The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[RealAlHazred]

At some point you might just have to accept that your experiences gaming are just very different from most of the people in the discussion.

FTFY

 

[Thomas Shey]

Meanwhile, we B/X and BECM fans are over here quietly munching our popcorn, reading our tattered copy of The Isle of Dread again for the hundredth time, and occasionally chuckling to ourselves when we overhear people complaining about 5E's game mechanics...

Well, the people who really want to get soggy about everything past a certain point staked out other fora a long time ago. While not all OSR types, the OSR Fortifications in some places are real.

 

[CleverNickName]

If I ever find a magic lamp, my first wish will be for people to forever stop saying they "researched" something when they really just "saw something on the Internet" about it.

 

[prabe]

If I ever find a magic lamp, my first wish will be for people to forever stop saying they "researched" something when they really just "saw something on the Internet" about it.

There's "I stumbled on this in my online wanderings," "I got a little curious and jumped a few links," and "I chased down an Internet rabbithole three weeks ago and I'm just now coming up for air." The people who "researched" something probably don't mean that last (and I'm not saying that's exactly research, to be clear).

 

[trappedslider]

My brother got me this for christmas

 

[CleverNickName]

There's "I stumbled on this in my online wanderings," "I got a little curious and jumped a few links," and "I chased down an Internet rabbithole three weeks ago and I'm just now coming up for air." The people who "researched" something probably don't mean that last (and I'm not saying that's exactly research, to be clear).

I work in a highly-technical field, so this comes up a lot at public meetings and such. Like today, when I was giving a presentation to some landowners about installing a water pipeline through a wetland.

Too often, when someone says "according to my research," they mean they watched a YouTube video and read the Wikipedia article for something, and now they think they're experts on that topic. They don't know how much they...stand out...from the rest. They don't know that to the actual experts on the topic, they sound like clown shoes.

 

[MNblockhead]

Meanwhile, we B/X and BECM fans are over here quietly munching our popcorn, reading our tattered copy of The Isle of Dread again for the hundredth time, and occasionally chuckling to ourselves when we overhear people complaining about 5E's game mechanics...

That's me except with whatever I'm playing at the moment. I just enjoy whatever I'm playing and rubberneck on fights among those way to invested into their favorite games.

I think it will be much WORSE when the 2024 books are released and these threads will be almost entirely be people arguing about the rule revisions. I'm half intending to start my own thread where MN Blockhead has a bloody-knuckle internet fight with MN Blockhead over whether the Group Advantage Rules in Up in Arms and the Channeling Rules in Winds of Magic are better than the core rules in Warhammer Fantasy 4e. And then a third MN Blockhead will come in and will troll the other two MN Blockheads about how he still plays WFRP 1e. I won't use sock puppet accounts, it'll just be me having a schizophrenic argument with myself.

A fourth MN Blockhead will then report the other MN Blockheads for misusing the term schizophrenic and failing to cite sources in their arguments.

Actually, I won't. Not worth getting put on a time-out for a bad parody. But I do think I could go on for quite a number of pages drawing upon my embarrassing amount of experience participating in online TTRPG forums over the years.

 

[trappedslider]

Too often, when someone says "according to my research," they mean they watched a YouTube video and read the Wikipedia article for something, and now they think they're experts on that topic. They don't know how much they...stand out...from the rest. To the actual experts on the topic, they sound like clown shoes.

I never say according to my research, I just say "I've read" and that invites an actual discussion because to me it means I read about it and wish to understand what I read along with anything that wasn't included in what i read.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think it will be much WORSE when the 2024 books are released and these threads will be almost entirely be people arguing about the rule revisions. I'm half intending to start my own thread where MN Blockhead has a bloody-knuckle internet fight with MN Blockhead over whether the Group Advantage Rules in Up in Arms and the Channeling Rules in Winds of Magic are better than the core rules in Warhammer Fantasy 4e. And then a third MN Blockhead will come in and will troll the other two MN Blockheads about how he still plays WFRP 1e. I won't use sock puppet accounts, it'll just be me having a schizophrenic argument with myself.

A fourth MN Blockhead will then report the other MN Blockheads for misusing the term schizophrenic and failing to cite sources in their arguments.

Actually, I won't. Not worth getting put on a time-out for a bad parody. But I do think I could go on for quite a number of pages drawing upon my embarrassing amount of experience participating in online TTRPG forums over the years.

I used to get pretty worked up over Edition Wars, back in the day. Then I took a vacation from the Internet and hung out on the beach for a while. When I got back, I logged back on to ENWorld and read some of the stuff I had posted before my vacation and...oof. I was embarrassed at my behavior. Wrote a whole big thing about it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's "I stumbled on this in my online wanderings," "I got a little curious and jumped a few links," and "I chased down an Internet rabbithole three weeks ago and I'm just now coming up for air." The people who "researched" something probably don't mean that last (and I'm not saying that's exactly research, to be clear).

It fits some proper usage of the term; it just isn't the same usage for more vigorous uses. What it can't tell you is the quality of their research (i.e. how selective they're being with their sources, how they're excluding bad information, and what biases they went into the research with).