Failed Will Save vs. Pedantry

[quibblemuch]

Waterhammer wrote:

Of course a barbarian is anyone who is not Greek. The only civilized people in the whole world.

Yeah, but's like I used to say when people asked why I didn't go to cons to get free swag: Timeo Dorkanos, et dona ferentes...

I fear geeks, even bearing gifts.

[quibblemuch]

If one more millenial dismissively refers to me as a Boomer I'm going on a rampage the likes of which even God has never seen.

1965-1980 != Boomers

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

quibblemuch wrote:

If one more millenial dismissively refers to me as a Boomer I'm going on a rampage the likes of which even God has never seen.

1965-1980 != Boomers

I hear you.

[David M Mallon]

I've always found the idea of discrete "generations" with clearly-defined boundaries and distinct traits to be kind of silly, but, for reference:

Silent Generation: 1928 - 1945 [ages in 2026: 80 to 98]
Baby Boom Generation: 1946 - 1964 [ages in 2026: 61 to 80]
Generation X: 1965 - 1980 [ages in 2026: 45 to 61]
Millennial Generation: 1981 - 1996 [ages in 2026: 29 to 45]
Generation Z: 1997 - 2012 [ages in 2026: 13 to 29]
Generation Alpha: 2013 - 2026 [ages in 2026: 0 to 13]

[David M Mallon]

If you're getting mad at those young 40-year-old whippersnappers for mistaking you from an old person, you may actually be an old person.

However, one response you could take after being called a "Boomer" would be to reply with, "I'm flattered, really, but believe it or not, I'm not actually a kangaroo."

[90s Simpsons Referotron]

I used to be with it! Then they changed what "it" was. Now what I'm with isn't it and what's it seems weird and scary to me!

[quibblemuch]

The failed Will save vs. pedantry in this case is not for being called old. It's for being called the incorrect *kind* of old.

Although I *am* fairly irritated by the fact that everyone in my temporal cohort are suddenly going on and on about how old they are. Duh. You didn't die young. What did you think was going to happen? Also, I find it a tediously dull topic of conversation. Get busy living or get busy dying but this endless nattering on about being old has... well, it's gotten old. Fast. We've got another 20-40 years to go. Do I really have to spend it listening to people kvetch about inevitability?

But that's not pedantry. Just the same irascibility that has been a hallmark of my charming personality for decades.

[quibblemuch]

It occurs to me that "The Irascible Pedant" would be a great name for a podcast no one ever listens to.

[quibblemuch]

I was out-pedanted this weekend! That hasn't happened in a donkey's age...

ME: Amid the stacks of books and notes you also find an ever-burning torch.
PLAYER: Are the papers in danger of catching fire?
ME: Well, no, the item gives off no heat.
PLAYER: Then it isn't really ever-BURNING is it?
ME: *stammers; thinks furiously for a rejoinder; realize in 30 years of TTRPGs with that item I've never noticed the incongruity* DAMMIT!
PLAYER: We'll call it an always glowing stick from now on.
ME: That... is fair. *slumps shoulders, bested*

[Ambrosia Slaad]

quibblemuch wrote:

I was out-pedanted this weekend! That hasn't happened in a donkey's age...

ME: Amid the stacks of books and notes you also find an ever-burning torch.
PLAYER: Are the papers in danger of catching fire?
ME: Well, no, the item gives off no heat.
PLAYER: Then it isn't really ever-BURNING is it?
ME: *stammers; thinks furiously for a rejoinder; realize in 30 years of TTRPGs with that item I've never noticed the incongruity* DAMMIT!
PLAYER: We'll call it an always glowing stick from now on.
ME: That... is fair. *slumps shoulders, bested*

Hmmm, my brain immediately went to a tiefling ancestral quirk where x/day they can crack their back to illuminate softly like a glowstick.

[quibblemuch]

And now I'm imagining a race of sentient glowsticks rising up in rebellion.

"THEY HAVE BROKEN OUR BACKS LONG ENOUGH! DARKNESS FALLS ON THE OVERLORDS THIS DAY!"

Well, at least I know what my 2:00 AM terrors are going to be about tonight. That's something, right?

[quibblemuch]

Watching rerun of GBBO and Matt Lucas just said: "The proof is literally in the pudding."

The proof is not in the pudding. That makes no goddamn sense.

The proof of the pudding is in the taste.

*eye twitch*

I will get in a boat, rage-paddle for six to eight weeks across the Atlantic, somehow travel back in time on the way, and burn down that tent with him in it.

*fails Will save and Acrobatics check to get off couch*

Or I'll just stay right here, shaking my tiny fist in impotent fury.

[Tiny Fist of Impotent Fury]

*shakes*

[Waterhammer]

The proof is literally in the pudding, because I baked it in there. With love.

Not the actual proof, though. A sort of metaphorical proof. Nor actual pudding either, if we must be precise.

[Guy Who Yells GAH!]

GAH!

[Dr. Strangegnome]

quibblemuch wrote:

Watching rerun of GBBO and Matt Lucas just said: "The proof is literally in the pudding."

The proof is not in the pudding. That makes no g&!$!@n sense.

The proof of the pudding is in the taste.

*eye twitch*

I will get in a boat, rage-paddle for six to eight weeks across the Atlantic, somehow travel back in time on the way, and burn down that tent with him in it.

*fails Will save and Acrobatics check to get off couch*

Or I'll just stay right here, shaking my tiny fist in impotent fury.

To be fair to Matt, he was on Dr Who during the Moffat years, and so it's likely his brain was infected with at least a minor case Moffatism.

[quibblemuch]

Dr. Strangegnome wrote:

To be fair to Matt

NEVER!

[Theconiel]

I want to scream in rage when I hear "a few bad apples" used to mean some sort of minor problem. Have people ever heard the saying that one bad apple spoils the bunch?

[Qunnessaa]

Maybe it's a subconscious concession of the implications? #NotAllAbsolutelyEverySingle[Apple]? :/

[Lord Sidelong-Glancington]

(¬_¬)

[Zoken44]

This is a good place to mention what I call this sort of correction (not Theconiel's that's important): A Peanut correction.

a Peanut is neither a pea, nor a nut. it is in fact a bean.

And that changes NOTHING about how they are used, consumed, or enjoyed. but it is factually true. Kind of a reminder to myself not to care too much about correcting people on that kind of thing.

[quibblemuch]

Zoken44 wrote:

This is a good place to mention what I call this sort of correction (not Theconiel's that's important): A Peanut correction.

a Peanut is neither a pea, nor a nut. it is in fact a bean.

And that changes NOTHING about how they are used, consumed, or enjoyed. but it is factually lexically, according to convention, true. Kind of a reminder to myself not to care too much about correcting people on that kind of thing.

[Waterhammer]

So peanut butter is none of those things?

I shall unlearn this knowledge. It will only bring about my downfall.

[Peanut Butter Golem]

Hey!

[Theconiel]

Zoken44 wrote:

This is a good place to mention what I call this sort of correction (not Theconiel's that's important): A Peanut correction.

a Peanut is neither a pea, nor a nut. it is in fact a bean.

And that changes NOTHING about how they are used, consumed, or enjoyed. but it is factually true. Kind of a reminder to myself not to care too much about correcting people on that kind of thing.

Peanuts, peas, and beans are all legumes (family Fabaceae or Leguminosae). Clover is also in the family Fabaceae.

[Theconiel]

Even if I had attempted a will save against pedantry in this instance, I would have suffered a -10 penalty. Some straight lines are just too good to pass up.

I won a prize from a local radio station, and the DJ asked me where I worked.

"CVU High School," I answered.

"So, are you going to go around correcting Rich and I?" she asked.

"Rich and me."

"Do you always go around correcting people?"

"No - only DJs."