| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AC and To Hit and CMB and CMD. I don't believe there is a need for two systems that do essentially the same thing.
CMB and CMD confuse me. It's not simple and it's not adequately explained in the core rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term "Attack of Opportunity". Long, complicated, and hard to say quickly. It's a pain to explain to a new player why they shouldn't move away from the monster when even the term itself is needlessly tricky.
Errata, that is all.
Regarding the first point, this is fair to expect on a regular basis. But sometimes people have jobs and families. Sometimes you have to make exceptions for lateness, because of life. If it's really bad discuss it out of game; but if people have genuine responsibilities sometimes you need to be reasonable. Gaming is a fun social commitment, but like all important social commitments, sometimes life comes first.1: Game starts at a certain time, you show up at or before that time.
2: Game starts at a certain time, you start playing at that time. Social hour is over.
It's odd, but in my groups, the guys who are unemployed have the worst record at being late. Especially those who are chronically unemployed.
Professionals with jobs will make it on time- or let folks know they aren't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People who use the word 'decimate' when they actually mean 'devastate'.
1.
kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of."the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness"
The word has changed meaning from the Roman days.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who go on and on about how cheesy their build is or how great it is, but if examined closely you find that they've misinterpreted several rules, used odd interpretations, or in some extreme cases flat out haven't read them.
I'm just really annoyed right now because I've just finished arguing with someone about his "really cheesy 3.5 mystic theurge". He was total level 3 and already had a level of mystic theurge. Among rules interpretations which were dodgy at best, he had a feat from Heroes of Horror that he got off DnD Tools. Anyone remember Heroes of Horror? Well, his feat required an aura of moderate depravity. I looked at that and asked if he'd read the depravity rules. He said "It's just some roleplaying thing, it's in my backstory".
For those of you who haven't read Heroes of Horror, depravity is basically sanity and madness rules. He should've been taking penalties. Not crippling ones, but penalties.
Seriously, I don't care if you "munchkin", "minmax", "cheese" or whatever you feel like calling it, but if you're going to insist that the rules make you strong then you should play by those rules.
|
I'm working on a new alien character for a sci-fi game, and I'm reminded that the way characters are named sometimes annoys me.
I'm not talking about people who give their characters silly names or setting-inappropriate names - although those things annoy me, too. I mean the way game setting books and rule books always give suggested character names as if those characters were just like real-world Earth humans from a European culture - first name / last name, women take the man's last name at marriage, and the man's last name is passed down to any children.
The largest population on Earth, the Chinese, don't follow those naming customs, so why should fantasy characters or aliens follow them?
So oriental characters should have their family name on the left, and their individual name on the right? They read from right to left.
Am I being insensitive? I just can't tell.
So oriental characters should have their family name on the left, and their individual name on the right? They read from right to left.
Am I being insensitive? I just can't tell.
.
A little. Basically, they're referring to family-name given-name constructions. Which, in English, would look like that--hence, say, 'Kurosawa Ryoko', a nice lady named Ryoko by the Kurosawa family. But it's only written 'family name on the left' due to how English (and other Latin-alphabet languages) usually write.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So oriental characters should have their family name on the left, and their individual name on the right? They read from right to left.
Am I being insensitive? I just can't tell.
.
A little. Basically, they're referring to family-name given-name constructions. Which, in English, would look like that--hence, say, 'Kurosawa Ryoko', a nice lady named Ryoko by the Kurosawa family. But it's only written 'family name on the left' due to how English (and other Latin-alphabet languages) usually write.
Speaking of eastern naming schemes and "Things that bother you"...
There seems to be no consistency in how English subtitles arrange characters' names in anime. I'll watch one show and see the name written in the order the character spoke it (Family/Given) and then watch a different show and see it written "English-style" (Given/Family). The former was what I got used to on the first couple of anime I ever started watching, so every time I encounter the latter it confuses the crap out of me.
If you do, you need to call the rest of us occidentals.
What's wrong with calling someone "oriental"? Is "oriental" a slur? Why is it any more harmful than saying "American", "western", "asian", "european" or whatever? Isn't that just a word denoting on what region said person was born?
I mean, in Brazilian Portuguese, at least, no one uses the word for "East" to mean the eastern half of the world. They use the word "Oriente", which, as you can probably guess, is the literal translation for "Orient". "Leste" (the literal translation of "East") is mostly reserved to mean the direction ("This city is east of that city"). Same goes for West and Occident.
Never thought it was offensive, just a different language convention.
It does raise one question - what do you call people who are racially Asian or Indigenous American in a world without Asia or the Americas? Like - how do you inoffensively describe someone of those physical characteristics in one or two words? Someone black or white can easily be summed up by the predominant tones of their skin, but...lots of people think it's REALLY considered offensive to call someone yellow or red.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty much impossible to describe anyone without being offensive. :P
In Brazil there are two words that mean "black". Literally "black", the color. One of them ("negro") is acceptable to use to describe a black person, while the other one ("preto") is often viewed as offensive (although many people don't have a problem with it, since, as I said, it literally means "black", as in: the color black).
It doesn't help that the acceptable word ("negro") sounds very similar to a rather offensive slur in English. My stepmother accidentally caused quite a commotion once by using the wrong word once. Luckily, the woman she accidentally offended was clever enough to realize the mistake and calmed everyone down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty much impossible to describe anyone without being offensive. :PNo, it's actually very easy not to if you actually put forth effort.
That depends on who/what you're describing... But whatever. I'm not having this discussion again. It never gets anywhere.
I agree with Lemmy. My wife is black. She doesn't have African ancestors within hundreds of years. Her father is Jamaican, her ancestors came here from England. She doesn't want to be called African American.
Meanwhile I know other people who don't want to be called black, but rather AA. You can be trying all you want, but if you say what one considers right, the other might get offended.
Some people just look to get offended, too.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...She doesn't want to be called African American.
Meanwhile I know other people who don't want to be called black, but rather AA. You can be trying all you want, but if you say what one considers right, the other might get offended.
But what if... we just didn't use either label?
I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but in what contexts is it relevant to even bring up the pieces of information conveyed by those terms at all? The only one I can think of is if you need to give a physical description so somebody else can find them, and in that case neither term is really specific enough because of how much variance in appearance there can be even within that term.
So if you're describing someone's appearance, you need to use direct descriptive language anyway, so neither label is needed. And if you're not describing their appearance, then I still see no need for the labels.
I can understand the "Which term do I use?" dilemma in theory, but that dilemma is founded on an assumption that you've found yourself in a situation where you need to use such a term, and are therefore forced to pick one.
Can anyone tell me a legitimate situation where such a term is actually the best way to communicate? Have I overlooked something?
Some people just look to get offended, too.
Yes, but that handful of people is not really relevant to the discussion, so there's not much (legitimate) reason to mention them.
Well, like it or not, there are macrocultures that encompass microcultures, and racial uniqueness is one of those defining macrocultures. There are cultural commonalities of these groups. Not nearly as much as a microculture, like national ethnicity or religion, but they exist - if only because society forces them to.
Hopefully we break that one day and physical descriptions are only that, physical descriptions, but today, in 2016, we haven't completely overcome that yet...and thus during this time, racial descriptions in our world help to encompass an entire macroculture of humanity in as few words as possible.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, like it or not, there are macrocultures that encompass microcultures, and racial uniqueness is one of those defining macrocultures. There are cultural commonalities of these groups. Not nearly as much as a microculture, like national ethnicity or religion, but they exist - if only because society forces them to.
Hopefully we break that one day and physical descriptions are only that, physical descriptions, but today, in 2016, we haven't completely overcome that yet...and thus during this time, racial descriptions in our world help to encompass an entire macroculture of humanity in as few words as possible.
I don't understand how this is an answer to my question. All you did was talk about cultures in a very generalized sense and then go right back to the theoretical situation of "IF you need to summarize a group of details in as few words as possible, then these terms let you do that."
What exactly do you believe I asked?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can anyone tell me a legitimate situation where such a term is actually the best way to communicate? Have I overlooked something?Someone's race is important to consider in the context of discussing racism.
Okay, you might actually have a point here. I'll have to ponder that one.
Well, like it or not, there are macrocultures that encompass microcultures, and racial uniqueness is one of those defining macrocultures. There are cultural commonalities of these groups. Not nearly as much as a microculture, like national ethnicity or religion, but they exist - if only because society forces them to.
Hopefully we break that one day and physical descriptions are only that, physical descriptions, but today, in 2016, we haven't completely overcome that yet...and thus during this time, racial descriptions in our world help to encompass an entire macroculture of humanity in as few words as possible.
I don't understand how this is an answer to my question. All you did was talk about cultures in a very generalized sense and then go right back to the theoretical situation of "IF you need to summarize a group of details in as few words as possible, then these terms let you do that."
What exactly do you believe I asked?
I think I misunderstood - in retrospect I'm getting what you asked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you're describing someone's appearance, you need to use direct descriptive language anyway, so neither label is needed. And if you're not describing their appearance, then I still see no need for the labels.
The problem is precisely the fact that some people are offended by descriptive language. Sometimes we have/want to describe a persons's appearance, but many listeners will be offended by your choice of words, despite the fact that you're simply giving them an objective description (which may or may not accurate, depending on the speaker's ability to describe a person's features).
Sorry, sorry... Failed my Will save. Leaving now.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So if you're describing someone's appearance, you need to use direct descriptive language anyway, so neither label is needed. And if you're not describing their appearance, then I still see no need for the labels.The problem is precisely the fact that some people are offended by descriptive language. Sometimes we have/want to describe a persons's appearance, but many listeners will be offended by your choice of words, despite the fact that you're simply giving them an objective description (which may or may not accurate, depending on the speaker's ability to describe a person's features).
Sorry, sorry... Failed my Will save. Leaving now.
It would be easier to weigh your opinion if you gave examples of what you mean by "descriptive language".
For all I know, the "objective descriptive language" you're saying some folks get offended by is the same kind of shorthand "they're black"-type statements that I'm questioning the need for. My response to your post with this understanding would be very different than my response to your post if your "descriptive language" was something like "about X tall, such-and-such a build, medium-brown skin, black hair in shoulder-length tight braids".
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, you might actually have a point here. I'll have to ponder that one.Can anyone tell me a legitimate situation where such a term is actually the best way to communicate? Have I overlooked something?Someone's race is important to consider in the context of discussing racism.
Let me elaborate, and also try to link it back to what this thread is supposed to be about.
Something that bothers me, as a gamer, is that my local PFS scene is mostly middle aged white guys. I've been witness to sexist and racist language, which is difficult to call out for a generally shy-in-meatspace person like me, especially when the rest of the people at the table says nothing or laughs at a joke that makes me personally uncomfortable. Whenever I talk to my friends, I'll occasionally tell them about PFS, but I also mention that it's mostly older white guys. If I just described them as "you know, they're all just people!" then that does a disservice to my friends who aren't white guys who maybe want to avoid what is going to be an uncomfortable space for them. I don't feel like I can ethically omit the racial makeup of my local PFS scene when discussing it with people, because its overwhelmingly white majority is a symptom of my city's past and current racial issues (the city being Portland, OR, which is the whitest major city in America).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So if you're describing someone's appearance, you need to use direct descriptive language anyway, so neither label is needed.If, lets say, bob is a black person and he is standing among a group of white people, and someone ask you which is bob? the most direct answer is "the black one". Reverse white for black and black for white and it is still true.
Even just switching from "the black one" to "the one with dark-brown skin" would be a step in the right direction. "Black" doesn't actually describe Bob physically and instead puts him in a category with all kinds of cultural and historical assumptions tacked on.
Furthermore, if Bob is in your presence, you can just point and say, "Him" instead of describing him at all. And if he's not in your presence, then the group is obviously not all in one place, and therefore the listener can't assume there's only one dark-skinned person to be found, so a fuller description is warranted. Thus, once again it's a contrived, purely-theoretical scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that bothers me, as a gamer, is that my local PFS scene is mostly middle aged white guys. I've been witness to sexist and racist language...
So, which thing is the offensive part: the sexist and racist language, or the large number of middle-aged white guys?
Whenever I talk to my friends, I'll occasionally tell them about PFS, but I also mention that it's mostly older white guys.
Why are you mentioning the age and race but not the sexist and racist behavior? Isn't the latter more likely to be something your friends would want to know about?
If I just described them as "you know, they're all just people!"
To be clear, I never suggested such a thing.
then that does a disservice to my friends who aren't white guys who maybe want to avoid what is going to be an uncomfortable space for them.
Again, what is it that's going to be an uncomfortable space for them: a place with lots of white guys, or a place with lots of prejudiced speech? Wouldn't the best way to avoid doing your friends a disservice be to mention the part that's actually problematic?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I see no improvement. In this context "black" emcompases more color spectrum than dark-brown skin, which may not fit bob description, and certainly dark-brown skin is less direct than black.
Even just switching from "the black one" to "the one with dark-brown skin" would be a step in the right direction. "Black" doesn't actually describe Bob physically and instead puts him in a category with all kinds of cultural and historical assumptions tacked on.
I used "dark-brown" as just an example of a possible skin tone for the description. I originally typed "[insert skin tone here]" but then deleted it and replaced it with an example because I thought it would read more smoothly and make the example easier to follow. I never dreamed in a million years that someone could read that sentence and honestly believe I was suggesting that the entire spectrum of brownish skin tones ought to be collectively described as "dark-brown".
Which is why I'll be ignoring your posts from here on out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no improvement. In this context "black" emcompases more color spectrum than dark-brown skin, which may not fit bob description, and certainly dark-brown skin is less direct than black.
Even just switching from "the black one" to "the one with dark-brown skin" would be a step in the right direction. "Black" doesn't actually describe Bob physically and instead puts him in a category with all kinds of cultural and historical assumptions tacked on.
I used "dark-brown" as just an example of a possible skin tone for the description. I originally typed "[insert skin tone here]" but then deleted it and replaced it with an example because I thought it would read more smoothly and make the example easier to follow. I never dreamed in a million years that someone could read that sentence and honestly believe I was suggesting that the entire spectrum of brownish skin tones ought to be collectively described as "dark-brown".
Which is why I'll be ignoring your posts from here on out.
I won't weigh in on the subject... But I think you're reading way too much into Nicos' post, Jiggy.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
If I just described them as "you know, they're all just people!"To be clear, I never suggested such a thing.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I was extrapolating from your earlier post about not using racial terms to describe people, and I recognize the difference between what you meant (describing people's physical characteristics to visually identify them without using a racial term) and the "I don't see color, we're all just people" approach. The former (your approach) seems to be focused on visual description, whereas the latter potentially has some of that, but is more of a socio-political position (which is what I was referring to above). Again, sorry, I didn't mean to conflate these two, but I may have implied it.
The rest of your responses, all seem to ask the question: why mention race and gender but not the specific bad behaviors? The answer is twofold. One, sometimes I do explicitly complain about specific behaviors. Two, unless an event or space is explicitly anti-racist (and even then...), "middle aged white guy" is a demographic that historically tends toward saying sexist and racist stuff. This is true culturally and personally for many of my friends, so it's a kind of shorthand. Or at least, the implication is that these are a somewhat random assortment of strangers (although, as is obvious to anyone who attends, it skews toward older white guys), and because everyone comes from different backgrounds, you don't know who's going to end up throwing out racist microaggressions because they either don't understand why it's racist or don't care. Essentially when I say "It's mostly middle aged white guys", what I'm also implying is "It's mostly middle aged white guys, and if you generally feel uncomfortable around that group because of your experience with them (especially in gaming spaces) then I want you to know up front what you're getting into. It's currently at a point where it's worth going for me because I want to play Pathfinder, but you can decide for yourself whether you think it would be worth it for you."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially when I say "It's mostly middle aged white guys", what I'm also implying is "It's mostly middle aged white guys, and if you generally feel uncomfortable around that group because of your experience with them (especially in gaming spaces) then I want you to know up front what you're getting into..."
But isn't this basically the definition of racism (or other "isms")? I mean, what would be your reaction to a statement identical to what I'm quoting here, but with "middle aged white guys" replaced with "urban black men" or "millennial trans folk" or basically any other group? Sure, your shorthand comes from valid personal experience, but does that make it okay? If we changed out the group, would a similar set of experiences on the part of the speaker make you feel any better about the statement?
Now, granted, not every group is in equal need of guardianship against racism and such. Please understand that's not my point. My point is that this just happened to end up being a perfect example of the dangers of categorical labels: they make it unbelievably easy for even the best-intentioned person to slip into racist (etc) patterns without even realizing it. (Heck, I've already caught myself like three different times just in writing this post!) Doesn't that mean it's worth the effort to break habits by avoiding these types of labels whenever possible?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty much impossible to describe anyone without being offensive. :PNo, it's actually very easy not to if you actually put forth effort.
That's impossible because Offense is always taken, not given. Someone will always be offended by something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dman weak Will save...
Offense is always taken, not givenThat's... not how it works.
It kinda is... I mean, you can guess what'll offend someone, of course, and say it with that intention... but it ultimately comes down to the listener.
Not long ago someone was offended by me citing an statistical fact, after all. No judgement, praise or criticism of anyone or anything was made... I simply mentioned statistical data and was told that it was morally wrong to do so.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to interrupt this conversation about Racism with something on-topic:
I hate feat taxes. Hate 'em. The fact that my archer characters are expected to take a *feat* in order to be better at shooting stuff that's closer to them (which should be true for *ANYONE*) just so they can get the feats that actually matter always annoys me. Seriously, how is it an "incredible feat of arms" to be more likely to hit something that's closer to you?
Same goes for the cool feat chains like Spring Attack or Whirlwind Attack which require your character to sacrifice almost every other skill in order to be able to pull them off. And CMB feats too. If you want to play someone who knows a lot of dirty tricks (Trip, Disarm, etc.) or really good at hand-to-hand stuff (Grapple, Trip, etc.) you have to spend loads of feats on it. In the process of being able to do several of those things in combat, you've turned into a kind of one-trick pony that can't do other stuff instead.
Even Power Attack feels like an effective-combat-character tax. Yeah, I know you can be useful in combat without it, but as with Point Blank Shot, it seems kind of dumb that it's a feat. "Look at me, I can swing my sword with more force and less precision!" Anybody can do that. Seriously.
The fact that fractional saves and BAB are not part of RAW annoys me too. The hard-on this game has for hating multi-classing drives me nuts.
I wanted to play a Paladin Archer that has an angelic buddy that is also an archer and joins her in her Good Work (Paladin/Summoner). It's a huge pain to pull off--it doesn't really work the way I imagined it until level *6*. Even then, the feat taxes on archery will make it tough to be very effective.
So, on that note, I hate that there is no full-BAB religious warrior class other than the Paladin. Don't get me wrong--Warpriest and Inquisitor are great classes (I especially love the latter), but if you want to play a Holy Warrior of Desna (or Nethys, or whatever) with full BAB and don't care for being a 6-level divine caster, you're SOL. Well, not totally--you could fluff an existing martial or do some multiclassing or whatever, but it's not the same.
I love the game. The wide variety of classes and archetypes is staggering. But I still feel like the game fights you if your character concept doesn't fit neatly into the pre-existing ones Paizo has doled out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate 99% of Paizo erratas... Specially their unwarranted nerf-nukes, such as the one directed at Ultimate Equipment. I hate that Paizo doesn't display any interest in changing this lazy design policy of making problematic options so awful no one will ever use them instead of actually taking the time to do proper game design and fix the problem instead of adding yet another brick to the wall of garbage options.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially when I say "It's mostly middle aged white guys", what I'm also implying is "It's mostly middle aged white guys, and if you generally feel uncomfortable around that group because of your experience with them (especially in gaming spaces) then I want you to know up front what you're getting into..."But isn't this basically the definition of racism (or other "isms")? I mean, what would be your reaction to a statement identical to what I'm quoting here, but with "middle aged white guys" replaced with "urban black men" or "millennial trans folk" or basically any other group? Sure, your shorthand comes from valid personal experience, but does that make it okay? If we changed out the group, would a similar set of experiences on the part of the speaker make you feel any better about the statement?
Now, granted, not every group is in equal need of guardianship against racism and such. Please understand that's not my point. My point is that this just happened to end up being a perfect example of the dangers of categorical labels: they make it unbelievably easy for even the best-intentioned person to slip into racist (etc) patterns without even realizing it. (Heck, I've already caught myself like three different times just in writing this post!) Doesn't that mean it's worth the effort to break habits by avoiding these types of labels whenever possible?
No, because its important to recognize that race and racism create and enforce certain power structures. Which is to say, white people in the US benefit from racism (its structure and its history) even if they're personally against racism.
There are (at least) two definitions of racism. The first is the standard dictionary definition of discriminatory behavior based on race. However, this fails to take into account the historical context of race and racism (and also, who do you think writes English dictionary definitions? Mostly white guys). A more socially conscious definition of racism that takes into account social, historical, and political context recognizes that racism is a structural issue that benefits one race at the expense of others. Under this definition, you can't be properly racist against white people in the US because American racism is built on a history of white supremacy. You can still be discriminatory or prejudiced or distrustful toward white people, obviously, but negative attitudes toward white people aren't preventing them from getting loans and housing or causing them to be targeted by police.
So the issue with "labels" is not so much that they exist, per se. It's that the dominant cultural structures (sometimes government forces, sometimes cultural attitudes) created the labels and applied value judgments to them, then insisted that these values were natural rather than artificial. In other words, trying to personally avoid labeling people doesn't do anything to work against the social influence that those labels hold and propagate. Instead, it is better to recognize racist power structures and how they function in order to work against them, because you can't opt out of racism. If I personally decide to ignore and avoid labels, that doesn't mean I suddenly don't racially benefit from being white in America. Presumably if everyone decided they didn't care about race (which would be the goal, right?), those labels wouldn't matter and wouldn't have use, but you would still need to recognize their power to correct the damage they have done.
So I tell people that my PFS scene is mostly white guys, because omitting that label isn't going to erase the social power dynamics of race and gender.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Racism is racism. Sexism is sexism. It doesn't matter at whom you direct it, it's all prejudice and hatred. Trying to label these behaviors as anything else just because they are directed at someone you deem an acceptable target is hypocritical, hateful and despicable.
Nothing is more hateful than creating excuses to justify your hate.