to have a reasoned discussion about certain topics in certain forums, without the the same set of posters coming into the thread and pitching a fit, causing a thread lock. At this point I would rather have some sort of forum specific ban than have to see this repeat over and over.

People who feel the need to bring their pet cause into every single thread, even one that has absolutely nothing remotely to do with the topic in question. This gets irritating fast, especially if this is the 500th similar post that person has made.

Is... is it me? It's me isn't it.

LOOK I JUST THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE AWARE THAT DIFFERENT PEOPLE PLAY THE GAME IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND WE SHOULD RESPECT THEM~! IS THAT SO WROOOOOOOONG~!?!?!?

*goes and weeps in a corner*

[Sissyl]

BAD TACTICSLION!!!

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

Playtest forums.

I usually go on hiatus when they come out.

I love the idea of an open playtest, but I would really like to see a much more rigid approach, with stated design goals and targeted discussion.

[Vincent Takeda]

Ooh. Good one, Mythic!

[Scavion]

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Playtest forums.

I usually go on hiatus when they come out.

I love the idea of an open playtest, but I would really like to see a much more rigid approach, with stated design goals and targeted discussion.

Urrrrgh.

I didn't touch the Occult Adventures playtest since the ACG one left a bad aftertaste.

[Nicos]

Scavion wrote:

I didn't touch the Occult Adventures playtest since the ACG one left a bad aftertaste.

For me, while I don't lie the ACG, at least the time I (and others) spent in the debate about not restricting the warpriest abilities to the deity favored weapon was somewhat worthy.

I didn't cared about occult anyways.

[Kobold Catgirl]

What's been getting on my nerves lately is how stubborn some Advice folk are about optimization. Even if you explicitly state you're looking for advice on a certain race or class, people will always ignore that and give what they think you should do.

I get pointing out, "An archaeologist may be more effective at that role than a rogue", but it gets ridiculous when you actually have to argue with the people who are supposed to be helping you out. I recently got in an argument because I wanted to have a slightly higher Dexterity than Strength, and even when I clearly stated that it was a matter of preference, he kept telling me I would end up nerfed because of a missing +1.

[137ben]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

What's been getting on my nerves lately is how stubborn some Advice folk are about optimization. Even if you explicitly state you're looking for advice on a certain race or class, people will always ignore that and give what they think you should do.

I get pointing out, "An archaeologist may be more effective at that role than a rogue", but it gets ridiculous when you actually have to argue with the people who are supposed to be helping you out. I recently got in an argument because I wanted to have a slightly higher Dexterity than Strength, and even when I clearly stated that it was a matter of preference, he kept telling me I would end up nerfed because of a missing +1.

Happens with GM advice and/or homebrew too. I remember a thread where someone was asking for advice for artifact creation rules for a mythic campaign (because that person's group was unsatisfied with the legendary weapon path ability)...

only for someone to insist that nope! You really don't want actual artifact creation, and anyone with half a brain knows why you don't want it.

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Playtest forums.

I usually go on hiatus when they come out.

I love the idea of an open playtest, but I would really like to see a much more rigid approach, with stated design goals and targeted discussion.

It used to bug me. I participated in open playtests for several different developers for several completely different products, along with closed playtests for homebrew systems. Paizo's playtests were completely different even from other commercial open playtests I participated in. Eventually I realized why:

Paizo isn't doing their playtests for the same reasons other companies and/or people do. By the time they do open playtests, the writing is already mostly done, and they need to send the final draft to the printers soon, so they can't get the same benefit out of it that most playtests give.
Paizo's open 'playtests' are there for an entirely different purpose: publicity. Paizo's open playtests are an elaborate marketing technique. They give the customers a taste of what is coming in the final product.
Once I realized that, it stopped bothering me. Sure, it's somewhat misleading, but it's no more misleading than any other marketing technique Paizo uses, and a lot more direct than misleading advertisement practiced by larger companies. So now, I just look at the playtest and see if I am interested. If I am, I might start dropping it into my campaign right away, or I might just wait for the actual thing to come out. If I'm not interested, I just ignore it after that.

[Tacticslion]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

What's been getting on my nerves lately is how stubborn some Advice folk are about optimization. Even if you explicitly state you're looking for advice on a certain race or class, people will always ignore that and give what they think you should do.

I get pointing out, "An archaeologist may be more effective at that role than a rogue", but it gets ridiculous when you actually have to argue with the people who are supposed to be helping you out. I recently got in an argument because I wanted to have a slightly higher Dexterity than Strength, and even when I clearly stated that it was a matter of preference, he kept telling me I would end up nerfed because of a missing +1.

137ben wrote:

Happens with GM advice and/or homebrew too. I remember a thread where someone was asking for advice for artifact creation rules for a mythic campaign (because that person's group was unsatisfied with the legendary weapon path ability)...

only for someone to insist that nope! You really don't want actual artifact creation, and anyone with half a brain knows why you don't want it.

I, personally, know I have been guilty of the latter, though my point was never to say "Don't do this." (it has come off that way, but that was not my point) so much as, "The opening statement made contains a factual error, thus I point out that error; feel free to continue to house-rule, however." which, as it turns out, is a really complicated statement to make, as most people (comprehensibly) feel that if you point out an problem with the premise (the "issue" the house-rule is trying to fix) than you disagree that the house rule has validity. Sometimes this is true, sometimes this is not.

There is also the issue of House Rules going, "I want to do <X>" and, upon review of the House Rule, it won't actually function that way if the system as-presented is put through its paces, in which case there are issues at hand.

But, for the record: I totally approve of house rules in general (and use many myself); I don't think all house rules are as-necessary as presented, or are necessary for the reasons presented (though they may be necessary for other reasons); some house rules will cause more problems than they fix, or will be inelegant and clunky for various reasons (I am guilty of both of these); and I hold nothing against you (yes, I mean you, personally) whether or not our play-styles are anywhere near similar in tastes.

And that constitutes, like, 95% of my posts in the House Rules forums.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I think there are times where the OP's premise needs to be challenged. That Detect Magic thread I made a while back is a good example—I was flat-out wrong, after all. But if someone says they prefer something, you* don't try to tell them to prefer something else. You work within the limits they impose.

Say someone wants to play a rogue because they want archaeologist feel, but they want magic trap disabling at first level. You could point out that that's not that important to a trap disabler, that it's not worth all the disadvantages the rogue has, but if he wants that ability at first level, either help them optimize a rogue, or just shut up.

Or find something else that gets magic trap disabling at first level. I think a kobold alchemist archetype maybe? Whatever, you get my point. :P

[Tacticslion]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Or find something else that gets magic trap disabling at first level. I think a kobold alchemist archetype maybe? Whatever, you get my point. :P

Also, a trait, I think. :)

Also:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

you* don't try to tell them to prefer something else.

I*'ll have you know that I* do no such thing! ;P

[Kobold Catgirl]

Oh, I forgot about the asterisk. It was a nonspecific "you".

[137ben]

Footnotes which don't ****** correspond to anything (1) grind my gears.

(1)Unless otherwise stated, all footnotes whose markers consist of between one and seven asterisks correspond to the appropriate footnotes in the OP of this thread.