Still more Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

[ubernoob]

If I may humbly submit something

[Maxus]

If I may humbly submit something

I like it!

Just make the Smite Idiots an at-will standard action and let it apply to ranged attacks.

Edit: And make Quick To Act give 2 points of Initiative per use instead of one.

[Username17]

Also since your reading this arent you the one that hunted down details of another poster (his Amazon profile I believe and try and use that against him?)

Hahahaha! Yes, that in fact actually occurred. The person in question was Aubrey, who had in turn just internet researched me and posted a bnch of things I said in private emails and other boards completely out of context in order to show what a bad person I was as part of an extended ad hominem attack against me. I did respond by pointing out that the very same private emails he used to get those out of context statements to attack me with also contained his real name and IP address, so he probably shouldn't pat himself on the back for his tricks too vigorously.

But that's all beside the point, or it would be if it were not for the fact that Aubrey's douche-like behavior is almost exactly what you're doing right now. See the fact of the matter is that you aren't providing any analysis at all. Not here, not there, not anywhere else. All you're doing is perpetuating ad hominems. The mere fact that your particular piece of group think at least claims to recall my response to someone making an extended multipage ad hominem attack against me, without remembering the context is quite telling.

The long and the short of it is that if Pathfinder were to be a quality product, that people who provide insight and game mechanical analysis would be quite valuable to them. Meanwhile, people who insult and attack people providing that analysis are of negative value. Which means Kevin, that your contribution is worth less than nothing. At this point people exactly like you have driven away people who were actually contributing and they won't come back.

Pathfinder won't be a quality product and it's your fault. Which when you think about it , is pretty awesome. You can pride yourself on having had a massive and negative accomplishment. Go you. The very culture of "politeness" that you knuckleheads claim to be supporting with all your content-free attack posts is in actuality the exact thing which drove away everyone who ever had anything important or helpful to say - which in turn reduces your board to nothing more than a boy's club full of insults.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

I think PR was right, epic fail did occur. His own. Maybe next time remember that Paizo knows you and knows you post here before you decide to preemptively declare people stupid. Especially since you're attempting to talk to them.

Yes, because that totally made a difference. We all know that my single, solitary post on TGD was the catalyst that sparked the bawwwing that took place in that thread. It's not the groupthink that regularly occurs on the forums. It's not the idolization of the developers. It's not the sheer idiocy and QQing.

No, it was my post in this thread.

You're right, Draco. You are clearly correct. If I hadn't posted a link to the thread, the conversation would have been a bastion of intelligent debate.

EDIT: Aubrey the Failformed stepped in for the lulz.

[Maxus]

I think PR was right, epic fail did occur. His own. Maybe next time remember that Paizo knows you and knows you post here before you decide to preemptively declare people stupid. Especially since you're attempting to talk to them.

Yes, because that totally made a difference. We all know that my single, solitary post on TGD was the catalyst that sparked the bawwwing that took place in that thread. It's not the groupthink that regularly occurs on the forums. It's not the idolization of the developers. It's not the sheer idiocy and QQing.

No, it was my post in this thread.

You're right, Draco. You are clearly correct. If I hadn't posted a link to the thread, the conversation would have been a bastion of intelligent debate.

EDIT: Aubrey the Failformed stepped in for the lulz.

So I noticed. All that stuff about, "He's insulted me in the past, so I discount everything he says."

Also, Jason's post was really a shining example:

"I'm not going to take a couple minutes to read and evaluate the OP's thoughts, but I am going to take an undefined amount of time to notice how people are being rude and chew them out for it. "

[Leress]

If I may humbly submit something

That was funny, I really like the bullshit bonus.

[Username17]

I do say though that t was epic success in looking for epic failure.

Just the fact that people flipped out and started insulting me personally when I hadn't at that time posted anything about it or at that time even read the thread in question - that's epic.

The fact that people are still trolling threads over there to flame me despite the fact that I never made a flame thread over there or about people over there is essentially all the proof you need that the groupthink over there is completely poison.

Sure the moderators claim that I can come back whenever I want, but let's be honest here: they still allow personal insults to be thrown at me on a daily basis despite the fact that I've been absent there for months. The hypocrisy and failure to hold up their own supposed standards is so intense that I have no idea if they genuinely think they are fooling anyone.

-Username17

[ubernoob]

If I may humbly submit something

That was funny, I really like the bullshit bonus.

If I may humbly submit something

I like it!

My work here is done.

[Gelare]

If I may humbly submit something

I like it!

Thirded!

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

don't see how having your "Egyptian" setting and your "Viking" setting be separate games is essentially different than having them in the same world but saying "this is going to be a viking campaign".

One of them relies on the Oberoni fallacy.

Maybe. There's a difference between saying, "Well, shit, that just doesn't happen in my world--no one uses fabricate and wall of iron to give everyone a masterwork sword because that's just stupid," and saying, "You're from an Egyptian-themed land, and, yes, while there are steampunk vikings [?!thefuck!?] within spitting distance, there are other people whose job it is to deal with them, so don't worry about it."

I'm pretty sure that goes from Oberoni Fallacy into campaign building territory.

[PhoneLobster]

Remember the oberoni fallacy is about making crap up as a solution to make up for poor rules support.

If there is a book that contains rules support for vikings AND egyptians using just the egyptian rules is not actually making up rules to deal with gaps and issues, its being supported by the rules presented.

It's a grey area but I find it hard to look at a rules toolkit and call using it to achieve your goals the Oberoni Fallacy. By that rationalization any game that doesn't use ALL the rules as presented, like say underwater combat rules because no one ever got around to fighting underwater, is guilty of the same thing.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Fair enough.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

It's a grey area but I find it hard to look at a rules toolkit and call using it to achieve your goals the Oberoni Fallacy. By that rationalization any game that doesn't use ALL the rules as presented, like say underwater combat rules because no one ever got around to fighting underwater, is guilty of the same thing.

Dude, do you just want a fallacy named after you? I'm totally willing to call the Teleshellfish Fallacy an error in which, if rules are provided for a specific situation, one must use said rules in one's game or else one is not playing the game correctly.

Saying that one cannot avoid certain rules because those rules exist is certainly worthy of it's own name.

I am however struggling to determine where the fallacy part actually is. If D&D provides rules for underwater adventuring am I required to send my players on underwater adventures? Yadda yadda?

The game, apparently, expects me to do this, therefore I must. Wow, which part of that is the fallacy? Does it rest in the idea of me not sending my PCs on underwater or planar adventures? Or does it rest on the idea of underwater or planar adventures not being part of my campaign's grand design?

[Maxus]

I'm with HICC on this one.

A game which doesn't use every one of a system's rules isn't any less of a game for that.

[Username17]

Oberoni totally covers this. If you have to invoke DM Fiat to keep wish farming from happening, this is not different from you having to invoke DM Fiat to keep problems from being solved by Superman or cities destroyed by epic monsters.

If your setting has an Egyptian area, but it requires constant DM fiat to stay Egyptian, then your setting doesn't work. And saying that it does work requires one to invoke the Oberoni Fallacy in order to do so.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

But we aren't talking about a conflict between rules and good gameplay being solved by DM intervention.

We are talking about situations like a game that DOESN'T use every single monster presented in the MM because it just happened not to cover that material in actual game play.

There was no "I demand to summon a griffon, I have the ability to summon griffons", "no you can't griffons are broken" moment.

The MM is a toolkit, and there is some portion of that toolkit that simply won't be used, and that is in no way a part of a balance issue or fix. It's just a matter of play time limitations and variation in individual game instances.

Or are you suggesting there is a distinct difference between the group not using Griffons because they just didn't feel like it and the group not using Griffons because they just didn't get around to it?

[Username17]

We're talking about the setting inherently dumping a bunch of fucking medieval knights and steam punk gnomes on your Egyptians unless you use DM fiat to make them not do that and stay in their area.

Global events are, well, global. And if your setting has global events coming out of the pirates area or the samurai area, then your Egyptians who are on the same globe are going to be wading in that out-of-genre stuff without intervention.

Kitchen Sink settings would almost be OK if they had some sort of internal reason for why spillover from one genre to another was unheard of or at least rare. But they almost never do. And FRCS and RIFTS both relish the fact that they have no such constraints. It's supposed to be part of the charm.

-Username17

[SunTzuWarmaster]

You can always use what science fiction authors and history have used since the beginning of time to keep two areas of distinctly different flavor fairly close together while still within communication:

Hostile barriers (evil forest, monster infested waters, impassable desserts, undead swamps, wide rivers, mountain ranges, cliffs, hostile people-groups).

If your world happens pre-Mass Teleport, then having two completely diverse groups of people together can make sense. Just have it so that "only the wizards, scholars, rich, risky merchants, wily scoundrels, or noble clerics would DARE to cross that region without a full compliment of disgruntled and scared soldiers".

I mean really, situations of two diverse people groups inhabiting nearby regions has happened for all of history (until technology or situation changes it). If you can't come up with a reason why steamboat vikings live next to scholarly egyptians, then you seriously need to not be a DM anymore. At the VERY least, and I mean VERY least, you can say "the egyptian scholars made parts of the river impassible with their magic, so the vikings don't bother them much anymore."

[Talisman]

If your world happens pre-Mass Teleport, then having two completely diverse groups of people together can make sense. Just have it so that "only the wizards, scholars, rich, risky merchants, wily scoundrels, or noble clerics would DARE to cross that region without a full compliment of disgruntled and scared soldiers".

Ah - the "Real World" solution.

[Username17]

And if your setting has that, go for it. That's a valid resolution to the dilemma.

But if your setting doesn't address the issue, and you're asking the DM to address the issue, then hell yeah you just Oberoni'd all over the face like a Bukake Love Parade.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

You are mixing up options and abilities offered to players that need to be modified or removed from the rules toolkit with optional functional content that remains within the toolkit and just isn't used.

You CAN'T use all of the toolkit. And you are suggesting that a GM being forced to create or change parts of the toolkit is THE SAME as a group simply not using EVERY option in the tool kit.

And at that point you have effectively declared that if my gaming group doesn't meet a perfectly functional monster that doesn't require GM editting that we have used the Oberoni Fallacy.

[Username17]

You are mixing up options and abilities offered to players that need to be modified or removed from the rules toolkit with optional functional content that remains within the toolkit and just isn't used.

No. I'm not. Genre isn't about what you use, it's about what you could use.

You can wander around modern times and refuse to use the internet. You can make your own suits. You can carry a revolver. And you can try to solve crimes. But this doesn't make you a 1920s gumshoe. It makes you a dumbass who doesn't use the internet while tracking down information. The fact that you voluntarily chose to not use resources that were available did not magically transform the world around you into a world where those resources weren't available. They were still there, and in a very real way you'll always know that fact.

And declining to go to the Red Mages of Thay to purchase their magic shit or running to The Symbul to try to get her to do stuff for you doesn't make you be in a world where magic is hard to get at. It just makes you a dumbass who for whatever reason is declining to get the magical help they need.

To be in a 1920s detective setting it is not enough to simply not happen to have any anachronisms "on screen" - you have to be in an actual 1920s world. You have to know that looking off screen won't ever have you face to face with a flying car or a modern freeway. And you can't get that kind of certainty in an eclectic setting. And frankly, the only way a DM can promise you that kind of certainty is by changing the setting - which means that if you say that the DM can give you that needed certainty of genre within that setting, you are wrong.

-Username17

[Ice9]

Global events are, well, global. And if your setting has global events coming out of the pirates area or the samurai area, then your Egyptians who are on the same globe are going to be wading in that out-of-genre stuff without intervention.

But ultimately, it's the DM who determines global events. As long as none of your setting elements are "a society of mages who teleport around moving things from one part of the world to another on a daily basis", then there is nothing forcing you to pay any attention at all to the samurai area, or assume that they do anything of global importance.


Let's take that "1920's gumshoe" example. If someone was to run a modern day game, centered around a group of high-school students who run a pinball arcade and investigate minor paranormal events like haunted television sets, then the setting would be "the modern world". As a setting, the modern world has lots of things in it, such as sub-machine guns, the space station, and rainforests with poisonous frogs in them. Is it the Oberoni fallacy if the DM never includes these elements, and the players never go in search of them?

These elements aren't going to "invade" the game, because the DM is the only one who could make that happen. And if the players are onboard with the campaign concept, they won't go in search of those elements. If they aren't onboard with the campaign concept, why are you playing that campaign with those players?

[Draco_Argentum]

It resembles the Oberoni Fallacy if the DM is forced to act to correct a setting issue. Here is a direct example, you can't play a setting with no true-name magic if one of the base classes is the true-namer. The DM is forced to intervene to remove something.

An example that does not resemble the Oberoni Fallacy is something like a setting with neolithic tribes near the north pole. If you play at the tropics the DM has no need to force the neolithic elements out of the game, they naturally won't come up.

PR, excellent use of sarcasm to make a point.

You appear to have trouble understanding that posting a thread somewhere then preemptively posting a link here is just internet drama whoring. If your goal is to do that then continue, if not think about your posts before you make them.

Same goes for Kevin, coming over here was a drama move. The better response to the (justified) claims that you were being a hypocrite was to admit it and apologise over at Paizo. Coming here is just fanning the drama, which is probably exactly what PR wanted.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

You can wander around modern times and refuse to use the internet. You can make your own suits. You can carry a revolver. And you can try to solve crimes. But this doesn't make you a 1920s gumshoe. It makes you a dumbass who doesn't use the internet while tracking down information.

OMG, I'm a suboptimal character; I don't own a cell phone or iPod.