(Rant) Pet peeves about people

[MaxKaladin]

At least they read the whole question before answering. What I hate is posting a question and specifically mentioning that you know about something and are looking for other answers then you get an answer from someone who just skimmed the question giving you the very answer you said you already knew about.

An example would be:

Question: "I'm looking for rules about building strongholds for D&D3e. I already have the Strongholder Builders Guidebook. Are there any others out there?"

Answer: "You could pick up the Strongholder Builders Guidebook."

Grrrrrr

 

[WizarDru]

Besides, people have disagreed with RPG designers from day 1, why should Skip Williams be any different?

Hey, the designers disagreed with the designers from day one. Day negative-one, even. They're not a collective group-mind. Monte disliked some of the stuff in the PHB, and would have changed some stuff in the DMG after he did it, and it was edited. Plus, the a large chunk of the eratta came from the gaming public.

But I agree, some folks ask a question that really isn't a question, it's a search for validation. Which is fine, but then it shouldn't be "Are Fnords balanced against Frotzes?"...it should be "Fnords are way too powerful when compared to Frotzes, and here's why. Discuss, but get ready for an argument."

 

[MerakSpielman]

Argument? You wanted and Argument? I'm sorry, this is Abuse!

 

[WizarDru]

Argument? You wanted and Argument? I'm sorry, this is Abuse!

No, it's not, that's just Contradiction!

 

[Samothdm]

What I hate is posting a question and specifically mentioning that you know about something and are looking for other answers then you get an answer from someone who just skimmed the question giving you the very answer you said you already knew about.

An example would be:

Question: "I'm looking for rules about building strongholds for D&D3e. I already have the Strongholder Builders Guidebook. Are there any others out there?"

Answer: "You could pick up the Strongholder Builders Guidebook."

That's my #1 pet peeve. I love that people try to be helpful, but this is super-unhelpful. There's a thread exactly like this over in House Rules right now:

Question: I'm looking for some Demon-Hunter PrCs. I have DoF and checked out Knight of the Chalice, but it's not exactly what I'm looking for.
Answer: You should check out the Knight of the Chalice from DoF. It does blah blah blah

 

[MerakSpielman]

No, it's not, that's just Contradiction!

No it isn't.


Also, I hate it when people don't read the whole thread.

Example:
Original Post: "I need some examples of Drow surnames"

Post number 2: "Look in the old Drow of the Underdark book.

Post number 20: "I haven't read the whole thread, but have you thought to look in the Drow of the Underdark?"

Post number 30: "2nd ed. Drow of the Underdark. Next Question."

etc.... Meanwhile, everybody else who's posting is actually participating in the conversation and saying interesting things and has interesting ideas for new surnames.

 

[Uzumaki]

Right on, muh brutha. Gets you all excited only to have your hopes dashed.

 

[Drawmack]

okay - now everyone participating in this thread say three hail Gygaxes and four Our Montes for every time you've committed one of these message board sins.

 

[Ferret]

I think I do the previous alot, and I apollogise at the start, but when I do it usually has moe pages then a...then a....Then a very long book.

 

[jdavis]

I really hate it when people don't agree with me, I mean I know I'm right they should too. Give me the respect I deserve.

Ok what I really hate is when people take there Prestige class or their opinions on a rules definition personal. People are going to disagree about stuff it's in their nature but there is no reason to get angry about people disagreeing with your house rule or thinking that your PrC may be too overpowered or just about anything that is discussed on this board. Maybe we need a "Check your Ego's at the door" sign.