Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 1,247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

2) Thread Necromancy

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.

2) Not people posting in old threads, but rather the folks who feel the need to call it out every time, as though it is some unwritten forum offense. Cut it out. It's clutter, it's annoying, and it is not helpful or useful.

What Grinds Your Gears?

Shadow Lodge

30 people marked this as a favorite.

Negative posts.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

People posting threads that are obviously inflammatory in nature.

Webstore Gninja Minion

6 people marked this as a favorite.

A reminder to keep it civil, and remember that not everybody plays the game the same way.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As someone who often pulls the OP's second complaint:

When someone necros a thread and replies to posts years old in a manner that seems to expect a response. Or someone comes in shortly after the necro post and does the same. If you are necro'ing a thread, I feel it's worth mentioning in your post. Otherwise you end up with people arguing with ghosts and that's always awkward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bait thread titles!
While it isn't a "meme" it still bugs me.

Only state thigns in your title that clearly explain what it is.
Don't try to draw inerest through emotional appeal!

Even if it means you get no replies or feedback, like me!


'Memes', or "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". I suppose negative posting could apply, but this is specifically about concepts that have snuck into our culture that irk us. IMO both of these concepts impact the culture here in a negative way - though one more than the other.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll be back in one year to let you know.

Dark Archive

12 people marked this as a favorite.

The concept of bloat being discussed while referring to anything besides the bloatmage prestige class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

X is over powered

X can be a class, it can be a magic item, it can be a specific weapon or a class feature. Maybe it's the threads that go on and on about what is over powered and it turns into the "bloat threads". It's possible to read a single thread in one night (not a speed reader).


12 people marked this as a favorite.

"This is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game."

I mean, wow, what an observation.

I think this thread would have been off to a better start if you hadn't come out the gates talking about how "munchkins and minmaxers" poison the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

"This is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game."

<snip>

I think this thread would have been off to a better start if you hadn't come out the gates talking about how "munchkins and minmaxers" poison the game.

I gotta back Scott on this one. As Liz says,

Liz Courts wrote:
A reminder to keep it civil, and remember that not everybody plays the game the same way.

The real trick of this is the idea of "munchkins and minmaxers" is... different for each table, each group, and each person. The local opinion of what is and is not that thing is formed by developing it with your fellow players when you first start the game, refined with your fellow players as you play the game, and influenced by a lot of out-of-game elements and ideas as well.

Similarly, I agree with,

Xethik wrote:

As someone who often pulls the OP's second complaint:

When someone necros a thread and replies to posts years old in a manner that seems to expect a response. Or someone comes in shortly after the necro post and does the same. If you are necro'ing a thread, I feel it's worth mentioning in your post. Otherwise you end up with people arguing with ghosts and that's always awkward.

I have, on occasion, pointed out whether or not something is a necro or similar, but my purpose (and, I think, style) has never been for "shaming" for such a thing (which isn't really all that bad of a thing), but for informing or reminding those participating that they are, effectively, returning to a conversation people have already left. This can be a positive or a negative, but it's worth being aware of, as that may inform any future responses the necro'r actually receives (if any), and, more importantly, helps manage expectations.

I'll have to try to think of memes to respond here later, though I generally like this place...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I'd be more okay with OMG BLOAT! threads if it was down to one thread per new book and not five over the course of a few months.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

2) Thread Necromancy

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.

.....

What Grinds Your Gears?

The things I just bolded in your post because it assumes that someone thinks their way of playing is the right way, and it assumes their level of optimization is ok, but someone playing above that level is doing it wrong.

I guess people that do this grind my gears.

edit: Some people have told me 100DPR at level 11 is too much. Other have said it was not good enough. Basically that means that what is OP or "too much" is subjective, and nobody should be judging someone else just because they like more firepower in their games.

What matters is that someone clearly states how things are at their table, and nobody goes beyond that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
I think I'd be more okay with OMG BLOAT! threads if it was down to one thread per new book and not five over the course of a few months.

This reminds of another gear grinder.

It is not directed at you Hyper.

People who fail to realize that what is a problem for their games is not necessarily a problem for "The game" as a whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

2) Thread Necromancy

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.

The things I just bolded in your post because it assumes that someone thinks their way of playing is the right way, and it assumes their level of optimization is ok, but someone playing above that level is doing it wrong.

I guess uppity/snobbish gamers grind my gears.

I'm not sure that's quite what was meant, though the wording does make it sound that way, but being annoyed when a thread not about optimization becomes overrun with optimization advice doesn't mean optimizing is the wrong way to play, just that it wasn't the topic at hand, which is now lost under the maximization discussion.

BTW, what's this "Forge of Combat"? I don't recall it as a common meme and a search doesn't bring up very much.


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

2) Thread Necromancy

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.

The things I just bolded in your post because it assumes that someone thinks their way of playing is the right way, and it assumes their level of optimization is ok, but someone playing above that level is doing it wrong.

I guess uppity/snobbish gamers grind my gears.

I'm not sure that's quite what was meant, though the wording does make it sound that way, but being annoyed when a thread not about optimization becomes overrun with optimization advice doesn't mean optimizing is the wrong way to play, just that it wasn't the topic at hand, which is now lost under the maximization discussion.

BTW, what's this "Forge of Combat"? I don't recall it as a common meme and a search doesn't bring up very much.

I edited my post to make it sound nicer. :)

I am not sure about Forge of Combat, that is why I did not comment on it, but I think he means the focus on combat.


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

2) Thread Necromancy

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.

The things I just bolded in your post because it assumes that someone thinks their way of playing is the right way, and it assumes their level of optimization is ok, but someone playing above that level is doing it wrong.

I guess uppity/snobbish gamers grind my gears.

I'm not sure that's quite what was meant, though the wording does make it sound that way, but being annoyed when a thread not about optimization becomes overrun with optimization advice doesn't mean optimizing is the wrong way to play, just that it wasn't the topic at hand, which is now lost under the maximization discussion.

BTW, what's this "Forge of Combat"? I don't recall it as a common meme and a search doesn't bring up very much.

off topic so it is spoilered:

I think sometimes a topic lends itself toward optimization, even if that is not the main topic. As an example if I want to know the best way to sword and board, which is not an optimal combat style, someone may suggest I go with TWF sword and board. Other times someone may misunderstand a rule, and then it accidentally turn into a rules discussion. It is hard to discuss the game without the mechanics coming up at some point most of the time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Theorycraft"

Not for any special reason; I just really hate the way the word sounds. It's the same feeling some people get when they hear the word "moist".

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.

-Convince me/Sell me on/of "X" threads.

Why should people try to convince someone of something that they have already decided?

-World of Warcraft has ruined the game

No, no it hasn't.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Forge of Combat is a guide that talks about different combat roles through a blacksmith analogy. Without looking it up, I think it's striker="hammer" support="arm" and tank="anvil". There may be nuances that place battlefield control in the anvil slot, but I'm not sure.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Comments implying that anyone who doesn't like some weird thing proposed or basically any restrictions whatsoever are stuck on Tolkien.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I'm not sure that's quite what was meant, though the wording does make it sound that way, but being annoyed when a thread not about optimization becomes overrun with optimization advice doesn't mean optimizing is the wrong way to play, just that it wasn't the topic at hand, which is now lost under the maximization discussion.

This is definitely fair enough.

thejeff wrote:
BTW, what's this "Forge of Combat"? I don't recall it as a common meme and a search doesn't bring up very much.

Forge of Combat thread, Forge of Combat actual source document.

Though I've read it in-depth, it's basically a very simplistic "generally, for optimization purposes, follow this kind of advice" with the (actually stated) goal of "OVERCOME THE ENCOUNTER AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE" - something that works well enough, but isn't the be-all end-all of the game, and isn't even pretending to be. It starts and ends at combat, and he promptly (and pointedly) ignores anything that isn't that by noting that it's not what this guide is about on the bottom (in FAQs).

I can see the take-away that combat is all there is, but I'm not getting that impression so much as the idea "this guide is about combat".

It doesn't seem all that revolutionary, and it's pretty straight-forward; instead it seems to be a general piece of advice that pairs down the much more specific advice often received into discreet general principals.

While I haven't heard a lot of "Forge of Combat" bandied about, I have seen the terms "anvil" and "hammer" and "arm" used to describe characters in a short-hand on occasion. I'd guess it' not a very large meme, but probably a growing one.

EDIT: ninja'd!


Berinor wrote:
Forge of Combat is a guide that talks about different combat roles through a blacksmith analogy. Without looking it up, I think it's striker="hammer" support="arm" and tank="anvil". There may be nuances that place battlefield control in the anvil slot, but I'm not sure.

Ok. I have heard of these. I just did not know they had a collective name.


Yeah, I found that thread, but it didn't seem common enough here to qualify for "meme". Maybe the hammer/arm/anvil stuff is more widespread, but I haven't really noticed it.

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

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
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.

1) It grinds my gears when someone describes other people's fun with terms/expressions like "poisonous", something to be "reduced" to, something that "infects", "nonsense", or "obscene".

2) It grinds my gears when someone says "roleplay/rollplay", as it implies that being interested in rolling dice is the wrong way to play a game in which every endeavor is resolved by rolling dice. Seriously, damn near 90% of the actual content of the Core Rulebook is either opportunities to roll dice or ways to modify the dice you're rolling. Maybe we need to start a new phrase, like "this is a roleplaying GAME, not a roleplaying SCRIPT" or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Yeah, I found that thread, but it didn't seem common enough here to qualify for "meme". Maybe the hammer/arm/anvil stuff is more widespread, but I haven't really noticed it.

The Forge of Combat stuff pops up pretty often in the Advice Forum in the numerous "Here's my party: What should I play?" threads. It's usually brought up as an analysis of what roles the party currently has, what they are lacking, and how that lack is expected to affect the group in combat.

What grinds my gears:

1: People who seem obsessed with the with the reletive number of e's and l's in the word rol_play, or shame people who play in a different manner than they themselves do.
1b: People who fall into the Stormwind Fallacy (Roleplay and Rollplay are not discrete)

2: People who cannot grasp the separation of mechanics and fluff.

3: (In advice threads) "How can I best build [x] idea?" "Your idea sucks/isn't optimal, play [y] instead."
3b: "The DM has [x] houserules, what can I do with this?" "Those houserules are broken."

4: Alignment/Paladin threads.
4b: Jokes about Paladin threads.

5: People who post without reading the thread.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

People who write threads expecting their personal complaints to be universally shared.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
revaar wrote:


1b: People who fall into the Stormwind Fallacy (Roleplay and Rollplay are not discrete)

People who spout "Stormwind Fallacy" at the first hint of any conflict between characterization and optimization.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
People who spout "Stormwind Fallacy" at the first hint of any conflict between characterization and optimization.

People who claim that's what's happening even when the provoking comment is a "role/roll" line or other textbook example of the idea.

;)

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

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, just got reminded of another one:
When posters call people idiots or otherwise assault those who disagree with them, then their posts get deleted, and the poster attributes it to Paizo not wanting them to express inconvenient opinions or some such thing, or otherwise acts like the mods are out to get them.


It's not paranoia, if they're really out to get me...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Bolded

Fixed that for you.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.

And I just got reminded of another: really extreme views of "munchkin" or "powergaming". Just saw an example where it included taking a feat to increase your damage or number of attacks. They listed iteratives as a type of munchkinism.

I mean, it's bad enough to belittle people. But when the complaint is literally that the player is doing exactly what the system offers them? Cripes.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

People who don't let others get a word in on the thread before they post again. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Live Bait wrote:
Quote:
Bolded
Fixed that for you.

This post (mine, not the one I'm quoting) is meaningless and makes a bad joke, as it does exactly what he disliked, without directly mentioning it.

As such, this is humorous.

Laugh.

>:|


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Related to Jiggy's post.

The thing is (though I don't think it's obvious from that exchange, for which I really should apologize to James*), it's really cool that different people have different playstyles. I am not averse to house rules, and I'm happy for people to use them, but I do strongly encourage people to consider when they differ from RAW and how. It's not wrong to do so, only to be aware that you are.

Also: this guy is clearly over-optimized! I mean, half the normal number of feats, half his normal wealth, and an NPC class! Outrageous. (;D)

* I mean, without meaning to, I basically told the guy that he was playing fabricate "wrong" when, all I meant, was that there was a difference in the way he played it and the RAW (which is what I was trying to discuss). There's nothing wrong with his way of playing it, though, presuming it works for his group!

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, now, X is some strong stuff. It'll mess you up, if you're not careful - you definitely shouldn't X. Just look what happned to a perfectly innocent mixture! Then it mutated! And again! O.o

Don't do X, whatever you do!


Tacticslion wrote:

Hey, now, X is some strong stuff. It'll mess you up, if you're not careful - you definitely shouldn't X. Just look what happned to a perfectly innocent mixture! Then it mutated! And again! O.o

Don't do X, whatever you do!

Can I do XXX?

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

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!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
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 feel the need to defend this, since it's my usual response to someone who wants to shove a square peg in a round hole due to "concept" (when that "concept: is usually "I want to do this mechanical thing" rather than any RP related thing).

"I want to make a blaster Cleric."

Why not a Wizard? Or Sorcerer? Or hell, even a Flames Oracle? Any class that actually does it kind of well, you know? Why a Cleric?

"My concept is a priest who burns things."

*Facepalm*

So here's mine: People who ask for advice on how best to realize their cocept, but get all mad when someone suggests a better way to realize that concept. Especially when they respond with something like "Look, I'm not trying to optimize/power game this here".

Then why did you bother making a thread asking for advice on how best to do this mechanical thing that has pretty much nothing to do with your concept? Just do it, if you truly don't care about how it turns out.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Threads that are started by posters who want mention in the original post that they want to hear about both sides of a topic. In reality it's a thinly hidden validation thread. For example asking if Pathfinder has too much bloat. Then when the response is usually towards the negative getting unhappy that the other forum members don't agree.

Going into a complaint thread and complaining about the complaining. It happens way too often. As long as a poster(s) are being respectful let them post about what feats/classes/etc they don't like. Nothing bothers me more when a poster comes along and verbally wags their finger accusing myself and others for being bad people because we dare to criticize Paizo. I'm purchasing their books. Damn straight I'm going to point out something I don't like.

Posters who spout terms like minmaxers, optimizers, bloat, broken like it's going out of style. Funny enough some of us can make a character that is both good at roleplaying while making him effective at the table as well. No reason by one has to be exclusive to the other. Paizo releases new material. Unless someone is holding a gun at your head no one is forced to use it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

So here's mine: People who ask for advice on how best to realize their cocept, but get all mad when someone suggests a better way to realize that concept. Especially when they respond with something like "Look, I'm not trying to optimize/power game this here".

Then why did you bother making a thread asking for advice on how best to do this mechanical thing that has pretty much nothing to do with your concept? Just do it, if you truly don't care about how it turns out.

*Facepalm*

Very much agreed and seconded. Fortunately it's been very rare in my cases. Yet it is annoying when it does. For example a player in one of my first 3.5. games wanted to make a multiclass monk/bard yet still be as effective as a regular Monk in melee. More than once I tried to tell the player to play a single class monk. Or accept that to a lesser degree he will be less effective. Ignores my and others advice then complains the entire time that they single class monk is better than his character.

Option/analysis paralysis

Yes the game has many options. Too many sometimes. While I'm willing to work with a player who suffers from it. I do have a limit to how much. After a point either get over it. Or look for another group. It's a set of rpg rules. Not the procedure to use to save the world.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
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 feel the need to defend this, since it's my usual response to someone who wants to shove a square peg in a round hole due to "concept" (when that "concept: is usually "I want to do this mechanical thing" rather than any RP related thing).

This one's complicated; there's more than one type of situation that can sometimes be lumped into this category:

1) Poster asks for help making (for example) a magical swordsman who can fight and cast, and someone says that if you're going to be a caster anyway just focus on spamming summons, or maybe play a summoner to have the eidolon fight and the PC cast. Completely fails to help advance the poster's goal.

2) Poster asks for help making (for example) something kinda vague like "a rogue". First few replies ask for more specifics of what they actually want, and the reply is to be a lightly-armored melee combatant who can disable traps. Posters then suggest ways to build an effective lightly-armored melee combatant who can disable traps, but doesn't involve the word "rogue".

Personally, I've seen #2 a lot more than I've seen #1, and in a LOT of threads containing #2, I see people come in and accuse the helpers of having committed #1.


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

"Murderhobo". No other term on this forum gets my hackles up like this one.

I already feel that gamers in general tend to verbally punch themselves in the face way too often. But this is one of those concepts which, if you'd explain it to anyone who is not a gamer, would just confirm every stereotype "normal" people have about gamers.

Aside from that, the concept of a "murderhobo" is disgusting and offensive. It's very probably just me, but when someone refers unironically to their character or group as "murderhobo(s)", I cringe in disgust.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:

"Murderhobo". No other term on this forum gets my hackles up like this one.

I already feel that gamers in general tend to verbally punch themselves in the face way too often. But this is one of those concepts which, if you'd explain it to anyone who is not a gamer, would just confirm every stereotype "normal" people have about gamers.

Aside from that, the concept of a "murderhobo" is disgusting and offensive. It's very probably just me, but when someone refers unironically to their character or group as "murderhobo(s)", I cringe in disgust.

Seconded. Your not the only one.

I do the same when someone posts that one can't both roleplay while having a effective character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

"Murderhobo". No other term on this forum gets my hackles up like this one.

I already feel that gamers in general tend to verbally punch themselves in the face way too often. But this is one of those concepts which, if you'd explain it to anyone who is not a gamer, would just confirm every stereotype "normal" people have about gamers.

Aside from that, the concept of a "murderhobo" is disgusting and offensive. It's very probably just me, but when someone refers unironically to their character or group as "murderhobo(s)", I cringe in disgust.

Unless they're actually playing a murderhobo, not just claiming all adventurers are that. If you want to play that kind of evil character, go ahead and call him that.

But don't claim it's some kind of standard.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

"Murderhobo". No other term on this forum gets my hackles up like this one.

I already feel that gamers in general tend to verbally punch themselves in the face way too often. But this is one of those concepts which, if you'd explain it to anyone who is not a gamer, would just confirm every stereotype "normal" people have about gamers.

Aside from that, the concept of a "murderhobo" is disgusting and offensive. It's very probably just me, but when someone refers unironically to their character or group as "murderhobo(s)", I cringe in disgust.

I was following up until the point where you mentioned people referring to their own characters/parties as murderhobos. I thought the term was generally used by people pointing out a method of playing that they don't like.

1 to 50 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.