Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears


Gamer Life General Discussion

901 to 950 of 1,247 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Rynjin wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Ok, this is actually a complaint about Facebook but I can't post it there because people know me.

I am tired of people without kids posting inspirational parenting advice. This includes people who marry someone with kids that have already moved out before you got there. You are not a real parent. I do not need your "insight."

Sorry for the interruption. I feel slightly better.

Posting it on Facebook where the people who bother you can see it would be even more cathartic.

But it might make family reunions a little more awkward.

Shadow Lodge

So glad I don't do family reunions.


I haven't talked to my dad's side of the family for years (save my cousin), and they've been very good years.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Ok, this is actually a complaint about Facebook but I can't post it there because people know me.

I am tired of people without kids posting inspirational parenting advice. This includes people who marry someone with kids that have already moved out before you got there. You are not a real parent. I do not need your "insight."

Sorry for the interruption. I feel slightly better.

This doesn't seem to be quite what you're saying, but it certainly triggered the association for me...

I find it considerably more annoying when I see something a parent is doing that is blatantly wrong, I share information about it, and they dismiss me out of hand because I don't have children myself, as if that has anything to do with the validity of my statements. They literally say my opinion does not matter because I do not personally have children.

Some people, such as myself, actually do know what children are like, exactly how much work goes into raising them, and how relentlessly difficult it can be, and that knowledge is exactly why we don't have kids.

No, I only worked in education for several years, had a younger sibling a decade removed from me that I practically raised myself, several nephews and nieces I am very involved with, and a degree directly related to proper child rearing.

Your spawning an unintended mini-me with a booty call a few years ago completely justifies you ignoring everything I say out of hand regarding how it may not be a good idea to reinforce their negative behavior by buying them a candy bar to shut them up in the grocery store, for example, because I couldn't possibly know what it's like to deal with them day in, day out, and how annoying they are.

No, I do know, and it's exactly why I don't have one. I know being a good parent is a pain in the butt to do, I would be ashamed of myself to raise the demonspawn most people I see have (there are wonderful exceptions, I met many when teaching, but the majority of people of this generation are horrifically bad parents), and because of that I said nope, I'll just not have any, it'll be easier.

Sorry. Crappy parents get on my last nerve. (Again, probably not you, but your comment certainly sparked the reminder.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Ok, this is actually a complaint about Facebook but I can't post it there because people know me.

I am tired of people without kids posting inspirational parenting advice. This includes people who marry someone with kids that have already moved out before you got there. You are not a real parent. I do not need your "insight."

Sorry for the interruption. I feel slightly better.

At the risk of continuing a tangent, I want to state my dislike of people on Facebook who talk about nothing but their children.

They post sometimes hourly updates of what their kids are doing, constant barrages of pictures of said children, automated pregnancy progress trackers (which they can forget to turn off, resulting in "so and so is in their 40th week" posts), and ultrasound pictures. The only time they say anything that's about themselves is when they comment how exhausted they are after they get the children to bed.

I know I'm an occasionally bitter childfree by choice type, but I have people on my list because I want to stay in contact with them, not their kids. :P

They do it in person too. And on the phone. It's worse when you're married, because after a while all of your couple friends have kids and want to bring them to everything, because apparently they didn't calculate babysitting costs when they decided to get pregnant (if it was actually a decision), and eventually they start to bring their kids to events you invite them to without even asking if it's okay, even when you specifically stated that it was an adults only gathering.

Finding another couple where both people have similar interests to both you and your spouse is hard. Finding that and no kids is nigh onto impossible, beyond newlyweds. Even the newlyweds shortly after pop out a few and then you need to move on, because they just don't understand that, no, I don't want to come to your seven year old's party at Chuck E. Cheese, I'm a grown man in my thirties and watered down Pepsi, mediocre pizza, whack a mole, kids screaming, and boring stories from parents sharing the same banal anecdotes recycled with different whitebread names like Taylor and Brighton is not even remotely near my idea of a good time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey it's Wraithstrike again with another meme.

Poster 1: X does not work because <insert rules related reasons)

Poster 2: Why are you so against it? It is not broken or anything.

Whether or not something is broken or OP is not the issue. It does not work because the rules do not support your view on it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Poster 1: X works because A, B and C (quoted from the rulebook).

Poster 2: No it doesn't. You claimed Y worked in thread Z, and you were wrong then.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Poster 1: X works because A, B and C (quoted from the rulebook).

Poster 2: No it doesn't. You claimed Y worked in thread Z, and you were wrong then.

Oh, that's a favorite.

"You were wrong once, so everything you say for the rest of your life can (and will) be summarily dismissed!"

Which kind of makes the internet like being married, in that respect...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Ok, this is actually a complaint about Facebook but I can't post it there because people know me.

I am tired of people without kids posting inspirational parenting advice. This includes people who marry someone with kids that have already moved out before you got there. You are not a real parent. I do not need your "insight."

Sorry for the interruption. I feel slightly better.

To be fair if they don't want to be given advice then they should not be posting on Facebook. Or telling me in person about their troubles with their children. Don't tell me about how little timmy is being a pain at home and school then get mad when someone suggests advice. It works both ways. If one does not want to hear advice on their children. Then don't regal us with your tales of woe about your children.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm almost passionate enough about this particular derail to break my self-imposed two-posts-per-derail limit. I wonder if this counts? Not if I get back on topic, it doesnt...yeah, that's the ticket...

Okay, okay, here we go.

Um...

It grinds my gears when a thread with a really good premise runs out of steam. Come on, people, we are the internet, we can find more to complain about on one website than 19 pages worth of stuff. I believe in you!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A great Onion video about parenting advice

Here are some great Onion articles about parenting

and another one


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Poster 1: X works because A, B and C (quoted from the rulebook).

Poster 2: No it doesn't. You claimed Y worked in thread Z, and you were wrong then.

LOL. I have been lucky enough to miss that one. That would really be annoying.


memorax wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Ok, this is actually a complaint about Facebook but I can't post it there because people know me.

I am tired of people without kids posting inspirational parenting advice. This includes people who marry someone with kids that have already moved out before you got there. You are not a real parent. I do not need your "insight."

Sorry for the interruption. I feel slightly better.

To be fair if they don't want to be given advice then they should not be posting on Facebook. Or telling me in person about their troubles with their children. Don't tell me about how little timmy is being a pain at home and school then get mad when someone suggests advice. It works both ways. If one does not want to hear advice on their children. Then don't regal us with your tales of woe about your children.

No it wasn't anything like that. This was one particular woman who recently married someone with three adult children, and now feels the need to share every single James Dobson (who is just a horrible person) post she finds. Anyways I found out you can still be friends with someone on Facebook and not see anything they do on Facebook. So, Yay, problem solved. Sorry for the derail.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Poster 1: X works because A, B and C (quoted from the rulebook).

Poster 2: No it doesn't. You claimed Y worked in thread Z, and you were wrong then.

Oh, that's a favorite.

"You were wrong once, so everything you say for the rest of your life can (and will) be summarily dismissed!"

Uh, are we really supposed to take you seriously? You, the guy who said, and I quote:

Set wrote:
Firefly (a show that I would have loved even more if Mal got sucked into a jet engine and Zoe ran the ship...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


No it wasn't anything like that. This was one particular woman who recently married someone with three adult children, and now feels the need to share every single James Dobson (who is just a horrible person) post she finds. Anyways I found out you can still be friends with someone on Facebook and not see anything they do on Facebook. So, Yay, problem solved. Sorry for the derail.

Trust me I feel your pain. i had to unfriend someone on FB because he insisted on writing every detail of his life. Unless it's important. I don't need to know that a 9 am you brushed your teeth.


"A modest proposal"


Shifty wrote:
"A modest proposal"

...I never read any of the Goblin Orphan threads, but I assume that's how this became a forum meme?


Sissyl wrote:

Poster 1: X works because A, B and C (quoted from the rulebook).

Poster 2: No it doesn't. You claimed Y worked in thread Z, and you were wrong then.

While the situation you are describing does Grind my Gears, I'll admit I am guilty of a similar scenario:

Poster 1: X works like Y, I'm not going to provide a logical argument or a rules reference, but trust me.
Poster 2: Actually, here is a rules reference saying that X works like Z, not Y, and a developer post explaining why it was written that way, and why it should be Z and not Y.

Poster 1: I don't bloody care about what the text says! You MUST know that it has to work like Y!

Later, in another thread, about a different rules question...

Poster 1: A works like B, trust me (no rational/argument or rules citation).

Me: I'm not sure, do you have a citation for it working like B? In another thread, you said X worked like Y and we should just 'trust you', and you were wrong then. I haven't researched all the relevant rules, though, so maybe there is something obvious I'm missing.

Poster 1: Are you bloody serious? You want an official rules response to be HANDED DOWN RIGHT NOW?!? A just works like B, get over it!

Yes, this actually happened to me. If someone wants to provide a rules citation, or even an FAQ or developer commentary, I'll listen to that regardless of who is providing it. If there is no direct rules citation, but someone attempts to construct an argument based on indirect rules evidence, then I'll listen to that (and if I think their argument is wrong, I make an effort to respond only to the argument, and not who is making it). On the other hand, if the only thing they have to say is "the rules just are A, trust me", then the fact that that person was wrong on previous occasions when they said "trust me" makes it harder to trust they are right without backing up their claim.

Moving on, there is another one that has been bothering me lately:

forumites wrote:
Pathfinder is a war game!

Must be why the cure rules say "Pathfinder Wargame Core Rulebook" on the cover. Oh, wait, no it doesn't. Heck, pathfinder didn't even have rules for mass combat (like, ya know, war) until Ultimate Campaign, years after its release. And sure, official rules for mass combat were in the d20 system before that (since Heroes of Battle 2005), but that still means that 3e existed for five years before getting mass combat rules.


Well, Pathfinder is based on a game that was based on a game that was based on a game that was based on a war game. It's clearly not the same game as the original game but combat is still a large part of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a new one that bothered me recently.

Me: I think you're wrong because of reasons.
Other Poster: Clearly you don't understand the argument, go re-read everything and if you can convince me you understand then we can continue the discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tend to say that a lot, but it's mostly because people go "You're wrong because of reasons" when the stuff they're pointing out as wrong has already been refuted several times over the course of the discussion, and/or "You're wrong because of reasons" has no relevance in a discussion entirely about someone's opinion of how something SHOULD work.

"I think this should do this" followed by "But that's wrng, the rules say..." type of stuff.


Rynjin wrote:

I tend to say that a lot, but it's mostly because people go "You're wrong because of reasons" when the stuff they're pointing out as wrong has already been refuted several times over the course of the discussion, and/or "You're wrong because of reasons" has no relevance in a discussion entirely about someone's opinion of how something SHOULD work.

"I think this should do this" followed by "But that's wrng, the rules say..." type of stuff.

"That has been covered already" is vastly different than "you clearly don't understand."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rogue is fine. You just suck as a player for not realizing this.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The rogue is fine. You just suck as a player for not realizing this.

I got told that as far as the monk goes the other day.


Tribalgeek wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The rogue is fine. You just suck as a player for not realizing this.
I got told that as far as the monk goes the other day.

The next time they say that, ask them what their definition of "Fine" is.

Make sure you have an answer if they reflect the question back at you though. And be able to explain why the class does not fulfill your definition of "Fine".


I gave up very quickly. They were okay with the monk hitting less, doing less damage, having to be a magic item to not be MAD, and thought only having the UC stuff as decent archtypes was okay. There was no convincing that group of anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Truly, I wonder why people care so much about what is or is not underpowered. If you feel a class, race, feat, trait, item, or other choice is inferior, then do not play it. It really is that simple.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Truly, I wonder why people care so much about what is or is not underpowered. If you feel a class, race, feat, trait, item, or other choice is inferior, then do not play it. It really is that simple.

Because I WANT it to be good.

If you're going to make something weak, the least you could do is:

A.) Make it boring too.

and

B.) Not make it the only thing that fully fills a conceptual niche.

As it stands, for the longest time the Monk was both frickin' COOL and the only real way to pull of a martial artist (still is, in a way, dips are almost required to make it fully come together).

"If it's weak, don't play it" also doesn't excuse the fact that it was made poorly to begin with. If something is poorly made, you have a right to voice that. This works with anything.

If your food is under/over cooked and bland at a restaurant, make your displeasure known.

If a game is buggy and unplayable, make your displeasure known.

If a series is plagued with poor writing and unlikeable characters, make your displeasure known.

Because if you do so, there is a chance it will be fixed, or at least mitigated. The restaurant may bring you another plate (or at least comp you the meal). The developers may patch the game. The writer may take criticism to heart.

And Paizo might listen and do an entire re-write of the class in question. That gets a FLYING KICK WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


People that use too many consecutive letters so as to throw off the page's format and makes it impossible to read on my phone (wait for it...) really grind my gears!


Tribalgeek wrote:
I gave up very quickly. They were okay with the monk hitting less, doing less damage, having to be a magic item to not be MAD, and thought only having the UC stuff as decent archtypes was okay. There was no convincing that group of anything.

I've seen pretty decent monks out there. Core monk sucks, a Monk with all the toys doesn't have to.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Truly, I wonder why people care so much about what is or is not underpowered. If you feel a class, race, feat, trait, item, or other choice is inferior, then do not play it. It really is that simple.

I walked into 3.5 wanting to play a Final Fantasy Tactics Monk.

I got the 3.5 Monk.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Truly, I wonder why people care so much about what is or is not underpowered. If you feel a class, race, feat, trait, item, or other choice is inferior, then do not play it. It really is that simple.

I want to play them, I want them not to suck.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Truly, I wonder why people care so much about what is or is not underpowered. If you feel a class, race, feat, trait, item, or other choice is inferior, then do not play it. It really is that simple.

Because I WANT it to be good.

If you're going to make something weak, the least you could do is:

A.) Make it boring too.

and

B.) Not make it the only thing that fully fills a conceptual niche.

As it stands, for the longest time the Monk was both frickin' COOL and the only real way to pull of a martial artist (still is, in a way, dips are almost required to make it fully come together).

"If it's weak, don't play it" also doesn't excuse the fact that it was made poorly to begin with. If something is poorly made, you have a right to voice that. This works with anything.

If your food is under/over cooked and bland at a restaurant, make your displeasure known.

If a game is buggy and unplayable, make your displeasure known.

If a series is plagued with poor writing and unlikeable characters, make your displeasure known.

Because if you do so, there is a chance it will be fixed, or at least mitigated. The restaurant may bring you another plate (or at least comp you the meal). The developers may patch the game. The writer may take criticism to heart.

And Paizo might listen and do an entire re-write of the class in question. That gets a FLYING KICK WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

To the developers this makes sense. To some poor sod who just wants to play a fighter, it does not.

If you don't like your steak at the restaurant, you send it back, but you don't go around explaining to people who order the same meal why it was bland. Well, maybe you do, I don't know you personally, but there is no benefit to be gained from that. "Heads up, the steak is not worth the money," is enough, and if they ask why, elaboration is understandable, but if they say, "I like the steak here. I think it's totally worth the money," then not only are you wasting your breath by explaining how a steak ought to be cooked, how other restaurants cook their steak, and how this one falls short, you're annoying the hell out of the other customer who constantly orders and enjoys what they're having.

So if it's a feedback thread, say on the products forums, by all means that makes total sense. And even if it's an advice thread, an initial cursory warning makes sense - even follow ups if your warning is met with genuine interest into the reasoning as to your opinion. But if someone replies with "I disagree", from that point it merely becomes a pissing contest between the two of you, and even if you "win", you're not changing anyone's mind, so what's the point?


thegreenteagamer wrote:
...

But if the majority of the posters yell hard enough for long enough Paizo is bound to listen.

If you disagree with me let me ask you this.

Which 3 almost universally decried classes are getting rewrites in unchained.

The monk, the rogue and the summoner.

The system works.

*hopefully unchained isn't terrible and this doesn't look hilarious in hind sight*

Grand Lodge

TOZ wrote:

I walked into 3.5 wanting to play a Final Fantasy Tactics Monk.

I got the 3.5 Monk.

Isn't that like going into Taco Bell wanting to get a Big Mac??

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
Isn't that like going into Taco Bell wanting to get a Big Mac??

I guess, if you've never had Taco Bell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:


To the developers this makes sense. To some poor sod who just wants to play a fighter, it does not.

If you don't like your steak at the restaurant, you send it back, but you don't go around explaining to people who order the same meal why it was bland. Well, maybe you do, I don't know you personally, but there is no benefit to be gained from that. "Heads up, the steak is not worth the money," is...

That's a bit of a flawed analogy.

"I like this steak" is a subjective statement. Disagreeing with it is pointless.

"This thing is mechanically bad" is an (attempt at an) objective statement. Defending it when challenged is natural. That's how discussion is done.

"I think this is true [Reasons]" "I think that is untrue [Reasons]" "That reasoning doesn't quite hold up because [Counterargument]".

Essentially what you're suggesting is that nobody should ever discuss anything beyond "[Statement of opinion]" and then "[Statement of disagreement with opinon]".

That defeats the entire purpose of a forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, while I disagree with Rynjin on what constitutes a 'good' class - how can it be bad to express your opinions/preferences to the developers?

Granted he and I dont have a lot to talk about when it comes to class design, but we each have a reason to discuss it on Paizo's forums.

FWIW, I also reject the reasonably oft-heard refrain: "Why talk about this again? Nobody ever changes their mind." Partly because there's always new people who might want to do all the talking themselves rather than read someone else's conversation, but also because some of us like to go over things again and again and again before revising our opinions.

I guess it's a grind my gears thing (though it doesnt really) - people who pop into a thread just to announce they have no interest in participating and/or it's not going to go anywhere. How does saying that help?


You disagree with me to the point where I understand that at this juncture, there's not much point in continuing my argument. I can summize based upon a)your immediate dismissal of my premise on the assumption that your opinion is fact merely because you have supporting arguments (The entire art of debate is presenting supporting facts to strengthen an argument about an opinion, but those supporting facts do not change the base opinion itself to a fact, merely an educated opinion), as well as b) your history of posts on the subject have illustrated your passion and entrenched roots in the subject which are unlikely to change. (Which honestly should've stopped me in the first place, frankly.)

I will say, in regard to the "that is the purpose of a forum" statement, which I believe to be an entirely different issue, that I again disagree. Heated public argument is the original purpose of the original forums...those erudite councils of the high born Greeks and Romans...but the forums today are a place for any kind of discussion, and if is, for example, a discussion on the best choices to make for a rogue player wanting to increase their utility, "don't play a rogue, rogues suck," is not only counterproductive to the discussion at hand, but if met with initial resistance, a waste of your time and effort. (Addendum to this paragraph - I'm a bit tired, my statement seems a bit ridiculous as I read it. My point of this paragraph was that, no, arguing isn't the point of forums, merely public communication, of which arguing is one option,but not the sole purpose.)

You're an intelligent person, or so it appears from your posts. (Incredibly self-confident, and perhaps even at times...lacking tact...but those traits are not mutually exclusive from intelligence.) Why would you waste the gift of your well defined opinions on those who don't care to listen to them?

There are, after all, scenarios where the information is genuinely requested and adhered to. I myself recall a point where I asked as to the futility of the rogue in all earnestness, and forgive me if I was wrong, but I think it might've even been you who laid out the superiority of the investigator from all possible angles enough to convince me of it's total falling short as a package (and if it wasn't, my apologies to whoever it was that opened my eyes to that), but the difference was the context. I was saying, "waitaminute, what about the rogue as a package, is there anything that beats it at EVERYTHING?" Not, "rogues are awesome, you're absolutely wrong."

Anyway, at this point I'm repeating myself. I could probably continue my argument as to the futility of arguing something with someone who's mind is made up against the subject at hand, but even I can see the tragically paradoxical nature of such a course


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a vast difference between trying to debate to back up your point and trying to debate to come to the truth.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:

You disagree with me to the point where I understand that at this juncture, there's not much point in continuing my argument. I can summize based upon a)your immediate dismissal of my premise on the assumption that your opinion is fact merely because you have supporting arguments (The entire art of debate is presenting supporting facts to strengthen an argument about an opinion, but those supporting facts do not change the base opinion itself to a fact, merely an educated opinion), as well as b) your history of posts on the subject have illustrated your passion and entrenched roots in the subject which are unlikely to change. (Which honestly should've stopped me in the first place, frankly.)

I will say, in regard to the "that is the purpose of a forum" statement, which I believe to be an entirely different issue, that I again disagree. Heated public argument is the original purpose of the original forums...those erudite councils of the high born Greeks and Romans...but the forums today are a place for any kind of discussion, and if is, for example, a discussion on the best choices to make for a rogue player wanting to increase their utility, "don't play a rogue, rogues suck," is not only counterproductive to the discussion at hand, but if met with initial resistance, a waste of your time and effort. (Addendum to this paragraph - I'm a bit tired, my statement seems a bit ridiculous as I read it. My point of this paragraph was that, no, arguing isn't the point of forums, merely public communication, of which arguing is one option,but not the sole purpose.)

You're an intelligent person, or so it appears from your posts. (Incredibly self-confident, and perhaps even at times...lacking tact...but those traits are not mutually exclusive from intelligence.) Why would you waste the gift of your well defined opinions on those who don't care to listen to them?

There are, after all, scenarios where the information is genuinely requested and adhered to. I myself recall a point where I asked as to the futility of...

As someone who writes really long posts herself... is this parody? Like, is this a satire of long and extremely verbose posts?

Sorry if it's not... no offense meant. :)


thegreenteagamer wrote:
You disagree with me to the point where I understand that at this juncture, there's not much point in continuing my argument. I can surmise based upon a)your immediate dismissal of my premise on the assumption that your opinion is fact merely because you have supporting arguments (The entire art of debate is presenting supporting facts to strengthen an argument about an opinion, but those supporting facts do not change the base opinion itself to a fact, merely an educated opinion), as well as b) your history of posts on the subject have illustrated your passion and entrenched roots in the subject which are unlikely to change. (Which honestly should've stopped me in the first place, frankly.)

Are we talking about this discussion, or the Monk discussion? I don't think in this one I've immediately dismissed your premise at any point (except to say your continuation of a part of my analogy was flawed).

On the Monk discussion, I will say however that it is pretty much a fact that the Monk is a weak class. The devs even admit it's not up to par (with the justification that they had to preserve backwards compatibility in the Core Rulebook), and that's why they've rewritten it from scratch in Unchained.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
I will say, in regard to the "that is the purpose of a forum" statement, which I believe to be an entirely different issue, that I again disagree. Heated public argument is the original purpose of the original forums...those erudite councils of the high born Greeks and Romans...but the forums today are a place for any kind of discussion, and if is, for example, a discussion on the best choices to make for a rogue player wanting to increase their utility, "don't play a rogue, rogues suck," is not only counterproductive to the discussion at hand, but if met with initial resistance, a waste of your time and effort.

That's a different scenario.

To go back to the restaurant analogy, what you're referring to is someone asking "What do you guys think? How should I get my steak cooked, and what sides to go with it?" and then one guy going "Steak is terrible, you should order chicken instead. Its deliciousness quotient is higher in these areas.".

It's off-topic, in other words.

But what you said earlier was that ANY discussion or argument over the matter was pointless, which isn't the case. "Why is the Rogue bad?" is a question asked that can be discussed from a number of angles by people with differing opinions. Saying that people who disagree on why (or even if) the Rogue is bad are participating in a pointless discussion is just...wrong.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
Why would you waste the gift of your well defined opinions on those who don't care to listen to them?

Because it's fun. I enjoy arguing with people on the internet.

They say the first step to solving your problem is admitting you have one. Or something.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
There are, after all, scenarios where the information is genuinely requested and adhered to. I myself recall a point where I asked as to the futility of the rogue in all earnestness, and forgive me if I was wrong, but I think it might've even been you who laid out the superiority of the investigator from all possible angles enough to convince me of it's total falling short as a package (and if it wasn't, my apologies to whoever it was that opened my eyes to that), but the difference was the context. I was saying, "waitaminute, what about the rogue as a package, is there anything that beats it at EVERYTHING?" Not, "rogues are awesome, you're absolutely wrong."

Not sure if that was me. Though the Investigator is one of my favorite new classes, so I could see myself extolling its virtues from on high.

Finally get to play one, too. Hopefully that game lasts beyond second level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
is this parody?

Nope. Sometimes I cast wall of text. Usually happens at night when insomnia is hitting me and I don't have the clarity to summarize my opinions clearly and concisely.

I'm not usually this bad. But I have been! Especially with thread openers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:


I guess it's a grind my gears thing (though it doesnt really) - people who pop into a thread just to announce they have no interest in participating and/or it's not going to go anywhere. How does saying that help?

I think they just want attention for the former. For the latter they are giving a warning that others should not waste their time. I get it, but I also realize that it never works. What someone might do instead is to say this has been covered here(insert link 1) and here (insert link 2). That might give the person more references, and they wont have to wait for people to respond since repeating topics tend to have the same arguments.


For some reason that reminds me of another meme.

There will be some belief that most of us actually agree on.

Some person will say popular opinion X is wrong because <inserts reason he thinks has never been accounted for>. However it has been countered several times in the past.

Poster 1: Uh we discussed that already in several threads.

They then come back with another counter they think is new.

Poster 1 or some other poster: Uh yeah we got that one already also.

The pattern continues..


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"The other steak is exactly the same, and comes with free fries, a large drink, , and if you want to bring alchohol you can just pay the 2 dollar corking fee

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The end of the world style bloat threads as soon as a new hardcover is released. Guaranteed to almost happen with PU. That the lastest release will ruin their game. That paizo forces them to buy it etc...


thegreenteagamer wrote:

You disagree with me to the point where I understand that at this juncture, there's not much point in continuing my argument. I can summize based upon a)your immediate dismissal of my premise on the assumption that your opinion is fact merely because you have supporting arguments (The entire art of debate is presenting supporting facts to strengthen an argument about an opinion, but those supporting facts do not change the base opinion itself to a fact, merely an educated opinion), as well as b) your history of posts on the subject have illustrated your passion and entrenched roots in the subject which are unlikely to change. (Which honestly should've stopped me in the first place, frankly.)

I will say, in regard to the "that is the purpose of a forum" statement, which I believe to be an entirely different issue, that I again disagree. Heated public argument is the original purpose of the original forums...those erudite councils of the high born Greeks and Romans...but the forums today are a place for any kind of discussion, and if is, for example, a discussion on the best choices to make for a rogue player wanting to increase their utility, "don't play a rogue, rogues suck," is not only counterproductive to the discussion at hand, but if met with initial resistance, a waste of your time and effort. (Addendum to this paragraph - I'm a bit tired, my statement seems a bit ridiculous as I read it. My point of this paragraph was that, no, arguing isn't the point of forums, merely public communication, of which arguing is one option,but not the sole purpose.)

You're an intelligent person, or so it appears from your posts. (Incredibly self-confident, and perhaps even at times...lacking tact...but those traits are not mutually exclusive from intelligence.) Why would you waste the gift of your well defined opinions on those who don't care to listen to them?

There are, after all, scenarios where the information is genuinely requested and adhered to. I myself recall a point where I asked as to the futility of...

*Is running by, pursued by a hungry adventurer*

*Stops*
*Paints a tunnel on the side of greenteagamer's post and runs through*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It grinds my gears that the omnipotent Lord Wraithstrike is still not acknowledged as supreme glorious leader of all!!!

ALL HAIL LORD WRAITHSTRIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wraithstrike Minion #1 wrote:

It grinds my gears that the omnipotent Lord Wraithstrike is still not acknowledged as supreme glorious leader of all!!!

ALL HAIL LORD WRAITHSTRIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No! Lady Ashiel is far superior!!!

901 to 950 of 1,247 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.