Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community

[Scythia]

I might take some flak for this, but I have to be honest:

I do want to build a snowman.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Rynjin wrote:

Just to clarify, is HoMaM IV one of the bad ones, or are you saying it's the last good one?

It's been like 10 years since I played it and I no longer have the disk (though I do still have the instruction booklet in my drawer full of them!) , so I can't really judge it for myself.

One of the bad ones.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Otherwise I'm all in favor of having psionic options that are clearly different from magic; I just like also having the "pseudo-magic" psionics available, primarily because I just prefer psionic point-cost systems over spellslots.

Tell me about it; my ultimate home turf is the Might & Magic computer games, which of course use spell points, so I was never happy with Vancian magic.

I remember when 3.0 psionics came out, and a semi-friend of mine at the time mentioned that he hated the Psion. His reasoning? "It's what the Sorcerer should have been."

Was your response, as mine is right now, a blank stare eventually followed by "...So why do you hate the psion?"

That was...just kind of how he spoke, I guess. He never entirely made sense to me (then again, he made about as much sense as a lot of what I see on here, and at least he seemed to be thinking for himself).

[Rynjin]

Well there's hate (as in hate) and hate (as in makes me irritated for various reasons). There's also hate (joking/not really) but that's a different matter.

I imagine he meant the latter. I hate the Psion so much right now. It's everything I've been looking for. Why didn't this exist sooner?

[Rynjin]

DrDeth wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if the players (whom I prefer to create their characters without consulting each other at all, the better to actually play what they wish to play) create five paladins and a ninja, then it's my job as a DM to create adventures that would appeal to five paladins and a ninja. That doesn't mean there won't be challenges that require a hired gun, whether literal or metaphorical, but ... I can't stand the artificiality of crafting a balanced party. It just sets off my bullsh!t detector, since I abhor most meta-gaming with the fury of a thousand suns.

Yesbut when they all do interlocking backgrounds, so that they have a good reason to be together, it is a joy to behold. I'll happily let them consult on balancing the party if they do that.

We had one where everyone was either related to, worked with, or was sleeping with someone else, sometimes interlocking.

Only tangentially related but today I learned DrDeth is apparently lurking a PbP I'm in where we were hashing out a bit of a potential personality clash like Jaelithe mentioned (A NE Witch and a ??? Hunter in the party with my Paladin).

Not sure how to feel about that.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Rynjin wrote:

Well there's hate (as in hate) and hate (as in makes me irritated for various reasons). There's also hate (joking/not really) but that's a different matter.

I imagine he meant the latter. I hate the Psion so much right now. It's everything I've been looking for. Why didn't this exist sooner?

Bingo.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Scythia wrote:

I might take some flak for this, but I have to be honest:

I do want to build a snowman.

I'm listening to the Postmodern Jukebox's Christmas album right now.

[DrDeth]

Rynjin wrote:

Only tangentially related but today I learned DrDeth is apparently lurking a PbP I'm in where we were hashing out a bit of a potential personality clash like Jaelithe mentioned (A NE Witch and a ??? Hunter in the party with my Paladin).

Not sure how to feel about that.

Naw I just favorited one of your posts. Sounded like you needed the support.

[Soilent]

Scythia wrote:

I might take some flak for this, but I have to be honest:

I do want to build a snowman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1ZOFNBL68

I prefer this version.

[Jaelithe]

I find it more than mildly irritating when long-time players automatically meta-game and their characters employ techniques and tactics refined over decades of gaming in their newly assembled group of 1st level characters, so that they work in tandem like freakin' Delta Force. To me, that's often bald-faced cheating.

Now if your origins explain why such is reasonable, then knock yourselves out. But if he's a Saxon hick off the farm, never more than half a mile from where he was born before beginning a life of adventure, then I expect him to act like a hick, at least for a while.

[Jaelithe]

Rynjin wrote:

Well there's hate (as in hate) and hate (as in makes me irritated for various reasons). There's also hate (joking/not really) but that's a different matter.

Exactly.

For example, I'm a Rutgers fan. I therefore hate West Virginia. But it's football hate, not a desire to see the state or even the stadium hit by a meteor.

[The Alkenstarian]

I have no inherent problem with furry or scaly races.

I have a problem with people playing furry or scaly races as "cute" or as anime ripoffs.

I have a problem with the insane amount of new classes and archetypes being released all the time.

I do not believe in buying and owning every book released for the game. I want to keep it minimalistic as much as I possibly can, because frankly, rulesplaying takes a seat five or six rows back from roleplaying in my groups.

For the same reason, I do not agree with people min-maxing their characters rather than focus on creating interesting people to play. An interesting character can be very powerful, but if the entire character concept is based on a feat-string, I lose interest in them almost instantly and I feel no particular obligation to accomodate the player of such a character. The players create interesting characters for the benefit of themselves, their team-mates AND for the benefit of the GM who has to tell a story for these characters and if they can't be bothered to make an effort, then neither will I.

I have no problem whatsoever with Player-Versus-Player confrontations, combat and even deaths, although I strongly prefer that there is a valid IC reason for it, and I am an absolute believer in causality; if a player does something monumentally stupid, or something morally or legally reprehensible, and they don't take care to conceal this, it WILL come back at the most inopportune time imaginable, armed with a set of teeth to shame a great white shark and it WILL take a sizeable chunk out of their hineys.

[Soilent]

I hate Aasimars.

I hate it when all people play are Aasimar.

I hate the roleplay attitude that turns all Aasimar into Paladins.

I HATE the fact that Tieflings take a -2 Charisma, yet Aasimar have no negatives. (They're two sides of the same coin, why is the other side of the coin taking penalties?)

I hate your perfect little angel Aasimars...

[DungeonmasterCal]

I still love the song "Total Eclipse of the Heart". Not exactly a gaming confession, but a confession nonetheless.

[Thymus Vulgaris]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I still love the song "Total Eclipse of the Heart". Not exactly a gaming confession, but a confession nonetheless.

I don't see how this would get anyone shunned.

[Kryzbyn]

"Twirl around, ninjas..."

[Orthos]

Soilent wrote:

I HATE the fact that Tieflings take a -2 Charisma, yet Aasimar have no negatives. (They're two sides of the same coin, why is the other side of the coin taking penalties?)

I just drop the negatives in my games. Doesn't affect their balance in any way and is easier (and less prone to cause complaints from players) than attempting to ascertain which stat each Aasimar bloodline should receive a penalty to.

[Pipefox]

I think Dwarves are icky. Their beards scare me.

[Jaelithe]

Kryzbyn wrote:

"Twirl around, ninjas..."

Thanks a lot. I now see Bonnie Tyler flanked by dancing ninjas doing background vocals.

[Sighs.]

:)

[Thymus Vulgaris]

Kryzbyn wrote:

"Twirl around, ninjas..."

I forgot that video actually had ninjas...

[Kryzbyn]

Enjoy.

[kyrt-ryder]

Confession: Wild West Era firearms [Revolvers and Repeating Rifles] exist in my fantasy campaigns, usually taking a similar 'rare except in certain places' role as in Pathfinder, with simple rules similar to a bow [aka no funky touch attack rules and certainly no misshap chance] and of comparable power to the casual user.

This also means that while gun wielders are semi-common in my campaigns, Gunslinger [the class as presented] does not exist.

[DM Under The Bridge]

The Alkenstarian wrote:

I have no inherent problem with furry or scaly races.

I have a problem with people playing furry or scaly races as "cute" or as anime ripoffs.

I have a problem with the insane amount of new classes and archetypes being released all the time.

I do not believe in buying and owning every book released for the game. I want to keep it minimalistic as much as I possibly can, because frankly, rulesplaying takes a seat five or six rows back from roleplaying in my groups.

For the same reason, I do not agree with people min-maxing their characters rather than focus on creating interesting people to play. An interesting character can be very powerful, but if the entire character concept is based on a feat-string, I lose interest in them almost instantly and I feel no particular obligation to accomodate the player of such a character. The players create interesting characters for the benefit of themselves, their team-mates AND for the benefit of the GM who has to tell a story for these characters and if they can't be bothered to make an effort, then neither will I.

I have no problem whatsoever with Player-Versus-Player confrontations, combat and even deaths, although I strongly prefer that there is a valid IC reason for it, and I am an absolute believer in causality; if a player does something monumentally stupid, or something morally or legally reprehensible, and they don't take care to conceal this, it WILL come back at the most inopportune time imaginable, armed with a set of teeth to shame a great white shark and it WILL take a sizeable chunk out of their hineys.

You, are you me?

I am in agreement, and one campaign of mine had scaly, centaur and other weird things as a part of the allowable races. It is good to keep track of what is coming back to bite them, one day soon!

[memorax]

I dislike certain players habits of what I call the jekyll and Hyde syndrome. Very rude and refuse to listen to any advice at the table. Yet suddenly very reasonable through email. Why does telling them in person make them react worse than through email.

The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken. If that same guy told you it's okay to burn down your house would you still listen to him.

[kyrt-ryder]

memorax wrote:

The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken.

We had this problem DURING 3.5 as well.

See Psionics and Martial Initiators.

[BigDTBone]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

memorax wrote:

The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken.

We had this problem DURING 3.5 as well.

See Psionics and Martial Initiators.

What really bugged me about this (and still does) is when you take time to scour the books for novel and interesting rules interactions and then you tell someone about it and before you even finish they are like, "yep, sounds about right for WOTC, some broken ass splat book garbage."

Dude!

And you can't say anything either, because now you carry the mark of the optimizer.

[DungeonmasterCal]

I think it's more fun to play a character with "character" than to juggle numbers for optimizing. Building a character with flaws (not flaws like in traits and flaws) such as a fighter who's smarter than he is strong is a lot more fun to me. The other way seems to meta-gamey for me.

[DM Under The Bridge]

I have a build in mind, something I am aiming for mechanically. This is paired to the role and background, e.g. a rogue duelist that loves the feint & sneak attack is going to emphasise that and be good at it (so I have to set it up to work), and since he grew up in a city where you had to lie and feign ignorance or be fed to eels by the overlord is going to lead a char that can lie well when his life is on the line.

Roleplay over roll-play every day of the week, count me in, let us raise the flag, but unfortunately this game requires builds, planning and preparation if you are going to make it, as I see it.

Nothing more than build and numbers is a series of missed opportunities and it shows fixation upon a certain area.

[137ben]

BigDTBone wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

memorax wrote:

The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken.

We had this problem DURING 3.5 as well.

See Psionics and Martial Initiators.

What really bugged me about this (and still does) is when you take time to scour the books for novel and interesting rules interactions and then you tell someone about it and before you even finish they are like, "yep, sounds about right for WOTC, some broken ass splat book garbage."

Dude!

And you can't say anything either, because now you carry the mark of the optimizer.

There's a third party book that the players in my main 3.5 group refer to as the Big Book of Epic Munchkinry (BBoEM). Of course, no sourcebook actually forces anyone to behave in a disruptive manner. But my players claim that the BBoEM encourages people to play competitively (which is what Wikipedia defines as the actual meaning of 'Munchkin' behavior) and to break the game.

Of the 3.5 books that were formally endorsed by WotC, my players idendified three sources from which the grossest imbalances and cheese in the game come from. The three culprit sources are:
1. The PHB. Mainly the spells chapter, but some crazy stuff is spread throughout.
2. The magic item chapter of the DMG. Of course, the DMG also contains a lot more, including world building techniques, and advice on reining in the cheese that the magic item chapter introduces. And it has firearm rules that work. Unfortunately, most of the good stuff is not open gaming content.
3. Dragon Magazine, during the time in which WotC had licensed it out to Paizo. This one wasn't as packed with broken content as the other two, it's just that there was a lot of material with very little editing or playtesting, so a lot slipped through.

The Big Book of Epic Munchkinry is a third-party book which, in a sense, combines all three of the above. It combines the content of the PHB with the magic items in the DMG, plus the DMG's sole feat (Leadership), without the non-cheese-filled non-OGL portions of the DMG.
But it doesn't stop there! In 3.5, there are a lot of spellcasting-friendly prestige classes which are frequently considered overpowered, because they keep full casting advancement, give good class features, and trade away very little compared to the base classes ('nothing' for sorcerers and clerics, and a few bonus feats for wizards). The Big Book of Epic Munchkinry, on the other hand, presents revisions of the wizard and sorcerer base classes which have been buffed so far through the roof as to make the most 'overpowered' prestige classes look weak.
Moreover, the BBoEM indirectly buffs some of the big gamebreakers from the PHB and DMG by lowering their costs. The most prominent examples are Wish and Gate: the 5000 xp cost is supposed to be a balancing factor (in 3.5, even at level 20, it would take three and a third same-CR encounters to make up the cost). The BBoEM changes their cost to a much smaller gold cost, which is made up in about 1.5 same-level encounters. The BBoEM also completely eliminates the xp cost in magic crafting, with no counterbalancing cost increase.
To further encourage playing a cooperative game like D&D in a competitive manner, the BBoEM turns formerly-mediocre abilities into new 'trap' options. For example, system changes make grappling much harder, and flying creatures are no longer affected by trip. Plus, the Improved Trip and Improved Grapple feats are split into two feats each. A subtle nerf to Grease along with changes to acrobatics make Sneak Attack harder to pull of. That, combined with changes to the skill system as a whole, help turn everyone's favorite class into a joke when using the BBoEM.
And, while the BBoEM does not directly port over closed-content from Dragon Magazine, it is sold and produced by the company and many of the employees behind Dragon during its 3.5 years.
If you've read this post up to this point, you have almost certainly guessed which book my players mean when the refer to the Big Book of Epic Munchkinry.

I don't entirely agree with my players on their reasons for not wanting to switch Pathfinder. I do agree with their decision, though. For the most part anyways--every since I got Ultimate Campaign, I have greatly preferred to use the mass combat rules in UC over those in the Miniature's Handbook or Heroes of Battle.

[Goth Guru]

Soilent wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I might take some flak for this, but I have to be honest:

I do want to build a snowman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1ZOFNBL68

I prefer this version.

I too think this is funny.

Lots of people can't stand when an annoying nutjob gets blamed. You've been warned. Don't blame anyone else if you click the link.

This is Blam.

[Trekkie90909]

Meet Mr. Cat and Mr. Scarf: A lesson that you should never tell your players "Yeah any race is fine, I don't care" even if it's just for a level 5 one shot adventure.

[Snowblind]

Trekkie90909 wrote:

Meet Mr. Cat and Mr. Scarf: A lesson that you should never tell your players "Yeah any race is fine, I don't care" even if it's just for a level 5 one shot adventure.

To be fair, I think that when a GM says that there is usually an implicit any race==any 0HD +0 CR race without any templates.

[Trekkie90909]

To be fair they did ask if template/race creation were ok, and these were the backups for their back up sheets. EDIT: Also while I did not go over these thoroughly I'm pretty sure the races/templates were 0 HD.

[Snowblind]

Trekkie90909 wrote:

To be fair they did ask if template/race creation were ok, and these were the backups for their back up sheets. EDIT: Also while I did not go over these thoroughly I'm pretty sure the races/templates were 0 HD.

Mr Cat:

Animal Lord - +2CR, Requires Creature with minimum of 10HD (which I don't think yours does)
Mighty - +5CR, 3pp
Death Knight - +2CR
Template Stacking - Animal Lord changes a base creature from humanoid into a native outsider. Death Knight turns a humanoid/monstrous humanoid into an undead. Once your character gets one template (or is born with it, whatever), they cannot get the other template due to no longer being humanoied

Mr Scarf:
Phase Creature - +2CR,+1HD, 3pp
Advanced - +1CR
Mighty - +5CR,3pp
Half-Celestial - +1CR
Imperial Foo - at least doubles HD, +(???)CR(puts your character at minimum CR11 according to the template)
Template stacking - Phase Creature changes type from Vermin->Magical Beast, which makes it incompatable due to there being no possibility of your monkey being a vermin (and if your monkey was a vermin it couldn't be Imperial Foo).

Multiple 3pp templates, template stacking with mutually incompatible types, template application to creatures that do not qualify for said template, HD increasing templates, template absurd amounts of +CR from the templates, and a template that mandates GM adjudication.

Were all of these discussed?

[Shifty]

...any time someone talks seriously about their build past about level 15 I stop taking them seriously. I think level 20's are in fact just a bunch of wild sasquatch riding unicorns under the third full moon in February, and only actually exist in 'theoryspace'.

Except for campaigns that start at L20, and the less said about those the better.

[The Alkenstarian]

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I still love the song "Total Eclipse of the Heart". Not exactly a gaming confession, but a confession nonetheless.

I don't see how this would get anyone shunned.

Curse you two! Now I shall have to shun you mightily. I now have Bonnie Tyler stuck on my brain which is only marginally LESS annoying than having Kim Carnes stuck on repeat in my head!

I'm a child of the 1980s and I DO NOT miss the music!! With the possible exception of Eurythmics, because Annie Lennox' voice ...

And then only sometimes. Maybe.

ARGH! GET OUT OF MY HEAD, BONNIE!!

[Soilent]

The Alkenstarian wrote:

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I still love the song "Total Eclipse of the Heart". Not exactly a gaming confession, but a confession nonetheless.

I don't see how this would get anyone shunned.

Curse you two! Now I shall have to shun you mightily. I now have Bonnie Tyler stuck on my brain which is only marginally LESS annoying than having Kim Carnes stuck on repeat in my head!

I'm a child of the 1980s and I DO NOT miss the music!! With the possible exception of Eurythmics, because Annie Lennox' voice ...

And then only sometimes. Maybe.

ARGH! GET OUT OF MY HEAD, BONNIE!!

Sweet Dreams are made of this.

[Kalindlara]

The Alkenstarian wrote:

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I still love the song "Total Eclipse of the Heart". Not exactly a gaming confession, but a confession nonetheless.

I don't see how this would get anyone shunned.

Curse you two! Now I shall have to shun you mightily. I now have Bonnie Tyler stuck on my brain which is only marginally LESS annoying than having Kim Carnes stuck on repeat in my head!

I'm a child of the 1980s and I DO NOT miss the music!! With the possible exception of Eurythmics, because Annie Lennox' voice ...

And then only sometimes. Maybe.

ARGH! GET OUT OF MY HEAD, BONNIE!!

Let me help. ^_^

[Jaelithe]

Kalindlara wrote:

The Alkenstarian wrote:

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I still love the song "Total Eclipse of the Heart". Not exactly a gaming confession, but a confession nonetheless.

I don't see how this would get anyone shunned.

Curse you two! Now I shall have to shun you mightily. I now have Bonnie Tyler stuck on my brain which is only marginally LESS annoying than having Kim Carnes stuck on repeat in my head!

I'm a child of the 1980s and I DO NOT miss the music!! With the possible exception of Eurythmics, because Annie Lennox' voice ...

And then only sometimes. Maybe.

ARGH! GET OUT OF MY HEAD, BONNIE!!

Let me help. ^_^

Now, see, that's just mean!

[DM Under The Bridge]

The Alkenstarian wrote:

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I still love the song "Total Eclipse of the Heart". Not exactly a gaming confession, but a confession nonetheless.

I don't see how this would get anyone shunned.

Curse you two! Now I shall have to shun you mightily. I now have Bonnie Tyler stuck on my brain which is only marginally LESS annoying than having Kim Carnes stuck on repeat in my head!

I'm a child of the 1980s and I DO NOT miss the music!! With the possible exception of Eurythmics, because Annie Lennox' voice ...

And then only sometimes. Maybe.

ARGH! GET OUT OF MY HEAD, BONNIE!!

Who am I to disagree?

[memorax]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

We had this problem DURING 3.5 as well.
See Psionics and Martial Initiators.

Most definately. I just wish those who ban 3.5. material actually read it. Instead of taking second hand information as gospel truth. Then again it's the same thing with 3PP PF compitable material as well.

BigDTBone wrote:

What really bugged me about this (and still does) is when you take time to scour the books for novel and interesting rules interactions and then you tell someone about it and before you even finish they are like, "yep, sounds about right for WOTC, some broken ass splat book garbage."

Fortunately that has happened to me twice so far. I just give them the same treatment when they try to use a 3.5. or 3pp PF supplement. If your going to cut me off without even hearing me out. I'm just going to do the same in return.

BigDTBone wrote:

And you can't say anything either, because now you carry the mark of the optimizer.

One is seen as a optimizer simply because one wants to make say a effective fighter for example. Just by taking what I call the regular core bread and butter options. As apparently one cannot be effective and roleplay at the table.

[Goth Guru]

I don't take anybody seriously if they add their baggage to words.
Brony is not an insult. Reality is stinking garbage compared to either FRPGs or MLP-FIM.

The only good thing about Hasbro's 4th and 5th edition is it's not as bad as reality.

[Tequila Sunrise]

memorax wrote:

The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken. If that same guy told you it's okay to burn down your house would you still listen to him.

These are probably the same people who insist that 4e sucks, because "Everybody says so."

memorax wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

We had this problem DURING 3.5 as well.

See Psionics and Martial Initiators.

Most definately. I just wish those who ban 3.5. material actually read it. Instead of taking second hand information as gospel truth. Then again it's the same thing with 3PP PF compitable material as well.

Sometimes the phenomenon is excusable, in the case of new players who don't know any better. But ugh, yes, people really ought to at least read something before passing judgment on it.

I recently started online DMing, and invited an old friend to play who hadn't gamed since I was DMing 3.5 ~10 years ago. One of his first questions was "Are we playing 3e or 5e?" because some guy in a game store had told him that 4e sucks. So I told him how 4e is the edition that fans either love or hate, and about the nerdrage that it's generated. So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.

(The guy also told my friend that 5e is great because humans are good. To which I told my friend, "Ah, humans have been awesome since 3e. This guy is clearly an edition warrior.")

[Simon Legrande]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.

Here's the thing about that, one person's unqualified generalizations are another person's gospel truth.

[Kryzbyn]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

The Alkenstarian wrote:

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I still love the song "Total Eclipse of the Heart". Not exactly a gaming confession, but a confession nonetheless.

I don't see how this would get anyone shunned.

Curse you two! Now I shall have to shun you mightily. I now have Bonnie Tyler stuck on my brain which is only marginally LESS annoying than having Kim Carnes stuck on repeat in my head!

I'm a child of the 1980s and I DO NOT miss the music!! With the possible exception of Eurythmics, because Annie Lennox' voice ...

And then only sometimes. Maybe.

ARGH! GET OUT OF MY HEAD, BONNIE!!

Who am I to disagree?

I've traveled the world and the seven seas.

[GM DarkLightHitomi]

Simon Legrande wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.

Here's the thing about that, one person's unqualified generalizations are another person's gospel truth.

Thus is born racism, gender superiority, etc. All these discriminations come from this, except applied to real people instead of a game. I therefore can't condone or accept a generalization as valid as a gospel truth under the excuse of subjectivity. If they do it in one aspect of their lives, then they are prone and vulnerable to similar thinking in other aspects of their lives.

[Terquem]

Any time someone starts a sentence with, "you know, the truth is..." what they are actually about to tell you is an opinion

[Simon Legrande]

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.

Here's the thing about that, one person's unqualified generalizations are another person's gospel truth.

Thus is born racism, gender superiority, etc. All these discriminations come from this, except applied to real people instead of a game. I therefore can't condone or accept a generalization as valid as a gospel truth under the excuse of subjectivity. If they do it in one aspect of their lives, then they are prone and vulnerable to similar thinking in other aspects of their lives.

It doesn't matter if you condone it, it is what it is. The fact you don't agree with discriminations doesn't make them go away, and everyone discriminates about something. Reality is more subjective than objective.

[GM DarkLightHitomi]

True, but it was stated as though to excuse the behaviour as something that should be acceptable. There is a difference between accepting different opinions and behaviours as part of human nature, and accepting every possible opinion and behaviour as valid and acceptable.

[haruhiko88]

I think Paizo should work on another beautiful setting and not go the way of Rifts.

I think the cleric should have been in Pathfinder Unchained.

I like throwing my players under the bus for rp reasons and let them struggle on their way out, when they do get out I like it to be into another pile of garbage. (My players like it because it let's them explore where their characters would go when they have their backs to the wall)

I like the paladin code(s).

I do not like the magus.

There's a few more, but those are my biggies.

[memorax]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

These are probably the same people who insist that 4e sucks, because "Everybody says so."

While 4E is not longer my D&D of choice. It does have it's positive and negatives like any edition of D&D and most rpgs. I tend to ignore edition warriors. Waking away from them in mid-sentence works.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Sometimes the phenomenon is excusable, in the case of new players who don't know any better. But ugh, yes, people really ought to at least read something before passing judgment on it.

In some cases for example like Divine Protection. While i'm good with the feat. I can see it being a problem at certain tables. More often than not it seems to be secondhand information.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

(The guy also told my friend that 5e is great because humans are good. To which I told my friend, "Ah, humans have been awesome since 3e. This guy is clearly an edition warrior.")

Humans have been good since 2E. The ability to go up any level in any class. While not that big of a thing in 3E and higher. Was a big advantage in 2E. Their are differences in some in the hobby who prefer certain editions and edition warriors. Unless one has time to waste it's annoying to listen to edition trolling whether it be friend or stranger.