The 5 Totally Useless Statements You See in Every RPG Discussion

[Neal Litherland]

As a gamer who lives on the Internet, I'm no stranger to discussions (sometimes heated) regarding RPG content. Sometimes people quibble over a rule, or argue over a balance issue, or simply have different tastes in what constitutes a "good" game. These 5 phrases crop up with irritating regularity, though, so I put together The 5 Totally Useless Statements You See in Every RPG Discussion. It received an unusual amount of positive attention, so I thought I'd share it here.

The 5 statements include:

- Every Table is Going to Do it Their Own Way
- The DM Can Just Change The Rule, If He Wants
- This is So Unrealistic!
- This is So Broken!
- That's Historically Inaccurate

Now, as with everything else, there are going to be specific instances where these phrases are perfectly acceptable, and useful. However, most of the time we fling them into a conversation where they don't belong, and where they don't add anything to the discussion.

Are there any phrases you keep seeing in your discussions that you think should be added to the list?

[johnnythexxxiv]

*preps a bag of well thought out and flame-war free popcorn*
As far as other phrases go, can't forget LFQW. That's burned down enough threads that you may as well say goodbye to the whole tunic.

[Neal Litherland]

johnnythexxxiv wrote:

*preps a bag of well thought out and flame-war free popcorn*

As far as other phrases go, can't forget LFQW. That's burned down enough threads that you may as well say goodbye to the whole tunic.

I must have been doing time in different trenches. What does LFQW stand for?

[Chess Pwn]

linear fighter quadratic(exponential) wizard.
It's saying that the fighter follows a line of power. At level 1 it's 1 strong, at lv2 it's 2 strong. ... at lv20 it's 20 strong
A wizard(spellcaster) is exponential Al lv1 it's 1 strong. At lv2 it's 4 strong. at lv3 it's 9 strong. ... at lv 20 it's 400 strong.

*note numbers are meant as an example and not actual power ratings.

[Conman the Bardbarian]

Darn, I was just going to start making a wizard, but if it's not that strong I'll go with something else.

[iLaifire]

Neal Litherland wrote:

johnnythexxxiv wrote:

*preps a bag of well thought out and flame-war free popcorn*

As far as other phrases go, can't forget LFQW. That's burned down enough threads that you may as well say goodbye to the whole tunic.

I must have been doing time in different trenches. What does LFQW stand for?

I think that stand for Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards.

[My Self]

Chess Pwn wrote:

linear fighter quadratic(exponential) wizard.

It's saying that the fighter follows a line of power. At level 1 it's 1 strong, at lv2 it's 2 strong. ... at lv20 it's 20 strong
A wizard(spellcaster) is exponential Al lv1 it's 1 strong. At lv2 it's 4 strong. at lv3 it's 9 strong. ... at lv 20 it's 400 strong.

*note numbers are meant as an example and not actual power ratings.

But for the sake of going too far, let's try to find the formula.

Fighter scaling:
power=level*2

Wizard scaling
power=level^2

At 1st level, the Fighter is close to optimal, although it's behind the Barbarian in that regard. Wizards shoot one or two Greases, Enlarge Persons, or Sleep, then are done, relegated to missing every other round with their crossbow. At 3rd level, Wizards have noticeably powerful multi-enemy encounter-enders, such as Create Pit and Glitterdust, as well as utility staples such as Invisibility and Rope Trick. Also, Summon Monster lasts long enough to be a little useful. Fighters get... Armor Training. By 5th level, Wizards have noticeably more and better toys, as well as a bonus feat. Meanwhile, Fighters have gotten their 3rd bonus feat and weapon training.

[MMCJawa]

Neal Litherland wrote:

As a gamer who lives on the Internet, I'm no stranger to discussions (sometimes heated) regarding RPG content. Sometimes people quibble over a rule, or argue over a balance issue, or simply have different tastes in what constitutes a "good" game. These 5 phrases crop up with irritating regularity, though, so I put together The 5 Totally Useless Statements You See in Every RPG Discussion. It received an unusual amount of positive attention, so I thought I'd share it here.

The 5 statements include:

- Every Table is Going to Do it Their Own Way
- The DM Can Just Change The Rule, If He Wants
- This is So Unrealistic!
- This is So Broken!
- That's Historically Inaccurate

The inverse of the "Unrealistic/Historically Inaccurate" is just as bad though, e.g. Dragons exist, so all complaints are invalid. You mention this in your blog but I would argue it makes a good additional statement.

[Neal Litherland]

MMCJawa wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

As a gamer who lives on the Internet, I'm no stranger to discussions (sometimes heated) regarding RPG content. Sometimes people quibble over a rule, or argue over a balance issue, or simply have different tastes in what constitutes a "good" game. These 5 phrases crop up with irritating regularity, though, so I put together The 5 Totally Useless Statements You See in Every RPG Discussion. It received an unusual amount of positive attention, so I thought I'd share it here.

The 5 statements include:

- Every Table is Going to Do it Their Own Way
- The DM Can Just Change The Rule, If He Wants
- This is So Unrealistic!
- This is So Broken!
- That's Historically Inaccurate

The inverse of the "Unrealistic/Historically Inaccurate" is just as bad though, e.g. Dragons exist, so all complaints are invalid. You mention this in your blog but I would argue it makes a good additional statement.

The phrase that someone suggested for this, and which I like, is consistent internal logic.

I see this most with things like the speed of certain abilities, or discussing balance. For example, I've seen several players hate on evasion, talking about how unbalanced it is because they're only looking at it from the "the rogue takes no damage from my fireballs" perspective. When pointed out that rogues have a harder time building up a tough AC, and that their Fort and Will saves are low, along with their slower BAB progression, evasion is clearly marked as one of the class's strengths. It doesn't exist because it's realistic; it exists because it gives the rogue an edge in a specific situation where classes like the fighter are more vulnerable.

Another one I see is attack and reload times. No, you can't reload a heavy crossbow as a free action in reality, but you can with the Crossbow Master feat. Why? Because reload speed is not a function of actual human ability in the game, but rather is decided by action economy. The balance of a crossbow as a more common weapon than a bow means that those who want the fire speed of an archer need to work for it. Not because it's believable, but because it makes the internal logic of the combat system function.

A lot of the time I see DMs who change something, and then realize that what they thought was just a tiny tweak was actually an ice berg that had big ripple effects. You need to understand the internal logic, before you make any changes that could truly upset your balance.

[Andrew L Klein]

MMCJawa wrote:

The inverse of the "Unrealistic/Historically Inaccurate" is just as bad though, e.g. Dragons exist, so all complaints are invalid. You mention this in your blog but I would argue it makes a good additional statement.

Ugh so much this. I've actually been at the table when someone said I couldn't make a jump I wanted because it was too far and wholly unrealistic. To which I responded "I literally just conjured a storm of fireballs from thin air, and jumping too far is what you call out on realism?" I'll take pretty much any argument over "That's not realistic" any day.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

I'd also like to add "Rolling for stats is fine. If you get crap rolls the DM will just let you reroll anyway."

[Neal Litherland]

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

I'd also like to add "Rolling for stats is fine. If you get crap rolls the DM will just let you reroll anyway."

I think this figures into this weird idea that we all have as players; that because we play the same game as everyone else, that we all do things the same way.

More than half the arguments I've seen seem to be because someone finds on that other tables do things differently, whether it's point buy, or method of rolling, or which books are allowed at the table, and it immediately devolves into a knee-jerk reaction while they try to justify how their group does it.

No one has to justify anything. Rules and traditions will change from place to place, and mileage will vary. I admit, though, that I get *really* tired of people hiding behind the everything-proof "My DM says that's how it's done" shield, which occasionally bears the alternate legend of "Just ask the DM for the things you want, and it will be fine."

[Anarchy_Kanya]

"I'm a ROLEplayer, not a ROLLplayer."

[Anzyr]

Neal Litherland wrote:

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

I'd also like to add "Rolling for stats is fine. If you get crap rolls the DM will just let you reroll anyway."

I think this figures into this weird idea that we all have as players; that because we play the same game as everyone else, that we all do things the same way.

More than half the arguments I've seen seem to be because someone finds on that other tables do things differently, whether it's point buy, or method of rolling, or which books are allowed at the table, and it immediately devolves into a knee-jerk reaction while they try to justify how their group does it.

No one has to justify anything. Rules and traditions will change from place to place, and mileage will vary. I admit, though, that I get *really* tired of people hiding behind the everything-proof "My DM says that's how it's done" shield, which occasionally bears the alternate legend of "Just ask the DM for the things you want, and it will be fine."

If you want to talk about the Pathfinder rules and how they interact you kind of *do* have to justify any deviations from those. Since those deviations decrease the value of your contribution to the conversation. Most of the arguments I see on the forum are because people with system mastery are trying to address to a particular game rules issue (Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards) and people who play with deviations from the rules keep butting heads with the actual rules of the game.

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:

"I'm a ROLEplayer, not a ROLLplayer."

Ya this phrase is completely useless and only serves to mark the user as someone who needs their post flagged.

[Matthew Downie]

Quote:

The DM Can Just Change The Rule, If He Wants

Also appears in other forms:

"Why are you insisting on playing by RAW?"
"If you don't like it, just house-rule it."
(These posters always seem to assume everyone is a GM, isn't playing PFS, and doesn't mind, say, changing the rules mid-game for how a player's character works.
Either that, or they're assuming that players can simply demand the GM changes the rules for their convenience whenever they want.)

[Matthew Downie]

Andrew L Klein wrote:

I've actually been at the table when someone said I couldn't make a jump I wanted because it was too far and wholly unrealistic. To which I responded "I literally just conjured a storm of fireballs from thin air, and jumping too far is what you call out on realism?" I'll take pretty much any argument over "That's not realistic" any day.

"Everything should be realistic except for magic," is a valid preference. In fiction, just because Gandalf can conjure up magic glowing lights, it doesn't mean Aragorn can fall a hundred feet and land on pointy rocks and walk away.

Realism (+magic) is a good thing for immersion - and usually a bad thing for gameplay, since it tends to make caster-martial imbalance inescapable.

[Ms. Pleiades]

"If you five foot step, you'll be helping your allies out tremendously."

That statement is one I no longer bother stating as a GM. I just show enemies five foot stepping and looping around to flank many times.

[The Raven Black]

CLEARLY (should be banned really).

As in "the rules CLEARLY say ..." or "the devs CLEARLY mean ..."

If it was that clear to everyone involved, I think we would not be having this discussion right now :-)

[Hydraggon]

The caster>martial arguments.
While I'll admit it exists (and that it's one of PF's biggest problems) the discussion never actually goes anywhere, regardless of whether or not martials are too weak. It always ends up being three guys on each side telling the other is right until the thread subordinates back into cosmic nothingness.

[Anthony Adam]

Ms. Pleiades wrote:

"If you five foot step, you'll be helping your allies out tremendously."

That statement is one I no longer bother stating as a GM. I just show enemies five foot stepping and looping around to flank many times.

I also often use...

Charge/Bull Rush etc to step into position first and more troublesome PCs out of the way and gain flanking at the same time on adjacent characters.

Tumble - with a high enough roll, you can tumble around enemies without provoking and can get that flanking so much quicker.

One I think might be worth adding to the list...

"Lets move on and discuss after the session".

Really? Your players don't love the characters so much that they wont insist on "hell no, let's resolve it now" stances! I know that sometimes, as GM, I need to put down the heavy foot of moving along, but more often than not, we resolve things as they arise so we dont have "in a sulk" players. >.<

[Natan Linggod 327]

Anthony Adam wrote:

..

"Lets move on and discuss after the session".

Really? Your players don't love the characters so much that they wont insist on "hell no, let's resolve it now" stances! I know that sometimes, as GM, I need to put down the heavy foot of moving along, but more often than not, we resolve things as they arise so we dont have "in a sulk" players. >.<

Well in the game groups I usually play/GM in, once the GM has made a final decision in game that's it. No more arguing because then it's just stalling the game for everyone else.

If we want to continue the debate on a certain ruling after the game it's fine because then we have more time to work it out and nobody's waiting on us.

[Jiggy]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Realism (+magic) is a good thing for immersion - and usually a bad thing for gameplay, since it tends to make caster-martial imbalance inescapable.

I happen to have some thoughts on that topic.

:D

[p-sto]

Anthony Adam wrote:

One I think might be worth adding to the list...

"Lets move on and discuss after the session".

Really? Your players don't love the characters so much that they wont insist on "hell no, let's resolve it now" stances! I know that sometimes, as GM, I need to put down the heavy foot of moving along, but more often than not, we resolve things as they arise so we dont have "in a sulk" players. >.<

I don't know, most of the times I've seen this the player of the center of the debate tends to welcome the suggestion. Holding up a session to debate rules is a drag on everyone and the attitude I've seen most players take is if it doesn't kill my character I can live with the ruling for one session.

[Athaleon]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Quote:

The DM Can Just Change The Rule, If He Wants

Also appears in other forms:

"Why are you insisting on playing by RAW?"
"If you don't like it, just house-rule it."
(These posters always seem to assume everyone is a GM, isn't playing PFS, and doesn't mind, say, changing the rules mid-game for how a player's character works.
Either that, or they're assuming that players can simply demand the GM changes the rules for their convenience whenever they want.)

At its core, it's saying that "X isn't broken because the GM can fix it." If it needed fixing, it was broken by definition.

[memorax]

One topic I see that shows up on too many forums. Hell even outside. A player or DM ask for a opinion on a topic. For example "did I screw over played xyz". Seem harmless enough at first. In reality most of the time they don't want people responding by saying yes to such topics. Instead want to be told that they were not at fault. Then when enough people on a forum of outside of it do the opposite get angry. Along the lines of " how dare you say I was screwing over player xyz". Then storm off in a huff. As they learned the hard way that on a forum or outside of it. That people won't echo what they want to hear.

[Dave Justus]

Whether or not those statements are useless, it would seem to me that a post about useless statements in posts is certainly useless.

Of course responding to such a useless post is even more useless than that, but I suppose wasting time is its own reward.

[Sissyl]

memorax wrote:

One topic I see that shows up on too many forums. Hell even outside. A player or DM ask for a opinion on a topic. For example "did I screw over played xyz". Seem harmless enough at first. In reality most of the time they don't want people responding by saying yes to such topics. Instead want to be told that they were not at fault. Then when enough people on a forum of outside of it do the opposite get angry. Along the lines of " how dare you say I was screwing over player xyz". Then storm off in a huff. As they learned the hard way that on a forum or outside of it. That people won't echo what they want to hear.

You get an echo chamber by providing MONEY for people to echo your sentiments.

[Neal Litherland]

Hydraggon wrote:

The caster>martial arguments.

While I'll admit it exists (and that it's one of PF's biggest problems) the discussion never actually goes anywhere, regardless of whether or not martials are too weak. It always ends up being three guys on each side telling the other is right until the thread subordinates back into cosmic nothingness.

I actually have a post geared up to address this. While I doubt it will change minds or sway opinions, I think it might at least add a new perspective to the conversation.

[Matthew Downie]

I would be surprised if it there was anything completely new to say on the subject by this point. Have you searched the disparity discussion index?

[Athaleon]

Dave Justus wrote:

Whether or not those statements are useless, it would seem to me that a post about useless statements in posts is certainly useless.

Of course it's useful to point out that some common but useless statements are actually useless.

[memorax]

Those in the hobby who pretend to be open to change but are really not. Usually start by responding by " it's not because I'm against change except..". Followed by them showing that yes they really are against change.

DMs turned players who ban stuff at their tables. Yet as a player suddenly want to take the exact kind of stuff they ban. So guns don't belong in fantasy when your running a game. Yet as a player suddenly they love guns.

Players who decide their not going to use a class ability, spell, etc because "reasons". If you do the same to them suddenly it's revenge. So it's okay to not buff my character when asked. If I do the same its " revenge". Great double standards.

Fans who go into every thread to defend Paizo. I can respect a pro-Paizo or even in a general thread. When it's a thread criticizing Paizo. You just come across as someone who will not allow anything negative said about Paizo.

[Neal Litherland]

Matthew Downie wrote:

I would be surprised if it there was anything completely new to say on the subject by this point. Have you searched the disparity discussion index?

I had not. However, I am one of those people who feels the entire premise of disparity is one that is inherently flawed. The point of my post, which I'll likely do next Monday, will be to suggest that it isn't the classes that need to change, but rather how we're looking at them, and what metrics we're using to measure by.

[Jiggy]

Wanna guess how many entries that already has in the index?

[Beating A Dead Horse]

Quote:

I had not. However, I am one of those people who feels the entire premise of disparity is one that is inherently flawed. The point of my post, which I'll likely do next Monday, will be to suggest that it isn't the classes that need to change, but rather how we're looking at them, and what metrics we're using to measure by.

For the love of god Neil, don't do it.

[Milo v3]

memorax wrote:

Fans who go into every thread to defend Paizo. I can respect a pro-Paizo or even in a general thread. When it's a thread criticizing Paizo. You just come across as someone who will not allow anything negative said about Paizo.

Admittedly, nearly everytime anyone defends paizo in those sort of thread or a thread that has slowly become that, people claim that the person is the type of person you're describing.

[N. Jolly]

Beating A Dead Horse wrote:

Quote:

I had not. However, I am one of those people who feels the entire premise of disparity is one that is inherently flawed. The point of my post, which I'll likely do next Monday, will be to suggest that it isn't the classes that need to change, but rather how we're looking at them, and what metrics we're using to measure by.

For the love of god Neil, don't do it.

As I have said before, and will say again...

N. Jolly wrote:

Sometimes I love you, dead horse.

There's already a system to determine the metrics that we use to determine relative power and versatility in a class, it's called the tier system, and it's a solid way of determining what one should expect from a class relative to its fellow classes. Like unless it's an article on the tier system, how to use it correctly, and the many fallacies that come along with it such as:

"That class isn't tier 5, I'm really good with it!"
"My friend made a tier 1 class and died, tier list failed!"
"All classes can be tier 1!"
"Only power gamers and elitist care about tiers, I play for fun!"
"Tiers don't mean anything in actual play!"
"If that's tier 1, why can't it beat the game at 1st level huh?!"

I'd be slightly interested in that myself, hell I might write that myself later, but aside from that there's imbalances in narrative power between the classes as shown by the tier system, that's just the way PF is.

EDIT: Not sure why this isn't in Gamer Talk since this isn't specifically about pathfinder, it's a general catch all article for all RPGs.

[MMCJawa]

Milo v3 wrote:

memorax wrote:

Fans who go into every thread to defend Paizo. I can respect a pro-Paizo or even in a general thread. When it's a thread criticizing Paizo. You just come across as someone who will not allow anything negative said about Paizo.

Admittedly, nearly everytime anyone defends paizo in those sort of thread or a thread that has slowly become that, people claim that the person is the type of person you're describing.

I assume the point of threads is to have a discussion. If someone is complaining about something involving Paizo (or wizards...or high level play...or well anything), and someone has an opposite opinion, they should be allowed to speak their opinion (as long as it is on topic and respectful of course). That's the benefit and the price you pay for visiting a public forum.

[Hulking Hurler]

Hey, it is what it is.

[Bluenose]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Andrew L Klein wrote:

I've actually been at the table when someone said I couldn't make a jump I wanted because it was too far and wholly unrealistic. To which I responded "I literally just conjured a storm of fireballs from thin air, and jumping too far is what you call out on realism?" I'll take pretty much any argument over "That's not realistic" any day.

"Everything should be realistic except for magic," is a valid preference. In fiction, just because Gandalf can conjure up magic glowing lights, it doesn't mean Aragorn can fall a hundred feet and land on pointy rocks and walk away.

Realism (+magic) is a good thing for immersion - and usually a bad thing for gameplay, since it tends to make caster-martial imbalance inescapable.

Realism plus Magic is rarely a problem. "D&D Realism", which works very hard at reducing the effectiveness of mundane skill, plus "D&D Magic", which works very hard at being far more versatile, effective, and reliable than you find in any other entertainment - that's different.

[Chengar Qordath]

Bluenose wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Andrew L Klein wrote:

I've actually been at the table when someone said I couldn't make a jump I wanted because it was too far and wholly unrealistic. To which I responded "I literally just conjured a storm of fireballs from thin air, and jumping too far is what you call out on realism?" I'll take pretty much any argument over "That's not realistic" any day.

"Everything should be realistic except for magic," is a valid preference. In fiction, just because Gandalf can conjure up magic glowing lights, it doesn't mean Aragorn can fall a hundred feet and land on pointy rocks and walk away.

Realism (+magic) is a good thing for immersion - and usually a bad thing for gameplay, since it tends to make caster-martial imbalance inescapable.

Realism plus Magic is rarely a problem. "D&D Realism", which works very hard at reducing the effectiveness of mundane skill, plus "D&D Magic", which works very hard at being far more versatile, effective, and reliable than you find in any other entertainment - that's different.

Yeah, part of the problem with "D&D Realism" has always been that what gets leeway and what is strictly bound to realism tends to feel fairly arbitrary. Such as how for many years the longbow received terribly unrealistic boosts like manyshot, while other ranged weapons like crossbows and slings got held back on account of "realism."

[memorax]

MMCJawa wrote:

I assume the point of threads is to have a discussion. If someone is complaining about something involving Paizo (or wizards...or high level play...or well anything), and someone has an opposite opinion, they should be allowed to speak their opinion (as long as it is on topic and respectful of course). That's the benefit and the price you pay for visiting a public forum.

If it's on topic sure. Yet if your going into a thread who subject matter is what one does not like about Pathfinder. Then criticize posters for daring to boost negative posts about Pathfinder. Well then it's just trying to silence critics imo. Same thing if someone does the same in a thread praising Paizo.

The thing about freedom of speech advocates forgot or ignore. Just because your allowed to say something does not mean you have to say something. I admit I don't always follow my advice. I never claimed to be perfect. I just find it dumb for someone who likes meat to go to a vegan website and claiming the virtues of meat. Your allowed to of course. It still come across as dumb to me and more than a waste of time. And it's the internet is not a valid reason. Humans are not animals we can think and choose before doing something. The only time one is forced to actually post if one has a actual gun to their head.

[memorax]

Here another one "if a flaw in rpg does not happen at a posters gaming table it does not exist". Usually brought up when martial/caster disparity discussions are had on forums. Only to find out that their a gentleman agreement amongst casters and fighters at tables. To not use their abilities to the fullest to make sure a class does not get overshadowed. Or the DM uses 3pp.

[Neal Litherland]

memorax wrote:

Here another one "if a flaw in rpg does not happen at a posters gaming table it does not exist". Usually brought up when martial/caster disparity discussions are had on forums. Only to find out that their a gentleman agreement amongst casters and fighters at tables. To not use their abilities to the fullest to make sure a class does not get overshadowed. Or the DM uses 3pp.

That "if I haven't seen it, it isn't a problem," is definitely going on the list.

I've seen this in a pretty wide range of topics, from discussions of a given class archetype, to sexist behavior at a table, to whether or not 3rd party material should be allowed. A lot of the time the attitude of "WE don't do that, so it's clearly not a problem," is very present.

[Terquem]

RAI is always more appropriate than RAW

[MMCJawa]

memorax wrote:

If it's on topic sure. Yet if your going into a thread who subject matter is what one does not like about Pathfinder. Then criticize posters for daring to boost negative posts about Pathfinder. Well then it's just trying to silence critics imo. Same thing if someone does the same in a thread praising Paizo.

The thing about freedom of speech advocates forgot or ignore. Just because your allowed to say something does not mean you have to say something. I admit I don't always follow my advice. I never claimed to be perfect. I just find it dumb for someone who likes meat to go to a vegan website and claiming the virtues of meat. Your allowed to of course. It still come across as dumb to me and more than a waste of time. And it's the internet is not a valid reason. Humans are not animals we can think and choose before doing something. The only time one is forced to actually post if one has a actual gun to their head.

My issue is that I see the dreaded "PAIZO DEFENSE FORCE" thing thrown around any time someone posts a rebuttal to an criticism, especially if it involves certain dogmas that are posted about continually in certain forums here, regardless of the merit or relevance. And it gets thrown around even against posters who are not actually even defending Paizo, but perhaps and interpretation of the rules or a playstyle. Its at least as common as your initial criticism.

At it's simplest, the "Vegan website" metaphor fails, because this is not a "PATHFINDER SUCKS" forum, it's a forum operated by Paizo which is focused on the Pathfinder game.

[Bluenose]

MMCJawa wrote:

memorax wrote:

If it's on topic sure. Yet if your going into a thread who subject matter is what one does not like about Pathfinder. Then criticize posters for daring to boost negative posts about Pathfinder. Well then it's just trying to silence critics imo. Same thing if someone does the same in a thread praising Paizo.

The thing about freedom of speech advocates forgot or ignore. Just because your allowed to say something does not mean you have to say something. I admit I don't always follow my advice. I never claimed to be perfect. I just find it dumb for someone who likes meat to go to a vegan website and claiming the virtues of meat. Your allowed to of course. It still come across as dumb to me and more than a waste of time. And it's the internet is not a valid reason. Humans are not animals we can think and choose before doing something. The only time one is forced to actually post if one has a actual gun to their head.

My issue is that I see the dreaded "PAIZO DEFENSE FORCE" thing thrown around any time someone posts a rebuttal to an criticism, especially if it involves certain dogmas that are posted about continually in certain forums here, regardless of the merit or relevance. And it gets thrown around even against posters who are not actually even defending Paizo, but perhaps and interpretation of the rules or a playstyle. Its at least as common as your initial criticism.

At it's simplest, the "Vegan website" metaphor fails, because this is not a "PATHFINDER SUCKS" forum, it's a forum operated by Paizo which is focused on the Pathfinder game.

Which might mean Paizo forums are places you aren't allowed to have a thread criticising aspects of Pathfinder without people being allowed to come in and rebut those criticisms, but doesn't explain why the same sort of behaviour happens on other forums too. By people with, coincidentally I'm sure, user names that are an exact match for posters here who practice the same pattern of behaviour.

[memorax]

MMCJawa wrote:

My issue is that I see the dreaded "PAIZO DEFENSE FORCE" thing thrown around any time someone posts a rebuttal to an criticism, especially if it involves certain dogmas that are posted about continually in certain forums here, regardless of the merit or relevance. And it gets thrown around even against posters who are not actually even defending Paizo, but perhaps and interpretation of the rules or a playstyle. Its at least as common as your initial criticism.

Usually though it's simply the act of posting something negative. I get defending the company in certain threads. Unless the negative criticism is factually wrong. I just don't see why one would go in and complain about seeing criticism. When it's supposed to be a thread about it. It's a waste of time. Nor is one forced to do so. If I see a thread praising Wizards I'm not going to go into and start bashing the class.

Again I think you missed the point. Just because one can post something does not mean they have to. So I can't really blame other posters for making comments about PDS. Going into a thread that criticizes Paizo and saying " how dare you criticize Paizo why are you even here if you do" does not help matters. It's rare but it does happen.

MMCJawa wrote:

At it's simplest, the "Vegan website" metaphor fails, because this is not a "PATHFINDER SUCKS" forum, it's a forum operated by Paizo which is focused on the Pathfinder game.

It does not actually. Now if the vegan website when out of it's way to say negative things about meat and those who eat it. It's one thing. If all they do is mind their own business and like eating a vegan diet. Their no good reason to go to a vegan website and praising the virtues of meat. You can but your still going to come off dumb by doing so. Just because one can say something does not mean one has to say something.

[phantom1592]

memorax wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

I assume the point of threads is to have a discussion. If someone is complaining about something involving Paizo (or wizards...or high level play...or well anything), and someone has an opposite opinion, they should be allowed to speak their opinion (as long as it is on topic and respectful of course). That's the benefit and the price you pay for visiting a public forum.

If it's on topic sure. Yet if your going into a thread who subject matter is what one does not like about Pathfinder. Then criticize posters for daring to boost negative posts about Pathfinder. Well then it's just trying to silence critics imo. Same thing if someone does the same in a thread praising Paizo.

The thing about freedom of speech advocates forgot or ignore. Just because your allowed to say something does not mean you have to say something. I admit I don't always follow my advice. I never claimed to be perfect. I just find it dumb for someone who likes meat to go to a vegan website and claiming the virtues of meat. Your allowed to of course. It still come across as dumb to me and more than a waste of time. And it's the internet is not a valid reason. Humans are not animals we can think and choose before doing something. The only time one is forced to actually post if one has a actual gun to their head.

The thing is that everyone wants their voice to be heard and their opinion counted. When someone starts a thread that you completely disagree with... then you need to make sure that your voice is heard too.

Respectfully and peacefully of course. If you're on a Vegan website for vegans, by vegans... then yeah, it's totally inappropriate for a meat eater to go on there and tell everyone they're stupid.

However, it's a public forum... like a school board or something and someone posts that They want vegan only meals... then absolutely you need to get your Pro-meat voice out there... otherwise people in charge coming across this thread will get the wrong idea that EVERYONE supports it.

Same with rule changes or pretty much anything where there are two sides. Both need to present it,and if the majority agrees then the People in charge should take notice.

[HWalsh]

One argument I see a lot (esp. In the Caster/Martial arguments) is:

If it is statistically possible, regardless of it being highly improbable, then it must be assumed to be a constant.

And it usually boils down to the fact that a gross despairity is pretty rare in actual practice (as characters synergize, there are gentleman's agreements, the GM makes sure content is varied, or people simply have fun anyway) unless in very specific formats (PFS) and is more theory crafted out of best case scenarios and potentialities.