Things that bother you


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now to make an actual post, Errata. I don't like Paizo's erratas since it usually nerfs options to the Ninth Layer of Hell where Asmodeus resides. One could argue that some options were too powerful, but nothing deserves that level of destruction. They might as well left those options out of print.
Feats- Feats are supposed to make characters do extraordinary things, but a bunch of them are just +x to y and all the cool feats require a boatload of prerequisite feats in a game where you'd normally get 10 feats, not to mention all of the statistical prerequisites. There are way too many bad, trap feats out there that aren't as good as they seem. It's like finding gold in an otyugh's lair.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
No, because its important to recognize that race and racism create and enforce certain power structures. Which is to say, white people in the US benefit from racism (its structure and its history) even if they're personally against racism.

Granted. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

Quote:
There are (at least) two definitions of racism. The first is the standard dictionary definition of discriminatory behavior based on race. However, this fails to take into account the historical context of race and racism (and also, who do you think writes English dictionary definitions? Mostly white guys). A more socially conscious definition of racism that takes into account social, historical, and political context recognizes that racism is a structural issue that benefits one race at the expense of others. Under this definition, you can't be properly racist against white people in the US because American racism is built on a history of white supremacy.

Sure. I mean, part of me wants to assert that you can be racist engage in racist behaviors even if you're not effective with it, but that's a minor semantic quibble. :)

Quote:
You can still be discriminatory or prejudiced or distrustful toward white people, obviously, but negative attitudes toward white people aren't preventing them from getting loans and housing or causing them to be targeted by police.

Agreed.

But that's not my point.

Even if a person's "white people have XYZ qualities" belief isn't directly hurting the group that's the subject of the belief, they're still holding to a belief pattern of "[racial group] has [stereotypical qualities]" and being told that's an acceptable way to think. This has one of two consequences:

1) They come to accept "[racial group] has [stereotypical qualities]" as a generally acceptable way to think, thus making them more susceptible to starting to think that way about other, less empowered groups;

or

2) They may find "[racial group] has [stereotypical qualities]" to be unacceptable in general, but they get so used to holding that view in regard to one particular group that they start to lose the ability to identify this unacceptable thought pattern within themselves, so if they unknowingly hold such beliefs toward other, more vulnerable groups, it's going to be harder to identify and correct it.

Quote:
So the issue with "labels" is not so much that they exist, per se. It's that the dominant cultural structures (sometimes government forces, sometimes cultural attitudes) created the labels and applied value judgments to them, then insisted that these values were natural rather than artificial. In other words, trying to personally avoid labeling people doesn't do anything to work against the social influence that those labels hold and propagate. Instead, it is better to recognize racist power structures and how they function in order to work against them, because you can't opt out of racism. If I personally decide to ignore and avoid labels, that doesn't mean I suddenly don't racially benefit from being white in America. Presumably if everyone decided they didn't care about race (which would be the goal, right?), those labels wouldn't matter and wouldn't have use, but you would still need to recognize their power to correct the damage they have done.

I agree with this. I was never trying to suggest that ceasing to use labels would make racism and its associated power structure issues disappear.

Quote:
So I tell people that my PFS scene is mostly white guys, because omitting that label isn't going to erase the social power dynamics of race and gender.

Omitting the label does not erase the racial power dynamics of society, but using the label does reinforce racism-enabling thought patterns in the speaker.

There's more to an action than the question of whether the target gets hurt; it also matters how engaging in a given action/belief affects what type of person the doer is gradually turning into. A person is always affected by what kinds of actions they repeatedly take.

Most bigotry is not the result of someone choosing to try and oppress someone; it's the result of someone adopting a thought process that wasn't hurting anyone at the time, getting comfortable with it, and then sooner or later letting that thought process target a vulnerable group without even realizing it.

A big part of the reason that many folks who do racist things honestly think they're not acting racist is because their racism is simply the expression of a mindset that they always used to think was okay because it wasn't hurting anyone, and they've thought that way for so long it's hard to go back and un-learn the okay-ness of it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trent formaldehime wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
It's pretty much impossible to describe anyone without being offensive. :P
No, it's actually very easy not to if you actually put forth effort.
That's impossible because Offense is always taken, not given. Someone will always be offended by something.

Offense can very much be given, whether through hate or ignorance. Am I saying it's possible to never offend anyone? No.

But it is very much possible to be aware of oneself so that you offend as little as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When the big bad guy is encountered in his bedroom. Yes I know that the GM can change this, but when an adventure is written so the PCs have their climactic battle where the baddie sleeps each night, it's weird.

Is his dirty laundry on the floor? Does he have posters of his favorite band on the wall? A photo of his Mom on the nightstand? Way to humanize the villain...


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, speaking of villains... I hate it when PFS scenarios (and occasionally APs as well) have a "boss fight" with a single caster. The caster is rarely able to keep up with the party and it's usually a really easy fight.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate it when other players refer to my character by their class rather than the name you gave them at the start of the adventure ("oy cleric").
Doubly so if I have a table tent with my character name clearly visible.
Triply so if I haven't told them what class the character is or used any abilities that would pigeonhole the character.


Table tent with character name is a good idea. I like that. I may make that mandatory as GM.

Silver Crusade

Table tent?

Edit: looked it up, interesting...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We camp out on the table all the time.


mechaPoet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Can anyone tell me a legitimate situation where such a term is actually the best way to communicate? Have I overlooked something?
Someone's race is important to consider in the context of discussing racism.
Okay, you might actually have a point here. I'll have to ponder that one.

Let me elaborate, and also try to link it back to what this thread is supposed to be about.

Something that bothers me, as a gamer, is that my local PFS scene is mostly middle aged white guys. I've been witness to sexist and racist language, which is difficult to call out for a generally shy-in-meatspace person like me, especially when the rest of the people at the table says nothing or laughs at a joke that makes me personally uncomfortable. Whenever I talk to my friends, I'll occasionally tell them about PFS, but I also mention that it's mostly older white guys. If I just described them as "you know, they're all just people!" then that does a disservice to my friends who aren't white guys who maybe want to avoid what is going to be an uncomfortable space for them. I don't feel like I can ethically omit the racial makeup of my local PFS scene when discussing it with people, because its overwhelmingly white majority is a symptom of my city's past and current racial issues (the city being Portland, OR, which is the whitest major city in America).

Sounds like your FLGS is in need of integration. If you describe it like that maybe your friends will try Pathfinder to make a point.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

People who don't use capitals, punctuation, spelling, grammar, or full sentences on the forums. I'm not perfect at this and I'm not expecting perfection either. I just would like to see an effort so I don't have to read posts that almost seem to be in another language given how long I have to spend deciphering them.


Neriathale wrote:

I hate it when other players refer to my character by their class rather than the name you gave them at the start of the adventure ("oy cleric").

Doubly so if I have a table tent with my character name clearly visible.
Triply so if I haven't told them what class the character is or used any abilities that would pigeonhole the character.

Reminds me of a character I had in a different game back in college. Outdoor ranger-type. What was his name? I never really got around to that part. In the entire time (OK, a few months) we played, it just never came up. At least in the campaign I'm in we generally go by full first name (except for our cleric, who for some reason we just keep calling Father Smith or Smith). We'll use short names when OOC plotting, but IC stuff we stay full. (And how likely are you going to find a Frank, Sam, and Pete in Varisia?)

As far as other things that bother me? The Big Six. I know there's a fix for this in Unchained, and I'd love to go that route, but the fact that there are 'You must have these' items means that basically you can't have any 'fun' things in those slots. Granted, two are weapon and armour and folks kind'a need those (especially martials, although monks get semi-hosed there), but wouldn't it be nice if you could, say, give your barbarian Wings of Flying without worrying about her Will save losing those extra points?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goddity wrote:
People who don't use capitals, punctuation, spelling, grammar, or full sentences on the forums. I'm not perfect at this and I'm not expecting perfection either. I just would like to see an effort so I don't have to read posts that almost seem to be in another language given how long I have to spend deciphering them.

agreed i rly hate that so lazy omg


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"...but some guy on the forums said I'm right, so therefore I must be..." and variations thereof after I've made a ruling.

Silver Crusade

Qaianna wrote:
Neriathale wrote:

I hate it when other players refer to my character by their class rather than the name you gave them at the start of the adventure ("oy cleric").

Doubly so if I have a table tent with my character name clearly visible.
Triply so if I haven't told them what class the character is or used any abilities that would pigeonhole the character.

Reminds me of a character I had in a different game back in college. Outdoor ranger-type. What was his name? I never really got around to that part. In the entire time (OK, a few months) we played, it just never came up. At least in the campaign I'm in we generally go by full first name (except for our cleric, who for some reason we just keep calling Father Smith or Smith). We'll use short names when OOC plotting, but IC stuff we stay full. (And how likely are you going to find a Frank, Sam, and Pete in Varisia?)

As far as other things that bother me? The Big Six. I know there's a fix for this in Unchained, and I'd love to go that route, but the fact that there are 'You must have these' items means that basically you can't have any 'fun' things in those slots. Granted, two are weapon and armour and folks kind'a need those (especially martials, although monks get semi-hosed there), but wouldn't it be nice if you could, say, give your barbarian Wings of Flying without worrying about her Will save losing those extra points?

The first Pathfinder campaign I was in it was 6 months before we learned all of the character' names :3


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I really hate that it's okay to own slaves in PFS, and most people are totally cool with it.


Neriathale wrote:

I hate it when other players refer to my character by their class rather than the name you gave them at the start of the adventure ("oy cleric").

Doubly so if I have a table tent with my character name clearly visible.
Triply so if I haven't told them what class the character is or used any abilities that would pigeonhole the character.

One of our players is a grognard who cut his teeth on the Kill-It-and-Loot-the-Body dungeon crawl type of game. This is a constant issue with him; though I can't say it isn't amusing when he calls our rogue player "the thief," and she constantly corrects him that she has never stolen anything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I really hate that it's okay to own slaves in PFS, and most people are totally cool with it.

...but yet you can't be evil...

The implications are, among other things , that the people who make the rules for PFS think slavery isn't evil.


Goddity wrote:
People who don't use capitals, punctuation, spelling, grammar, or full sentences on the forums. I'm not perfect at this and I'm not expecting perfection either. I just would like to see an effort so I don't have to read posts that almost seem to be in another language given how long I have to spend deciphering them.

Agreed. This is especially surprising to me when found in a character application. If applying for a game, shouldn't you try to put your best foot forward? I immediately eliminate an application with numerous spelling and grammar errors, and I have to assume I'm not the only one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah well, my parents best friends growing up had fled apartheid in South Africa.

So, there's no way I can ever agree with that. Intellectually or not. :-)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I really hate that it's okay to own slaves in PFS, and most people are totally cool with it.

WHAT.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I really hate that it's okay to own slaves in PFS, and most people are totally cool with it.

...but yet you can't be evil...

The implications are, among other things , that the people who make the rules for PFS think slavery isn't evil.

Tammy doesn't need to be validated by the Pathfinder Society.

She could really use their souls though... for... having over for... cupcakes...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I really hate that it's okay to own slaves in PFS, and most people are totally cool with it.
WHAT.

The adventurer's armory book has slaves as an option to buy. It's legal in PFS to do so.

Edit: someone started a thread not believing it was allowed, but nope, was allowed. And then people tried to defend it and talk about how they treated their slaves, etc. It honestly made me physically angry and sick at the same time.

Edit 2: The Edit's Revenge: I think it was The Adventurer's Armory, I might be wrong.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Rysky wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I really hate that it's okay to own slaves in PFS, and most people are totally cool with it.
WHAT.

The adventurer's armory book has slaves as an option to buy. It's legal in PFS to do so.

Edit: someone started a thread not believing it was allowed, but nope, was allowed. And then people tried to defend it and talk about how they treated their slaves, etc. It honestly made me physically angry and suck at the same time.

... yeah that needs to be fixed.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Rysky wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I really hate that it's okay to own slaves in PFS, and most people are totally cool with it.
WHAT.

The adventurer's armory book has slaves as an option to buy. It's legal in PFS to do so.

Edit: someone started a thread not believing it was allowed, but nope, was allowed. And then people tried to defend it and talk about how they treated their slaves, etc. It honestly made me physically angry and suck at the same time.

... yeah that needs to be fixed.

Okay, so this FaQ takes a little bit of that bad taste out of my mouth, since you can't use them as human shields or to set off traps.

So basically you would just buy them to prove how much of a douchebag you are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The one with the most slaves at 12 wins?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
The one with the most slaves at 12 wins?

A cleaver to the face?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Participation in Tammy's ritual of Eternal Apotheosis.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The one with the most slaves at 12 wins?
A cleaver to the face?

Hopefully. :-)


If a player brought slave to the table I would simply have them escape/attempt to escape. If the PC punishes them arranges to have them punished = evil act. Problem solved. if no punishment is forthcoming the of course they will try to escape again. There can't be slavery without systems of control, that are just as evil as taking them in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except, since there's no real ramifications between sessions, it has no real impact. I mean in a home game it may have an impact, but in PFS if your WBL says you can afford slaves, you have them.

The GM doesn't exactly send in data for how many consumable items you used, etc., and there's no real way to prove it from game to game unless you happen to play with the same table again.

I mean if you're a douche enough that you'd buy slaves with your PFS character just to say you have slaves with no real benefit mechanically or anything like that - just to to be that guy - what's to say you wouldn't just, you know, lie, and say they never died or escaped the next game you go to?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd also like to point out that the same FAQ linked earlier points out that Profession (torturer) is not allowed, because torture is an evil act...only a page or so down after it goes over the rules for owning slaves.

That's incredibly dumb. I mean, if evil characters were allowed, at least the whole thing would make a certain amount of sense, but to say "no evil" and then split hairs like "well torture, even for a rare good cause, is wrong, but to own a human being is okay, as long as you don't get a mechanical benefit from them."

Silver Crusade

Yeah, that's really annoying.


The Sword wrote:
There can't be slavery without systems of control, that are just as evil as taking them in the first place.

I don't want to turn this into a slavery thread, but if you just use a little imagination, you will realize that there are numerous LG was to get slaves, great reasons to stay a slave, and ample reasons why running away would be harsher punishment then any mortal could inflict.

For example, Joe the Gambler, just lost his farm and home in a card game, and his family is about to be destitute. Gold Chainz the gold dragon knows that Joe is incapable of living a LG life and makes an offer. In exchange for giving up his Earthly desires and turning himself and his family over to Gold Chainz, they will be provided with everything needed for a LG lifestyle that will result in them all ascending to The Seven Heavens, or Elysium, or whatever. If Joe decides to run away his punishment is likely to be ending up in one of the lower planes for all eternity. If Gold Chainz decides it would be in his best interests (which are also the interests of LG, and far better understood then almost any mortal could fathom) to sell Joe to some Solar or Archon or whatever to benefit LG, there is no problem with that.

The only real loser in all this is Free Will, but that is not valued by LG, only Chaos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To get back on topic.

It annoys me that Explode Head isn't on the Witch spell list.

I'll house rule it on, but I shouldn't have to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If someone showed up with a slave I would give them all my old magic items when I got better ones, buff them, insist they get to keep any item they try out, if they can use it. Same as if someone was mistreating a hireling. Some jerk want's to do something just cause they can? I have to balance the scales of the cosmos. Unless the rules specifically state I cannot give a slave a better AC than their master, I will do that.

I think an Inquisitor is allowed to torture. Don't know if they can do that in PFS.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Irradiate is on the witch list. So they can kill people with massive doses of radiation, yet not explode someone's head.

Sad.


Goblins and kobolds that move too quickly for their size.

Losing your dex bonus to AC when running. (Combat takes place at walking speeds? Seriously?)

Also, a comment on the PFS and slaves thing. If you were buying slaves to set them free it would not so bad. Of course, not so good either. Buying slaves promotes slavery, even if you are setting them free.


Jiggy wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

...She doesn't want to be called African American.

Meanwhile I know other people who don't want to be called black, but rather AA. You can be trying all you want, but if you say what one considers right, the other might get offended.

But what if... we just didn't use either label?

I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but in what contexts is it relevant to even bring up the pieces of information conveyed by those terms at all? snip

I have experience that answers your question.

The father of one of my besties is, according to him, 100% Native American (from multiple tribes), and prefers to be called generically an "Indian" since he doesn't really have a tribal affiliation.

I made the error of referring to "Native Americans" in his presence once and he corrected me that the proper term is "Indian".

So I asked, "what do I call someone from India?" His reply was, "I don't care but if you're talking to me, I'm an Indian." note to 12-yo self: "Indian" it is!


captain yesterday wrote:

To get back on topic.

It annoys me that Explode Head isn't on the Witch spell list.

I'll house rule it on, but I shouldn't have to.

...Is witches exploding heads, like, a trope that I'm just totally oblivious too? Granted I'm oblivious to a lot, so it certainly could be.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo errata process leaves much to be desired. Either a option is nerfed to being almost useless. Or something that really needs to be errated is ignored. The overall design process. No proper middle groud imo. Either a option has great fluff yet poor mechanics and not worth taking. Or once again the option is too strong and somehow slipped through the cracks and ends up in a sourcebook.


Generic Villain wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

To get back on topic.

It annoys me that Explode Head isn't on the Witch spell list.

I'll house rule it on, but I shouldn't have to.

...Is witches exploding heads, like, a trope that I'm just totally oblivious too? Granted I'm oblivious to a lot, so it certainly could be.

Just seems like a spell Witches might like. Besides it's pretty much on everyone else's spell list, why not Witch. :-)

Sovereign Court

Not enough Taldor from Paizo bugs me :(


They gotta ride that Chelish train till the wheels fall off, Pan. They found one really unique concept that's pretty popular, so of course let's release content around it until you're sick of it and hate it.

Meanwhile the empire that spawned Cheliax gets no love while their more powerful former colony gets all the attention.

Ha! It's funny cause you're British, aren't you?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Generic Villain wrote:
...Is witches exploding heads, like, a trope that I'm just totally oblivious too? Granted I'm oblivious to a lot, so it certainly could be.

It makes me think of a scene from a Discworld book, where one witch, Mrs Ogg was having trouble getting past her son, who's a guard. Then the second witch, Granny Weatherwax, shows up and the guard snapped to obey her. When Mrs Ogg asked why her friend didn't have trouble, Granny's answer was that her son knew his mother wouldn't make his damned-fool head explode.

When Mrs Ogg said that she knew Granny Weatherwax wouldn't do that, her answer was that Mrs Ogg didn't know that, all she knew was that Granny hadn't done it - yet.

Liberty's Edge

The scanner psychic is the only class that should have that spell.


captain yesterday wrote:

It annoys me that Explode Head isn't on the Witch spell list.

I'll house rule it on, but I shouldn't have to.

Krensky wrote:
The scanner psychic is the only class that should have that spell.

There needs to be a Kirk PrC that can do the same to constructs.


My take on the PFS thing is it's not evil to buy and release slaves, just to keep them.


Trekkie90909 wrote:
My take on the PFS thing is it's not evil to buy and release slaves, just to keep them.

But buying slaves just means more people will be enslaved to replenish stock and keep up with the demand. That's objectively Evil, regardless of the slavebuyer character's intentions.


It bothers me that I've yet to hit it big in the lotto and realize my dream of playing Pathfinder on a beach somewhere.

.....

Okay, slightly more seriously the whole CLW thing for PFS kinda bugs me. Why wouldn't a martial class buy potions, that they're guaranteed to be able to use, instead of buying a wand and hoping they're paired with someone that can cast the spell? I know I know, it makes things so much easier from a metagame perspective (and the odds of *actually* not being paired with a CLW caster are pretty darn small) but in-game it always struck me a bit odd.

*edit* Darn it Kindle, it's metagame not methane! I don't even know what a methane perspective would be or look like...

201 to 250 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Things that bother you All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.