Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 1,247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

That is fun, badwrong.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A thing that annoys me are threads where people suggest that a special edition of Pathfinder should be made to support their specific preferred playstyle. (Rules Light, Low Magic, Content Limited, so on)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is another one:

OP:Hey guys what do you think about me doing ______

99.9% of us in unison which almost never happens: That is not a good idea. <list a few alternatives>

OP: Well I think my idea was great and then follows up with some insult

99.9%: More ideas to counter the OP

OP: <very much upset> goes into rant, sometimes with more insults included

Basically they did not really want advice. They wanted people to agree with them, and got mad when almost nobody supported them.

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:

Here is another one:

OP:Hey guys what do you think about me doing ______

99.9% of us in unison which almost never happens: That is not a good idea. <list a few alternatives>

OP: Well I think my idea was great and then follows up with some insult

99.9%: More ideas to counter the OP

OP: <very much upset> goes into rant, sometimes with more insults included

Basically they did not really want advice. They wanted people to agree with them, and got mad when almost nobody supported them.

Fortunately this seems to have become less lately. I do agree that sometimes it's not really not asking for feedback. More like seeking "atta boy" kind of validation.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Avatar-1 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Naming objects in the backwards, index-friendly format they saw in a chart. Things like "crossbow, heavy".

The only reason to ever name something backwards like that is so that similar entries in an alphabetized list will be next to each other. It is not the actual name of the thing.

Ah, wait a second. Do you mean some people will actually say "My paladin Joe uses his longsword for melee attacking and his crossbow, heavy, for ranged attacking." ????

Not as much in the middle of a sentence, but naming it somewhere that doing it index-style doesn't actually accomplish anything. Like, "crossbow, heavy" makes sense in the Equipment chapter where you want it to be right next to "crossbow, light" and "crossbow, repeating" and "crossbow, hand" or whatever.

But if it's the only crossbow in your inventory, then nothing is gained by flipping the order of the words, which makes me think you're just copy-pasting without understanding. Similarly when someone writes a new homebrew item or RPG Superstar entry and titles their item in that fashion.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, another one: people using words that have actual meanings but it's clear from context they actually just mean it as an intensifier.

Things I've seen used to mean "very" or to assert their conviction that the affected statement is true:
Literally
Objectively
Provably
Verifiably

Do you see the trend among the types of words getting used like this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

But if it's the only crossbow in your inventory, then nothing is gained by flipping the order of the words,

Actually, it is gained. It tells you how it's listed in the index, which means you can go directly to it instead of going to "heavy crossbow" under h-for-hotel, saying "d---!", and finally finding it under c-for-charlie.

If I'm looking up a spell like mass cure light wounds, that could be under m, under c, under l, or under w. A note to myself as to which is .... helpful.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

But if it's the only crossbow in your inventory, then nothing is gained by flipping the order of the words,

Actually, it is gained. It tells you how it's listed in the index, which means you can go directly to it instead of going to "heavy crossbow" under h-for-hotel, saying "d---!", and finally finding it under c-for-charlie.

If I'm looking up a spell like mass cure light wounds, that could be under m, under c, under l, or under w. A note to myself as to which is .... helpful.

That stops being an issue when the reader is sufficiently familiar with parts of speech and the nature of indexes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Naming objects in the backwards, index-friendly format they saw in a chart. Things like "crossbow, heavy".

The only reason to ever name something backwards like that is so that similar entries in an alphabetized list will be next to each other. It is not the actual name of the thing.

Ah, wait a second. Do you mean some people will actually say "My paladin Joe uses his longsword for melee attacking and his crossbow, heavy, for ranged attacking." ????

Not as much in the middle of a sentence, but naming it somewhere that doing it index-style doesn't actually accomplish anything. Like, "crossbow, heavy" makes sense in the Equipment chapter where you want it to be right next to "crossbow, light" and "crossbow, repeating" and "crossbow, hand" or whatever.

But if it's the only crossbow in your inventory, then nothing is gained by flipping the order of the words, which makes me think you're just copy-pasting without understanding. Similarly when someone writes a new homebrew item or RPG Superstar entry and titles their item in that fashion.

Honestly, if it's just in the inventory, it probably means the inventory list is generated from a character generator program and the person didn't bother to go through and manually correct everything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
Oh and old grognards coming along in a thread claiming that their being an old grognard means anything other than the fact that you are old, and a grognard.

Ouch. I'd like to think that I can bring a lot of experience without being overbearing. But, there's a reason I stopped trying to post my thoughts in those types of threads.

That said, I'd rather be an old grognard, the alternative being what it is...

...the alternative being DEAD, for those too young and non-grognardish to pick that up. ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:
Honestly, if it's just in the inventory, it probably means the inventory list is generated from a character generator program and the person didn't bother to go through and manually correct everything.

I wasn't even counting those instances as part of the peeve.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Here is another one:

OP:Hey guys what do you think about me doing ______

99.9% of us in unison which almost never happens: That is not a good idea. <list a few alternatives>

OP: Well I think my idea was great and then follows up with some insult

99.9%: More ideas to counter the OP

OP: <very much upset> goes into rant, sometimes with more insults included

Basically they did not really want advice. They wanted people to agree with them, and got mad when almost nobody supported them.

Especially dislike when this is a GM or Player coming to seek validation on something that already happened.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Here is another one:

OP:Hey guys what do you think about me doing ______

99.9% of us in unison which almost never happens: That is not a good idea. <list a few alternatives>

OP: Well I think my idea was great and then follows up with some insult

99.9%: More ideas to counter the OP

OP: <very much upset> goes into rant, sometimes with more insults included

Basically they did not really want advice. They wanted people to agree with them, and got mad when almost nobody supported them.

Would it be bad form to link a closed thread example?

It would be bad form, wouldn't it?

Now to wait until everyone says yes it would be wrong, and do it anyway.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

On a similar side of things, I'm not so much annoyed as I find it silly when a player comes on the rules questions or another forum to point out an interpretation their GM already made and then try to get everyone online to agree with their opinion which is contrary to the GM's. Not even a clear-cut, here's the rule on page X kind of thing, but something obviously up for interpretation.

I mean, honestly, it's not like you can overrule rule zero by showing your GM a thread on the internet full of anonymous people who agree with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of, the Rules Questions forum really grinds my gears. That board is where good questions go to die. Searching it is a waste of time.

-Matt


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

On a similar side of things, I'm not so much annoyed as I find it silly when a player comes on the rules questions or another forum to point out an interpretation their GM already made and then try to get everyone online to agree with their opinion which is contrary to the GM's. Not even a clear-cut, here's the rule on page X kind of thing, but something obviously up for interpretation.

I mean, honestly, it's not like you can overrule rule zero by showing your GM a thread on the internet full of anonymous people who agree with you.

I have a big problem with those who not only fail to acknowledge rule zero, but who use the rulebook as a weapon against their GM.

If you have such an adversarial relationship with your GM, why are you playing his game?

Grand Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"Help me wreck my GM's/Group's game because I don't like something they did/said" threads.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"I'm a better game designer than the game designers and here's one of my terrible ideas as proof of my superior skills" threads.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Complaint threads that can be summarized as "this adventure/product is not custom designed for my group, therefore it's a terrible product."

-Skeld


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Signing your forum posts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Here is another one:

OP:Hey guys what do you think about me doing ______

99.9% of us in unison which almost never happens: That is not a good idea. <list a few alternatives>

OP: Well I think my idea was great and then follows up with some insult

99.9%: More ideas to counter the OP

OP: <very much upset> goes into rant, sometimes with more insults included

Basically they did not really want advice. They wanted people to agree with them, and got mad when almost nobody supported them.

Would it be bad form to link a closed thread example?

It would be bad form, wouldn't it?

Now to wait until everyone says yes it would be wrong, and do it anyway.

Very wrong.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Signing your forum posts.

Funny. I almost posted that myself.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Threads where someone asks "when can we get a PFS chronicle sheet for this module" when the module in question was released 2 hours earlier.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:

Speaking of, the Rules Questions forum really grinds my gears. That board is where good questions go to die. Searching it is a waste of time.

-Matt

People who don't know how to navigate and/or properly apply or interpret something (such as the Rules Questions forum, or the rules themselves, or GM fiat, or DPR calculations, or...) and conclude that the thing in question must be worthless.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
That stops being an issue when the reader is sufficiently familiar with parts of speech and the nature of indexes.

You seem to have considerably more faith than I have in the ability of the general public to learn proper grammar and indexing.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

My particular pet peeve, using "this rule is confusing" as a stand in for "I don't like this rule and want it changed."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not seeing multiple readings as possible and accusing people who read the rules differently from you of being a munchkin; accusing people who dare point out rule ambiguity of being treacherous filth with an agenda.


Rynjin wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Here is another one:

OP:Hey guys what do you think about me doing ______

99.9% of us in unison which almost never happens: That is not a good idea. <list a few alternatives>

OP: Well I think my idea was great and then follows up with some insult

99.9%: More ideas to counter the OP

OP: <very much upset> goes into rant, sometimes with more insults included

Basically they did not really want advice. They wanted people to agree with them, and got mad when almost nobody supported them.

Would it be bad form to link a closed thread example?

It would be bad form, wouldn't it?

Now to wait until everyone says yes it would be wrong, and do it anyway.

Very wrong.

Not exactly the thread I was thinking about.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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).

I don't like the term "power-gaming," personally. The term is meant to point out something bad, but it sounds to me like it should be a good thing - Power is good, so is gaming. I know it's been around a long time, but I think it seriously confuses and misleads the dialogue away from what people are *actually* complaining about.

I dare not even begin to start talking about the terms "flavor" and "fluff" - the former is, at best, very tired, and the latter can only be interpreted as contemptuous. We're playing make-believe here. Respect it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm annoyed by the automatic assumption that RP is the entirety of Pathfinder or any other tabletop RPG.

If all I wanted to do was RP, I'd join an improv group, a LARP, or just play pretend.

Tabletop RPGs do have an RP element, and it can be an important aspect, but they are rooted in their history as a derivative of war games. Tactics, encounters, and the strategy aspects are just as important (and I'm gonna catch heat for this I'm sure) and for many people even more important than roleplaying.

I have friends who LOVE Pathfinder who's entirety of RP over an eight hour session is maybe six sentences. Personally, I love RP, but I do think it is seriously overrated by the community, and I think the shame they throw at those who don't enjoy it to the primary is unfair. It's remarkably acceptable (by the community, not the moderators, thankfully) to jump on the "rollplayer" hate, point out out that anyone who doesn't sacrifice capability for "story" is playing wrong (which is ridiculous, because I can think of a LOT of protagonists who are actually capable individuals), or otherwise shove the "roleplay more important than ANYTHING" agenda down your throat...but the minute someone even remotely indicates they might like a little kick-in-the-door, to-hell-with-the-vazier's-subtle-agenda-I-wanna-kill-ogres action, it's all SHAME SHAME SHAME.

Don't get me wrong, I like RP, but it's not all the game is, and for many people, it's not even the primary draw. (I personally think RP is like The Black Keys - definitely good, but if it were half as good as the people talking about it claimed, it'd be five times as good as it actually is.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

I'm annoyed by the automatic assumption that RP is the entirety of Pathfinder or any other tabletop RPG.

If all I wanted to do was RP, I'd join an improv group, a LARP, or just play pretend.

Tabletop RPGs do have an RP element, and it can be an important aspect, but they are rooted in their history as a derivative of war games. Tactics, encounters, and the strategy aspects are just as important (and I'm gonna catch heat for this I'm sure) and for many people even more important than roleplaying.

I have friends who LOVE Pathfinder who's entirety of RP over an eight hour session is maybe six sentences. Personally, I love RP, but I do think it is seriously overrated by the community, and I think the shame they throw at those who don't enjoy it to the primary is unfair. It's remarkably acceptable (by the community, not the moderators, thankfully) to jump on the "rollplayer" hate, point out out that anyone who doesn't sacrifice capability for "story" is playing wrong (which is ridiculous, because I can think of a LOT of protagonists who are actually capable individuals), or otherwise shove the "roleplay more important than ANYTHING" agenda down your throat...but the minute someone even remotely indicates they might like a little kick-in-the-door, to-hell-with-the-vazier's-subtle-agenda-I-wanna-kill-ogres action, it's all SHAME SHAME SHAME.

Don't get me wrong, I like RP, but it's not all the game is, and for many people, it's not even the primary draw. (I personally think RP is like The Black Keys - definitely good, but if it were half as good as the people talking about it claimed, it'd be five times as good as it actually is.)

And I'm annoyed by the constant focus on these boards on combat and combat optimization. The assumption that the vast majority of the game will be combat encounters and roleplaying can be relegated to a few phrases tossed out in the middle of fights.

The bashing of anyone who even talks about not-optimizing as wanting to build crippled useless characters who can't contribute.

It's interesting how a different perspective can give an entirely different impression of the attitude of a community.


I wont deny 33 percent of why I stopped playing pathfinder is the paizo threads.

Admitting that 50% of the game should be combat and 50% of the game should be 'not combat', at least another 33% of it was that the combat mechanics of the game are below my personal threshhold for 'creates exciting variety in combat encounters'. For a wargame it doesnt do a very good job of the warish bits due to the 'air breathing mermaid' problem.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And I'm annoyed by people who can't realize that Pathfinder is equal parts a ROLEPLAYING game and a roleplaying GAME.

Anybody focusing on one side OR the other to the disparagement of the opposite is missing the point TBH.


There is a basic conflict to Roleplaying games like D&D and PF, in that, while the games allow and encourage Roleplaying, the core rules are almost entirely combat mechanics.

The nice thing about 5E is that it expressly acknowledges this dichotomy-and-conflict, calls it a "feature", and encourages gaming group alt-takes (aka house rules) in resolving said conflict to have a fun time.

Back to the OP: My big peeve is the Thread Necro thing being a thing.

I've actually been kicked off a forum (not this one and coming up on my 3 year anniversary!) for necroing. I tend to do that when trying to learn a new game system. Problem is I'm young enough that many game systems are before my time and as such my questions are want to Thread Necro.

In fact, the forum that booted me did so over a thread whose OP had not been resolved. I actually answered succinctly and resolved the dangling OP. I was told via PM that I should have started a new thread instead of performing a Necro. My response was a flagrant *facepalm*, and for my lack of respect, out I went.

Now contrary to what you might be thinking, this isn't a peeve of mine because I got the boot - I'm not the most diplomatic person and I broke the rule and was unrepentant about it. So, yeah, boot-to-butt is about what I should expect.

It's a peeve because, those who know, tell me that:

Programmatically auto-locking a stale thread after X-amount of time is far easier and more efficient than policing stale threads.

Clarification 1 - an off-topic-necro, bump-necro, or rant-necro is almost certainly bad form, IMO.
Clarification 2 - some forums have no concept of Necro and somehow I missed the badwrongfun nature of the Necro move for quite some time because of my early conditioning on such forums.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Super NPCs need to die in a fire.", usually said about the Forgotten Realms.

Consider the believability of the world. It is a setting that has countless massively powerful villains, simply because they are needed to provide a challenge to higher level players. Without good counterparts, is there even one sensible reason the powerful villains would not have taken over completely ages ago? Not that I can see.

Further, such NPCs are a subset of a greater type of good individual, one that includes good creatures in total, from blink dogs to metallic dragons and solars. Some of these are also extremely powerful, should they also die in a fire, to leave the PCs as literally the only people in the setting with a CR above 3 that have a good alignment?

As a final point, nobody seems to complain in this way about the good deities. Still, they are the literally most powerful good NPCs around in any setting. Should they too die in a fire, because the PCs might end up in some sort of contact with them?

Yes, I understand that it's a particular style of wankery for GMs to focus only on their favourite super NPC. Perhaps the FR setting is too suited to this. That doesn't change the fact that powerful good NPCs are not in and of themselves a problem. It's about how they are played.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The main issue is how they're usually written.

Which is that they're infinitely oh so much more super than the PCs...and yet choose to end the PCs out to eliminate the big world ending threat, when they're not doing anything better anyway.

But then again, it's a narrative Catch-22, your only real options are:

A.) Have the super NPC resolve the plot. Uninteresting, and annoying.

B.) Have the super NPC ignore the threat. This takes them out of the main action, but makes them look like lazy self-absorbed twats.

C.) Have the super NPC off combating some other threat. Which tends to make the players feel kind of down, since they're now essentially the B-Plot in a much larger adventure they don't get to be a part of.

Better to just not have them at all.

Powerful NPCs are one thing. Elminsters are another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

"Super NPCs need to die in a fire.", usually said about the Forgotten Realms.

Consider the believability of the world. It is a setting that has countless massively powerful villains, simply because they are needed to provide a challenge to higher level players. Without good counterparts, is there even one sensible reason the powerful villains would not have taken over completely ages ago? Not that I can see....

I used to think this way about FR too but then I realized all the stuff is there in the background. The Lords of Waterdeep keep the lid on BBEGs in their area and likewise elsewhere around the realms. Problems break out from time to time and luckily! the PCs are in the neighborhood to help out... or not. Toril has it's share of cataclysms and then some, for sure.

Anyway you look at it PCs are the B-team until at least CR12+ in whatever version of 3.PF you play. In the Realms it just lasts a few more levels.

I also used to think this way about Eberron - why don't the BBEGs rule? - (and still do actually:), but what I came to realize is that for Eberron the group gives up this LARGE piece of verisimilitude for the sake of writing and playing a certain flavor of adventure. The focus is the PCs as the heroes in a mysterious and gods forsaken place where the various portions and powers of the world sit in limbo contemplation until the PCs are powerful enough to encounter them/it.

It's not my natural approach to TTRPG fun but I'll have an opportunity here in another month or so see if I can bend my mind to the will of the Draconic Prophecy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, option C is always there for the taking. A powerful NPC isn't going to explain what they are up to to anyone who asks. And as for B-team, it's easy to deal with: First, realize that a level 2 adventurer group isn't going to be the world-shaking A-team. A threat they can reasonably fight isn't going to threaten the entire world. Second, even a relatively powerless group can become the focus of the action if they are the ones present and communication is difficult.

The alternative is a world without ANYONE else fighting against evil with a chance of success, without allies that could affect anything, without anyone able to reward the players, without any good magic items the players did not craft, without any safe places the PCs may rest and relax... isn't that kind of boring?


There's a difference between a level 2 PC being shown up by a level 10, and a level 15 PC being shown up by a level 30 one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just saying that in a setting which includes CR 54 dragons, CR 40 liches, chosen of evil gods, and so on, it's not going to be pretty unless someone is around to hold off the heat, at least until the heroes can get to it. It is a question of having high level threats in the setting at all. If PCs being level 15 is as far as the setting goes, there shouldn't be CR 30s, fine, but FR always aimed higher than that.


Sissyl wrote:
The alternative is a world without ANYONE else fighting against evil with a chance of success, without allies that could affect anything, without anyone able to reward the players, without any good magic items the players did not craft, without any safe places the PCs may rest and relax... isn't that kind of boring?

Grimm and gritty is a style of play.

For me, I seem to sit in the middle of all these possible worlds. Something Golarion/Oerth suits me fine for a fantasy TTRPG setting.

FR is easier to read about than it is to DM a campaign there - too much going on. Yikes!

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?).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I have another one.

Topic: Mechanic X and how it resolves in the game.

Poster A: Has an opinion about X with ancedotal evidence.

Poster B: Has an opinion about X with ancedotal evidence + objective data to support it.

Poster A: Makes mocking comment about Poster B theorycrafting despite Poster B providing a real game example.

The attitude of "If it didn't happen in my games then it's theorycraft" is annoying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


I also used to think this way about Eberron - why don't the BBEGs rule? - (and still do actually:), but what I came to realize is that for Eberron the group gives up this LARGE piece of verisimilitude for the sake of writing and playing a certain flavor of adventure. The focus is the PCs as the heroes in a mysterious and gods forsaken place where the various portions and powers of the world sit in limbo contemplation until the PCs are powerful enough to encounter them/it.

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. The most important reason, however, is that Evil is not one big happy family. Neither is good, for that matter, but evil is even less so. The world of Eberron is not divided into Team Evil and Team Good. It is divided into lots and lots of different, competing factions, some of which happen to lean more evil and some of which happen to lean more good. And most are neutral.

Why don't the 'evil' factions team up to destroy the 'good' factions? Because the other 'evil' and 'neutral' factions are bigger threats. No one faction, of any alignment, has anywhere near a majority of the power in the world, because there are so many competing factions. You could say that one or more of the individual factions should have been wiped out. But the faction being wiped out wouldn't be 'good' or 'evil', because neither of those are teams. A faction that 'should have been' wiped out would be, say, the Giant civilization of Xen'drik (which, not coincidentally, was wiped out).

The other main reason is that the goal of almost all factions in Eberron is not "conquer the world while performing comic-book-villain laugh". They all have different goals. Sometimes those goals don't affect those of other factions. Often they conflict. They can't team up, because they are each deterring each other in pursuit of their main goal. And none of those goals are 'destroy the Good Guys.'
Now, if you want to know what the goals of each faction are, and why they haven't already accomplished them...read the books:)

Honestly, Eberron is the setting that pays the most attention to verisimilitude than any other WotC/TSR setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The alternative is a world without ANYONE else fighting against evil with a chance of success, without allies that could affect anything, without anyone able to reward the players, without any good magic items the players did not craft, without any safe places the PCs may rest and relax... isn't that kind of boring?

Grimm and gritty is a style of play.

For me, I seem to sit in the middle of all these possible worlds. Something Golarion/Oerth suits me fine for a fantasy TTRPG setting.

FR is easier to read about than it is to DM a campaign there - too much going on. Yikes!

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?).

To be honest FR and Golarion have had logic holes in them also. The entire game has logic holes in it. Some people just accept different logic holes more easily than they accept other logic holes. I just look at it as a metagame answer of "This does not happen so we(the players) can actually play the game", kind of like how people do stupid things in movies so they can die and keep the movie going. :)


Grim and gritty is a style, yes. It is also not what the Realms ever aimed for. Still, I guess it IS eminently possible to play it that way, focusing on the bad guys. Certainly, different novels and short stories have painted it as such.


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.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It always bothers me, as a relentless Golarion purist, when I see someone refer to the "Crimson Assassin" or "Dervish of Dawn", or other terms of similar origin. I know why they do, and I don't begrudge anyone the use of d20pfsrd; in fact, I use it to look up details on the fly frequently.

But every time I see it, I just want to say "Well, actually..." :/

Silver Crusade Contributor

Mikaze wrote:
Set wrote:

Discouraging and / or unhelpful comments, in general.

Somebody posts, 'Help me with ideas to play an X that Y.' (Something not cliché, or with an ounce of originality, like a dwarf that drinks tea instead of ale or beer. Or a non-evil necromancer. Or an orc that doesn't have 'insert sword here for 135 XP' tattooed on it's forehead.)

And some chucklehead posts, 'They wouldn't do that,' as if there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't just want to play one of the four 'PC' races that Tolkien used in Lord of the Rings in the most stereotypical way possible.

Oh this, this, this.

Right along with the macrocosm it's a part of: "Hey, can anyone help me X" "Sure, here's a bunch of stuff that isn't X! Why are you even wanting X? Don't X." and all its myriad forms.

I had a player literally do this at the table. One of my players has been playing a lot of League of Legends and Star Wars: The Old Republic on the side, and it's made his tendency towards this sort of thing worse.

We were planning to do side adventures alongside WotR, to explore how other fronts of the Fifth Crusade were progressing. One of the other players was like, "You know what? I've never played a rogue..." Man, you'd think he'd asked for help in Advice the way the other guy came at it. I was not yet reveling in my full Tyrant Princess persona, and didn't really calm things down as much I should have. Things have been... tense... in that campaign lately for various reasons. That player tends to be very critical of others' optimization as well... :(

Silver Crusade Contributor

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
The only reason anyone could ever possibly want a non-Pathfinder/3.x game is that they are bonded by nostalgia. Decent stories didn't exist before Paizo began writing them, and all other games literally don't have any rules. All praise to the mighty purple golem, and death to the infidels who have the temerity to discuss, much less PREFER, other systems!

Anyone who uses the term "Paizo Defense Force" unironically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thread titles with multiple question marks in the title.

why??? its so dum, u kno???????

101 to 150 of 1,247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.