About an hour ago, I posted a thread complaining about how Paizo discourages us from playing monstrous races. The only responses I got were comments about how to houserule rakshasa characters and how to convert races form other 3.5 sourcebooks. In frustration, I left them to their discussion--one which had nothing to do with the topic.
My question is this, and it's not completely rhetorical: Does anybody here actually read the content of a thread before posting? Because here's what I think people do:
See new thread. Read title. Read first sentence, then respond.
It'd explain a lot.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
So... what happened about an hour ago?
Needs more Great Cleave.
Have you looked at Savage Species? :-P
As one of the people who posted in that thread you mention, I contend that I DID read your entire post. You may, if you choose, contend that I did not. I have been falsely accused of that before.
The point is that I disagreed with part of your point. I am continuing to post into that thread - which you may or may not continue to read as you choose - and I am continuing to disagree with part of your point, citing evidence to support my position. If you choose, you may cite evidence which disproves my point, and may even make me reverse my position. That, too, has happened before.
But please don't assume, just because people are disagreeing or offering advice, that they're failing to read your post. Maybe they're just emphasizing the parts of your post that they agree with. Maybe they don't feel qualified to judge what's going on in the minds of the Paizo staff.
If you say "I love oranges and I love chicken, but I hate orange chicken," even if your main point was your hatred of orange chicken, and people go on about how they like chicken, that doesn't mean that they failed to hear your main point! They may just be making the comments they want to make!
And yes, I know how you feel. I've had people read the first line of e-mails I wrote - about more important matters - and addressed my first sentence, while showing an ignorance of the rest of the e-mail and my main point. But don't assume the worst of people. Please.
About an hour ago, I posted a thread complaining about how Paizo discourages us from playing monstrous races. The only responses I got were comments about how to houserule rakshasa characters and how to convert races form other 3.5 sourcebooks. In frustration, I left them to their discussion--one which had nothing to do with the topic.
My question is this, and it's not completely rhetorical: Does anybody here actually read the content of a thread before posting? Because here's what I think people do:
See new thread. Read title. Read first sentence, then respond.
It'd explain a lot.
KC, people will talk about what they want to talk about. In this case your subject, how Paizo is influencing the choice of monstrous PCs, is far less appealing to the great unwashed than the subject of monstrous PCs and how fun they are.
If you want people to stay on topic, go post in the I am sorry Heathansson thread. Beating on the warwoof is something few ever tire of.
|
|
I always read the whole post and I consider commenting, but then I read the other comments, and I feel so thrown by them that I think, "I must not have understood the original post at all."
And I would like to know: Why does paizo discourage us from playing monstrous races? They've discouraged it so far, but will that continue? Maybe they just wanted us to really sink our teeth into the core rulebook before we start changing everything. Do you think this will continue to be their position over the long haul?
Wait...now my comment is in the wrong thread. Oh... and I prefer barbecued chicken.
|
About an hour ago, I posted a thread complaining about how Paizo discourages us from playing monstrous races. The only responses I got were comments about how to houserule rakshasa characters and how to convert races form other 3.5 sourcebooks. In frustration, I left them to their discussion--one which had nothing to do with the topic.
My question is this, and it's not completely rhetorical: Does anybody here actually read the content of a thread before posting? Because here's what I think people do:
See new thread. Read title. Read first sentence, then respond.
It'd explain a lot.
Cookies? Where????
Cookies? Where????About an hour ago, I posted a thread complaining about how Paizo discourages us from playing monstrous races. The only responses I got were comments about how to houserule rakshasa characters and how to convert races form other 3.5 sourcebooks. In frustration, I left them to their discussion--one which had nothing to do with the topic.
My question is this, and it's not completely rhetorical: Does anybody here actually read the content of a thread before posting? Because here's what I think people do:
See new thread. Read title. Read first sentence, then respond.
It'd explain a lot.
...
...it's over there, in the vat of acid.;)
Impactful? As in constipation?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
|
Sebastian thinks we can *read*? Wow, didn't think he gave us that much credit.You should assume that your audience is only going to read your first sentence, so you need to make it impactful. That's what Sebastian would do.
No, but he can claim that he put his most salient point in the first sentence, but we're a bunch of mouth-breathers and wouldn't have understood it anyway. I am paraphrasing, here.
About an hour ago, I posted a thread complaining about how Paizo discourages us from playing monstrous races. The only responses I got were comments about how to houserule rakshasa characters and how to convert races form other 3.5 sourcebooks. In frustration, I left them to their discussion--one which had nothing to do with the topic.
My question is this, and it's not completely rhetorical: Does anybody here actually read the content of a thread before posting? Because here's what I think people do:
See new thread. Read title. Read first sentence, then respond.
It'd explain a lot.
You know what you need to do? Go back to that thread and TELL people what you want them to say. Then you can have the satisfaction of reading the response you want in the thread you want.
There, was that so hard?
About an hour ago, I posted a thread complaining about how Paizo discourages us from playing monstrous races. The only responses I got were comments about how to houserule rakshasa characters and how to convert races form other 3.5 sourcebooks. In frustration, I left them to their discussion--one which had nothing to do with the topic.
My question is this, and it's not completely rhetorical: Does anybody here actually read the content of a thread before posting? Because here's what I think people do:
See new thread. Read title. Read first sentence, then respond.
It'd explain a lot.You know what you need to do? Go back to that thread and TELL people what you want them to say. Then you can have the satisfaction of reading the response you want in the thread you want.
There, was that so hard?
...
...what? What's with the vehemence?
I am with Aaron on this. I may want to speak to a specific point you made or maybe a tangent that your original post inspired in me. Just because I do not post what you want me to post does not mean I did not read your original post.
About an hour ago, I posted a thread complaining about how Paizo discourages us from playing monstrous races. The only responses I got were comments about how to houserule rakshasa characters and how to convert races form other 3.5 sourcebooks. In frustration, I left them to their discussion--one which had nothing to do with the topic.
My question is this, and it's not completely rhetorical: Does anybody here actually read the content of a thread before posting? Because here's what I think people do:
See new thread. Read title. Read first sentence, then respond.
It'd explain a lot.You know what you need to do? Go back to that thread and TELL people what you want them to say. Then you can have the satisfaction of reading the response you want in the thread you want.
There, was that so hard?
...
...what? What's with the vehemence?
It's not vehemence, it's my sense of humor. Really, I think you're being unreasonable. Your point here seems to be "I said something and I didn't get the response I wanted." So, the solution seems pretty clear. Tell people the response you want, and someone will probably oblige you.
I posted over there, and you made MANY statements in your OP, and I would hate to think that the one that YOU considered your main point was lost in the many other valid points you raised.
It's the same thing that Hitler & the Nazis did!
oh, and pistachio!
In a case of classic irony, people misunderstood me. Allow me to explain:
I didn't mention conversions or hit dice. People were talking about conversions and hit dice. Ergo, they clearly assumed I was referring to conversions and hit dice. If people respond to one thing I said, that's fine.
In a case of classic irony, people misunderstood me. Allow me to explain:
I didn't mention conversions or hit dice. People were talking about conversions and hit dice. Ergo, they clearly assumed I was referring to conversions and hit dice. If people respond to one thing I said, that's fine.
I'm rereading the whole thread, and I do see many of the people responding to at least one thing you said in your original or subsequent posts. Therefore, I must conclude that you are, in fact, not a kobold, but a troll.
It's the same thing that Hitler & the Nazis did!
oh, and pistachio!
Well... you know....
Well... you know....It's the same thing that Hitler & the Nazis did!
oh, and pistachio!
Curse your sudden but inevitable appearance!
Hmmm...
Smurf.
In a case of classic irony, people misunderstood me. Allow me to explain:
I didn't mention conversions or hit dice. People were talking about conversions and hit dice. Ergo, they clearly assumed I was referring to conversions and hit dice. If people respond to one thing I said, that's fine.
Did you even read my reply?
It's all because 4e sucks.
Wait... what is this thread all about?
In a messageboard gone mad, one man ... one kobold ... must face the ultimate evil. Terror lurks behind every reply. Mind warping realities fill every quote. Where strawmen abound, Godwin is sure to follow. And still the question remains ... "Does anyone even read the posts?".
Coming soon to a thread near you. This post is not yet rated.
Orange Chicken is DELICIOUS.
Orange Chicken is DELICIOUS.The Nazca never made a geoglyph of a chicken!
They never made a geoglyph of a stacked woman clad only in biker boots laying across a chopper either, but that doesn't make it any less awesome.
Cookies ... naked chick in boots on a chopper ... decisions decisions...
I want pie.
I want pie.
Who doesn't?
What? Why was Sebastian eating chicken pie naked?
Did I hear the words "soul for sale"?
About an hour ago, I posted a thread complaining about how Paizo discourages us from playing monstrous races. The only responses I got were comments about how to houserule rakshasa characters and how to convert races form other 3.5 sourcebooks. In frustration, I left them to their discussion--one which had nothing to do with the topic.
My question is this, and it's not completely rhetorical: Does anybody here actually read the content of a thread before posting? Because here's what I think people do:
See new thread. Read title. Read first sentence, then respond.
It'd explain a lot.
? I don't think my own response was out of topic, Koby...
Unless YOU didn't read it ;)