[Closed] Has it gotten more quiet here since PF2?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
What's "that"? Could you elaborate, please?

Ask Meat Loaf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know we're not supposed to make popcorn posts, but...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Hey you 'Muricans are really funny people.

Thank you! I try my best.

Melkiador wrote:
Hype? What hype? And while it's not important to you, it's obviously going to be important to other people.

"That" was built up to be something that mattered. Turns out, it wasn't.

Piccolo was of the opinion that the game was no longer meant to be played by straight folks because of "that". You referred to "that" by euphemism, and when asked for clarification gave dire portents of dying threads. And then there was talk about dies being cast and damage done. I was very curious as to what "that" was. But it turns out that after all the hype, "that" was just a foot note in the Playtest Document ("Playtest Document" gets capitalized, right?) consisting of what's common sense to most folks.

Disappointing.

Gorbacz wrote:
Killing all Americans is important to an awful lot of the other people out there [...] tempting it is.

O_O

Give me time to evacuate first!

Green Smashomancer wrote:
I know we're not supposed to make popcorn posts, but...

Smashomancer has a point.

I like flaming fools as much as the other poster, but there's no way in the nine hells that we're going to have a polite and productive conversation about "that".

At any rate, I found out what it was that I set out to find out, why it was that Piccolo thought that PF2 was geared towards, I quote, "the LGBT crowd". It wasn't a particularly satisfying answer, I'll admit, but I don't suppose the odds were ever very high of me walking away from "that" discussion feeling satisfied. So that's what I'm doing. Walking away from "that" discussion.

Now, I believe that this thread had a noble topic before Piccolo and I derailed it, so . . .

You're right, Christopk, it does seem like the boards are a bit slower than they were.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
You're right, Christopk, it does seem like the boards are a bit slower than they were.

I blame myself, really. I'm out of college and have a full time job, while also trying to support organized play in Phoenix, so I don't have as much time to troll the forums. And what time I do have is devoted more towards running PbP games.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:

Those who have watched the touchy-feely treating people with respect invasion destroy other aspects of culture, and therefore reliably know what's coming next. Any company that thinks they can ward off the Mongol hordes currently pillaging the American entertainment landscape with a bit of throw-away inclusivity nomenclature is woefully deluded. --They're simply advertising weakness and chumming the waters with their own blood. The attacks will now begin in earnest.

Paying "Danegeld" never works.

FTFY.

If treating people with respect isn't a principle to stand by in a social cooperative game, I don't know what is.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:

O_O

Give me time to evacuate first!

But you should be safe, unless you live in Texas! Real Americans are only in Texas, the rest of the country is Mexicans, Africans, Germans, Dutch, Jews, Poles (eugh!), Natives, Irish, Japanese and other suspicious folks masquerading as rite 'n' proper citizens. God knows they don't wear hats and ain't gonna pack heat to the mall, that's no way a proper 'Merican padner would do. Right? Right? Because that's what the website said...


blahpers wrote:
If treating people with respect isn't a principle to stand by in a social cooperative game, I don't know what is.

You must not have had any close friends growing up.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
blahpers wrote:
If treating people with respect isn't a principle to stand by in a social cooperative game, I don't know what is.
You must not have had any close friends growing up.

I did, though fewer than I'd have liked due to being something of a little snot in my youth. That aside, I have no idea what your statement is supposed to imply. Mind elaborating?


blahpers wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
blahpers wrote:
If treating people with respect isn't a principle to stand by in a social cooperative game, I don't know what is.
You must not have had any close friends growing up.
I did, though fewer than I'd have liked due to being something of a little snot in my youth. That aside, I have no idea what your statement is supposed to imply. Mind elaborating?

Really close friends don't treat each other respectfully. They call each other out on their own crap. They offend each other. And at least for me, all of my good memories of gaming in my childhood were with my close friends.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
blahpers wrote:
If treating people with respect isn't a principle to stand by in a social cooperative game, I don't know what is.
You must not have had any close friends growing up.
I did, though fewer than I'd have liked due to being something of a little snot in my youth. That aside, I have no idea what your statement is supposed to imply. Mind elaborating?
Really close friends don't treat each other respectfully. They call each other out on their own crap. They offend each other. And at least for me, all of my good memories of gaming in my childhood were with my close friends.

Being polite isn't the same as being respectful. If a person expects you to be brutally honest then it's not disrespectful to be brutally honest with them. A lot of people screw up thinking the golden rule is the best policy, when really it's only a good first approximation when you don't know the person. People don't want you to treat them the way you want people to treat you. Instead people want you to treat them the way they want to be treated. Which can be wildly different from how you want to be treated. That is being truly respectful to them.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Really close friends don't treat each other respectfully. They call each other out on their own crap. They offend each other.

Um, yeah. Being honest with one another, even when it's hard, is respectful. Offending each other and being willing to apologize and moderate yourself when you have offended someone is respectful. I am wondering if you have a different definition of 'treat each other respectfully' than I do. Because when my GM was lying to his wife about our game nights, saying he had weekend duty, I told him he needed to stop, because our game was not worth his marriage.


Gorbacz wrote:
But you should be safe, unless you live in Texas! Real Americans are only in Texas, the rest of the country is Mexicans, Africans, Germans, Dutch, Jews, Poles (eugh!), Natives, Irish, Japanese and other suspicious folks masquerading as rite 'n' proper citizens. God knows they don't wear hats and ain't gonna pack heat to the mall, that's no way a proper 'Merican padner would do. Right? Right? Because that's what the website said...

ಠ_ಠ


LordKailas wrote:
Instead people want you to treat them the way they want to be treated.

That sounds rather circular and unhelpful. How about instead you treat people how you treat people and they can decide to stick around or not.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Um, yeah. Being honest with one another, even when it's hard, is respectful. Offending each other and being willing to apologize and moderate yourself when you have offended someone is respectful.

You shouldn't have to apologize or moderate yourself to your close friends though.

Quote:


I am wondering if you have a different definition of 'treat each other respectfully' than I do. Because when my GM was lying to his wife about our game nights, saying he had weekend duty, I told him he needed to stop, because our game was not worth his marriage.

That has nothing to do with being respectful. That's more about being thoughtful.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Um, yeah. Being honest with one another, even when it's hard, is respectful. Offending each other and being willing to apologize and moderate yourself when you have offended someone is respectful.
You shouldn't have to apologize or moderate yourself to your close friends though.

I usually don't. I usually know where peoples lines are and what will and won't cause them actual grief. But when I do overstep, if I truly respect them, I will offer that apology and I will avoid crossing that line again. Because no matter how close you are, no one is perfect and you can't always avoid stepping on someones toes.

Melkiador wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I am wondering if you have a different definition of 'treat each other respectfully' than I do. Because when my GM was lying to his wife about our game nights, saying he had weekend duty, I told him he needed to stop, because our game was not worth his marriage.
That has nothing to do with being respectful. That's more about being thoughtful.

Please explain the difference.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
Instead people want you to treat them the way they want to be treated.
That sounds rather circular and unhelpful. How about instead you treat people how you treat people and they can decide to stick around or not.

Or, and this here's a novel idea, we could try not being rude to people because being rude to people is rude. Try that tautology on for size, baby!

*sigh*

Melkiador, that you're forcing this fight tells me that you've a serious emotional attachment to not respecting people of some age, gender, race, religion, or orientation. To the point where you feel that you're "calling each other out on their own crap" whenever you don't empathize with the other. Probably, it is in some way connected to your culture or religion. It's important to you, and you view your view as self evident.

So I really don't want to get in an argument about this. Because it will devolve into people shouting at each other without listening to each other. So let's agree that we disagree, and that we certainly won't change that fact in the near future, and talk about how these boards have gotten quieter since PF2 instead.


blahpers wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:

Those who have watched the touchy-feely PC culture invasion destroy other aspects of culture, and therefore reliably know what's coming next. Any company that thinks they can ward off the Mongol hordes currently pillaging the American entertainment landscape with a bit of throw-away inclusivity nomenclature is woefully deluded. --They're simply advertising weakness and chumming the waters with their own blood. The attacks will now begin in earnest.

Paying "Danegeld" never works.

FTFY. If treating people with respect isn't a principle to stand by in a social cooperative game, I don't know what is.

I meant exactly what I wrote.

Pathfinder is a game providing quality entertainment to players seeking to evade an escalating barrage of real-life irritants by getting together to relax and unwind killing monsters. The game should not be more than that, and to the extent that it would try, becomes less of one.


Mostly, I just don't like being told how to live my life or how to spend time with my friends. I had no plans to be offensive to people of whatever demographic you pick, and you might be surprised at my own demographics.

But I can easily see how other people who have similar feelings to me, but also have other deeper feelings, will react to this even more strongly than I do.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Pathfinder is a game providing quality entertainment to players seeking to evade an escalating barrage of real-life irritants by getting together to relax and unwind killing monsters.

That's not what I get together with my friends for, so I would have to say you're mistaken.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
Instead people want you to treat them the way they want to be treated.
That sounds rather circular and unhelpful. How about instead you treat people how you treat people and they can decide to stick around or not.

Not really, I will elaborate.

You should get to know people to find out how they want you to interact with them and then if you want to be around that person you should interact with them in that manner.


TOZ wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
Pathfinder is a game providing quality entertainment to players seeking to evade an escalating barrage of real-life irritants by getting together to relax and unwind killing monsters.
That's not what I get together with my friends for, so I would have to say you're mistaken.

You're belaboring to condense my broad statement into narrower Zenn diagram subset contexts.

-- Roleplaying games are, almost by definition, escapism.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
-- Roleplaying games are, almost by definition, escapism.

Escapism and respecting others are not incompatible concepts unless you are attempting to escape from respecting others.


Treating people like human beings doesn't mean that you should be forced to spend time with people you don't like or want to be around though. If you don't like spending time with women, you shouldn't try to sit at a table that has women. That will just result in everyone being miserable.


Slim Jim wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
Pathfinder is a game providing quality entertainment to players seeking to evade an escalating barrage of real-life irritants by getting together to relax and unwind killing monsters.
That's not what I get together with my friends for, so I would have to say you're mistaken.

You're belaboring to condense my broad statement into narrower Zenn diagram subset contexts.

-- Roleplaying games are, almost by definition, escapism.

Very much a valid point. Let's not argue strawmen, here.

EDIT

posted at the same time as two others.

TOZ wrote:
Escapism and respecting others are not incompatible concepts unless you are attempting to escape from respecting others.

True. Also not the point that Slim Jim was trying to make. We can all make silly nitpicks until we're blue in the face . . .

Melkiador wrote:
Treating people like human beings doesn't mean that you should be forced to spend time with people you don't like or want to be around though. If you don't like spending time with women, you shouldn't try to sit at a table that has women. That will just result in everyone being miserable.

ಠ_ಠ

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Treating people like human beings doesn't mean that you should be forced to spend time with people you don't like or want to be around though. If you don't like spending time with women, you shouldn't try to sit at a table that has women. That will just result in everyone being miserable.

Oh, at least now we know where's your problem.


Gorbacz wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Treating people like human beings doesn't mean that you should be forced to spend time with people you don't like or want to be around though. If you don't like spending time with women, you shouldn't try to sit at a table that has women. That will just result in everyone being miserable.
Oh, at least now we know where's your problem.

Lol. It's really not, but let's just hypothetically say it is. So what? Do you think it would be a good idea for such a person to sit at a table with women?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

On topic, though: I found out how to liven the boards back up.

Needless inveighing FTW!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ya gotta have something to kvetch about, or your spleen gets really backed up!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I suppose I had that coming. Goodbye sh- goodbye crapposts, you will be missed!

Melkiador wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Treating people like human beings doesn't mean that you should be forced to spend time with people you don't like or want to be around though. If you don't like spending time with women, you shouldn't try to sit at a table that has women. That will just result in everyone being miserable.
Oh, at least now we know where's your problem.
Lol. It's really not, but let's just hypothetically say it is. So what? Do you think it would be a good idea for such a person to sit at a table with women?

The reason why your hypothetical he man woman hater scenario was met with flabergastion, was that to what I'll hazard a guess at most of the developed world, the idea of not liking spending time with women, women in general, as if they're one monolithic group, that idea is completely foreign.

Every individual person has individual traits that make them enjoyable or not enjoyable to spend time with. People who find themselves not enjoying the company of wide swaths of the population (fully half of it, in the case of your hypothetical he man woman hater) are what are termed bigots. People who generalize lesbians, bisexuals, gays, transgenders, asexuals, and pansexuals as one "crowd", as if we all share common interests and are essentially the same, those people are what are termed bigots. People who don't like spending time with people of a particular race or culture, those people are what are termed bigots. People who don't enjoy the company of people of a particular religion, as if everyone of any particular religion had the same personality and personal interests, those people are what are termed bigots.

It is this general idea of bigotry that disgusts most of the folks posting on this thread.

Obviously you should not play the game with people you don't enjoy playing with. That's the corollary to the most important rule of tabletop playing: Everyone is here to have fun; therefore, don't play with jerks. But if you don't enjoy playing with an entire group of people, using the example of your hypothetical he man woman hater, fully half the population; if you decided in advance of meeting any given female that you don't like playing with women, than you are the jerk the group shouldn't be playing with.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer as to why you're experiencing such pushback.


I’ve played with people fairly like that though and had a good time. Why should their bigotry matter to me, if it doesn’t get in the way?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Treating people like human beings doesn't mean that you should be forced to spend time with people you don't like or want to be around though. If you don't like spending time with women, you shouldn't try to sit at a table that has women. That will just result in everyone being miserable.
Oh, at least now we know where's your problem.
Lol. It's really not, but let's just hypothetically say it is. So what? Do you think it would be a good idea for such a person to sit at a table with women?

Yes or no.

The usual way a person gets over such an irrational hangup is through repeated exposure. As en example, Derek Black, son of the founder of Stormfront, ended up renouncing neo-Nazi ideology after actually meeting some of the people he'd been demonizing. If someone hates women, they aren't likely to stop hating women unless they coexist with them at some point. If such a person has enough restraint to treat women with respect, at least face-to-face, then playing at a table with them might engender some progress on that front.

That said, if a person is so violently against women that they cannot coexist with them peaceably, then no, they should not be at the gaming table with women--or anybody else. Such a person has serious social problems that need solving before they're mature enough to pretend to be dwarven wizards questing for magic orbs.


blahpers wrote:
The usual way a person gets over such an irrational hangup is through repeated exposure.

Exactly, and that's the problem with "that". "That" puts the hungup person at immediate odds with Pathfinder. It creates an "other" where there wasn't one before. And a person loses a chance to get to know different kinds of people, while Paizo loses out on sales.

blahpers wrote:
That said, if a person is so violently against women that they cannot coexist with them peaceably, then no, they should not be at the gaming table with women--or anybody else. Such a person has serious social problems that need solving before they're mature enough to pretend to be dwarven wizards questing for magic orbs.

Why jump to violent? A person could just feel strongly about something without any hint of violence. I'm afraid you may have an oversimplified view of bigotry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ye Olde Merriam Webster wrote:

Definition of violent

1a(1) : marked by the use of usually harmful or destructive physical force a violent attack violent crime The peaceful demonstration turned violent.

(2) : showing or including violence violent movies

b : extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage (violent storms, violent coughing)

2 : caused by physical force or violence : not natural (a violent death)

3a : emotionally agitated to the point of using harmful physical force (became violent after an insult)

b : prone to commit acts of violence (violent prison inmates)

4a : notably forceful, furious, or vehement (a violent argument, a violent denunciation)

b : extreme, intense (violent pain, violent colors)

We can all make silly nitpicks until we are blue in the face, but that would be silly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
blahpers wrote:
The usual way a person gets over such an irrational hangup is through repeated exposure.
Exactly, and that's the problem with "that". "That" puts the hungup person at immediate odds with Pathfinder. It creates an "other" where there wasn't one before. And a person loses a chance to get to know different kinds of people, while Paizo loses out on sales.

I don't see how

blahpers wrote:
The usual way a person gets over irrational hangups is through repeated exposure

is at odds with

Paizo wrote:
Whether you’re a player or a Game Master, participating in a tabletop roleplaying game involves an inherent social contract: everyone has gathered to have fun together, and the table is a safe space for everyone. Everyone has a right to play and enjoy Pathfinder regardless of their age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other identities and life experiences. Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all.

The two are eminently compatible. People with irrational hangups or even prejudices are welcome at my table so long as they can keep said hangups to themselves and treat others with respect. If they are unable to do that, they have work to do elsewhere before they're welcome at my table. This is compatible with the above--barring some tortured reading like "Being a serial killer is a life experience! Help, I'm being excluded!"

Melkiador wrote:
blahpers wrote:
That said, if a person is so violently against women that they cannot coexist with them peaceably, then no, they should not be at the gaming table with women--or anybody else. Such a person has serious social problems that need solving before they're mature enough to pretend to be dwarven wizards questing for magic orbs.
Why jump to violent? A person could just feel strongly about something without any hint of violence. I'm afraid you may have an oversimplified view of bigotry.

You seem fluent enough in the language to understand that the word "violently" doesn't always involve "violence" (see Asmodeus' Advocate's post above). But it works for both definitions--if you feel the need to stab people of a given, e.g., gender identity because of said gender identity, you are even less welcome at my table. Go fix yourself.

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / [Closed] Has it gotten more quiet here since PF2? All Messageboards