I will buy Chronicle of the Righteous, Champions of Purity, Distant Worlds, or Cerulean Seas: Beasts of the Boundless Blue for the first twelve posters that want them
If it's still available, I'd like to ask for (what I think is the last available copy of) Book of Heroic Races: Reapers.
Many thanks to Mikaze for showing such incredible generosity, time and again!
Just wondering if the 'disposability of characters' concept was some aspect of tournament vs 'regular' modules.
I believe that it was. I wrote this a little while back in another thread, but I'll repost it here:
I've been doing some reading about the early history of D&D, and this idea of "Gygax was always throwing around instant death traps" is overstated.
The reason that this idea caught on is because, back in the early days of TSR, they were trying to drum up business by running tournaments at various conventions. These tournaments were usually multi-round elimination contests, where dozens of characters who played through the first round needed to be whittled down to a much smaller group who could advance to the second round. Also, the PCs received scores based on the things they did during the adventure, and the longer they were running around the dungeon the more the DM had to tabulate after the adventure ended, again, for dozens of characters usually run back-to-back in a very tight time-frame.
Both of these considerations meant that these tournament modules were incredibly lethal, as that eased the burden on the DMs that were doing so much so quickly. The fact that these were one-shots with (randomly) assigned pre-gens for the players helped to dull the sudden loss of a character also.
But these tournament modules had a tendency to survive the tournaments they were made for. TSR realized that they could make some extra money by repackaging and selling these adventures for retail purchase...and often, the only changes made were to remove the scoring instructions for the DMs, since those weren't needed for a campaign (though sometimes those were left in).
So you eventually had extremely deadly modules sitting on store shelves, many of which had Gary's name on them, and the idea that "Gygax is a killer DM" quickly began to become accepted wisdom in the community, with people forgetting that there was a very specific reason why he wrote them that way to begin with.
@Alzrius -- Very thoughtful post. I agree with much of what you are saying, but I do think Holmes has a good point about the GM required knowledge.
Oh, I think so too. I mentioned at the end of my previous post that there were "other reasons" to disallow some books, and simply not having enough time/energy to read and absorb new materials (and, by extension, not wanting to allow materials that you're unfamiliar with) is a not-inconsiderable one.
It's also something that I've had some experience with myself.
The expectation of mechanical balance does make many players balk if a GM says "no, you can't use that," but "I don't like it," isn't always the reason we, GMs, say no. Sometimes they coincide. I don't allow guns because I don't want guns in my fantasy world AND because the difficulty and time necessary to learn, understand, and successfully integrate the firearms mechanics is time I'd rather have in prepping other things for our campaigns.
I quite agree. I'm just pointing out that people who take the opposite approach have been developing counter-points for these objections. If you say you're unfamiliar with it (or are otherwise worried about balance), they say that you don't need to worry about that, since it has Paizo's "seal of approval" and so should work just fine anyway. If you say you don't like it, they say "Well I like it, and why should your preferences shape what I get to play?"
(The answer to the latter question has traditionally been "Because I'm the GM, and I'm running the game," but this has fallen out of vogue recently, as people have colored that answer as being some sort of ego-trip, rather than a simple acknowledgment that the game needs a referee/arbitrator.)
I haven't read through the entire thread, so my apologies if this was dealt with in more detail elsewhere. That said, I think that what you're referring to, Holmes, is what I call the Expectations Gap.
This is where the player(s) and the GM come to the table with different preconceived expectations regarding what is - or rather, what should - be allowed for use in the game. (e.g. A player believes that more books should be allowed as a default, and the GM believes that fewer books should be allowed as a default.)
The reason I call this a gap is because there's a difference between the stated answer to this dilemma (which is "just use whatever books you want and ignore the rest," which favors the GM's point of view), and what I often see as what many people think of as the actual answer to it (which is "the GM should be the one who bends to accomodate the player," which naturally favors the player).
What's fundamental here, I think, is that the latter interpretation (that the GM should allow the player to use what they want) seems to rely on the unspoken idea that there's no legitimate reason for the GM to deny a player's request for using non-Core Paizo materials. The issue of the GM's reason(s) not being legitimate is fundamental here; it holds that any GM objections are little more than some sort of personal issue that the GM is foisting off onto the player(s).
The underlying reasoning for this default assumption rests with the implicit statement that Paizo makes whenever they release new content for their game: "Everything works (e.g. is balanced) with everything else." This is key, because it tells us that there can be no non-personal reasons for refusing to allow Paizo-created materials in a Pathfinder game. You can't legitimately disallow something for being "unbalanced" - we already have Paizo's unspoken guarantee that it is!
Now, this isn't something that every gamer believes whole-cloth. We have plenty of threads here examining, questioning, and critiquing many different aspects of the game with regards to how balanced they are. But these are held to be exceptions to the general rule; it's still presumed that the Paizo people have an advanced understanding of the game's underpinnings, and put their material through rigorous quality-control processes that should identify and prevent any unbalanced combinations between the newest release and absolutely everything else that they've released to date. I personally find that to be a somewhat absurd belief, as well as one that falls apart under any kind of logical examination about how weighing so many myriad combinations would actually be done, but that belief seems to remain nonetheless widespread.
Now, to be certain, there are other reasons at work in issues of what books should be allowed or disallowed. But I believe that this issue, the Expectations Gap, is one of the main points of contention between those who feel that all of Paizo's books should be "on the table" as a default and those who don't.
I'm glad you enjoyed it! I think that's a very important distinction in play-styles, and that a lot of gamers could benefit from reading about the differences between the two.
Shelyn is also described as wearing clothing "that accentuates her beauty without revealing too much of it," and yet in every picture of her I've seen, she's wearing nothing but a bedsheet and double-sided tape. :P
I agree with Joana; change that flavor text to more accurately reflect Desna's skimpy garb!
I say option #3.
My reasoning here is that anyone who knows about this book (that is, fans of third-party supplements) will - I presume - also know about the PRD and the d20PFSRD.
Given that the contents of Bestiary 4 will be uploaded to those fairly soon, it's safe to say that the Advanced Bestiary owners will soon have access to the Bestiary 4 versions of these templates anyway, and so will end up in the position of "I have two identical/very similar monsters" that are the downsides of options 1 and 2.
So yeah, option three makes the most sense to me.
The welcome note from Jason Bulmahn at the beginning of the Advanced Class Guide playtest document mentions that there'll be a survey going up Tuesday, November 24th.
What Bulmahn seems to have overlooked is that the November 24th is a Sunday! Now, December 24th is a Tuesday, but given that the survey closes a week earlier on December 17th, I don't think that's the day it's supposed to open.
Which begs the question, when can we expect the survey to go up?
The newest conversion is the heroine of Final Fantasy VIII, Rinoa. Not content to simply stat her up as she appears in the game, this version of Rinoa covers her as she appears in Monty Oum's critically-acclaimed Dead Fantasy series of videos. It also includes conversions for the magic system in FF8, and a critical analysis of comparative strengths the Dead Fantasy characters.
Check it out here: Dead Fantasizing
I just saw this; I'm going to try to set things up later today.
I, for one, am quite pleased with the effort being made by the Frog God people to make sure everyone is getting what they paid for - their level of communication with their fan base in that regard is exemplary.
I never read the 1984 version, but I very much enjoyed the 1995 version, so I'd go with that.
From what I understand, the 1984 version is light on plot, whereas the 1995 version has a reason regarding why the PCs would want to invade the Hut, and what Baba Yaga's goals are.
Continuing the string of converting characters from various media, my next conversion is for Pyrrha, one of the main cast members from RWBY, the new series from Rooster Teeth, the studio that brought you Red vs. Blue!
Like all of my recent conversions, this one uses the class-less rules from Eclipse: The Codex Persona, and is fully compatible with Pathfinder (though this time I've made sure to write out additional information regarding what her derived values are, to reduce the need to reference the book).
Check it out here: Pyrrhic Victory
For instance foodstamps. The govt needs to stay out for foodstamps to run out for at least a couple of months. Yes there's a lot of people who need foodstamps, but honestly of we look around and what we see is that a majority of people who have it don't need it. Take it away and make people depend on themselves and not the govt. Right now we got so many people who are solely relying on the govt for their needs to be met that and good bit maybe even the majority of them don't even need foodstamps but are using them so that they can spend their money on luxury items.
Leaving aside the unsubstantiated assertions, this is yet another shout-out to the fundamental attribution error.
Josh M. wrote:
Which edition are you playing? I play 3e Ravenloft, and it's pretty specific about each domain being walled in, with the Darklord being the only one that can open or close the borders, should they decide to do either.
Nothwithstanding 4E, what I said above is true for both Second and Third Edition Ravenloft. The darklords can close the borders, but by "default" they're open, and only Islands of Terror are naturally sealed off from other domains by the Mists.
It's entirely possible to walk from say, Sithicus into Kartakass normally.
Josh M. wrote:
For example, Ravenloft. That setting itself, land-wise, is very small. Then, it's broke up into smaller domains, each secluded from the others by walls of impenetrable mist.
No, it's not. The Core domains are not separated from each other by the Mists. Even the clusters (several Islands of Terror that are physically joined together) do not have Mists between them. Only Islands of Terror are isolated from other domains in the Mists.
Problem players needn't rely on snowflakes to ruin a game for everyone else at the table.
I think that they do; it's just that we're wrongly defining "snowflake" to mean "character that's an exotic rules menagerie" rather than the more correct "character whose disruptive elements are claimed to be an integral part of the character itself and/or their player's fun."
It's as if their Rule 0 is "Every player must always be allowed to play whatever misbegotten heap of special abilities they want".
It's worth noting that this discussion isn't limited to how "appropriate" a given race is, or point-whoring special abilities. Just a character idea can be enough to disrupt a campaign for everyone in the name of that player's personal enjoyment.
Our previous campaign (set in the GM's homebrew world) was set to be a Gothic Horror-style campaign. The GM told us this with plenty of advance notice, and otherwise didn't care what sort of characters we made.
After hearing that, two of our group decided that they wanted to play tag-team luchador wrestlers. One spoke just like Hulk Hogan, and the other kept using faux-Spanish. This very much broke the immersion regarding the feel of the campaign; the GM didn't say anything, simply trying to make things work around the characters, but the damage was done.
It's that sort of "this pleases me, and since games are meant to be fun, I don't need to consider anything else" attitude that's the root of the problem.
That's because the question is "does art imitate life, or does life imitate art?" and it's been around for centuries.
Personally, I believe that art imitates what life wishes it (life) could be. That is, art reflexts people's desires for how life could/should go - people want to have porn star-style sex because that's our idealized imaginings of what sex should be like.
Now, there's certainly some feedback here; as depicted in the movie (which is fairly ironic in and of itself) the guy realizes that his perceptions have been skewed from the porn he's watched. However, I don't believe that porn - or any other artwork - creates those expectations in a vacuum. Rather, they're simply a more focused, more accessible medium for transmitting the beliefs, desires, and dreams that a society as a whole already has (compared to older forms of transmitting beliefs and ideas, such as oral traditions or portraits). If that guy had grown up in a pre-mass media environment, it's likely that he still would have idealized fantasies about what "great sex" should be like that didn't match up with reality - it's just that he would have developed that more slowly.
Art imitates life's dreams.
It's worth noting that the link in the original post is to the Daily Mail, which is a tabloid. I'd wait for independent verification from a trustworthy source before believing this (and by "independent," I mean "not getting the story from the Daily Mail").
If only the Americans could have upheld the twentieth amendment.
...if only Americans could have upheld the date for when Presidential and Congressional terms begin and end, and the process of what to do when a President-Elect dies?
Justin Rocket wrote:
Perhaps an analogy would help you see how insane this is.
Husband: Before I sign off on us getting a joint checking account, you need to agree to stop using our car. If you keep using it you're going to mess it up.
Wife: Just sign the papers, honey.
Husband: Oh my God, I can't believe you're not budging on this! Look, I haven't even mentioned all of that other stuff you do that annoys me, like how you don't cook or put out whenever I want. *sighs* Fine, look, how about you just don't use the car on weekends, okay? That's a lot less than I was just asking for.
Wife: Sweety just...just sign the papers. We've had this fight before and it never gets resolved and we really need this checking account opened.
Now, should the wife have compromised and tried to find some version of her husband's offer that she could have agreed to, or should she have done what she did above, and not have entertained his proposals?
That's what led to the current shut down, in a nutshell.
No, the folks are sent home and don´t get any money for that time. Gotta pay some bills? Too bad, thats what you get for working for the gov´t - that what some right-wing nuts would say, I guess.
Strictly speaking, there's no automatic mechanism to retroactively pay furloughed workers - it's just that Congress has always done so after previous shutdowns ended. That said, it's believable that this Congress might not (though the fact that they unanimously approved a bill to keep paying active troops is a silver lining).
But the President, congress, house, supreme court are still getting paid so its all good.
Leaving aside that it's redundant to list the House after mentioning Congress...
Congress has no choice in the matter, thanks to the 27th Amendment. Likewise, the President's (and, I suspect, the Supreme Court's) salaries are determined to be "essential spending" - a determination that is not, I believe, made by the President or the Court.
Bummer. For people not working. I assume they are not getting paid for the days they won't be working.
In the previous shutdown, furloughed workers were, in fact, paid for the days they weren't able to work, though it was retroactive after the shutdown ended.
"Butch and Sundance: The Early Years!"
The issue of how the depiction of women in impractically-sexy armor affects the real people who view/buy/play the game is the "meta-game view" in the above-linked article.
I want a supplement to be able to play sentient objects as PC races - not so much "warforged" as "I'm a walking, talking couch."
I'd say deity-level play, but I think that's already been done about as well as can be for the d20 System (having an ability score of "infinite" is included, there).
Honestly, what I liked best about the ToH4 was the dedication to Eric Jansing, aka Shade, who passed away in 2012.
For those who don't know, he was a monster guru that was active on the "General Monster Talk" forum, and its sub-forums, over on EN World. He helped convert a metric ton of old monsters to Third Edition, and as someone who worked with him (though not at much as several others there), his loss is still felt there today.
I thought the mention in ToH4 was a great way to honor his memory.
Has anyone heard how the special Throne of Night event for backers held the Wednesday before Gen-Con went?
It went very well (though after a day of travelling to get to Gen Con, I kept nodding off near the end), save for the fact that at almost five hours of play it was too short! My character, Ronk Gob-Lobber, didn't get to kill any goblins!
So how is Ashiel's example situation opinion and not a fact, when by the rules a Paladin would fall whether he lied or not?
It's an opinion because it presumes that the paladin is trapped in that (false) dichotomy. There's no reason for him to play along with that scheme instead of, say, saving the person in distress.
I believe that all Ashiel's example showcases is the failure of hypothetical situations; namely that when you create a scenario which exists solely to try and prove a point, it's not going to relate to actual game-play very well at all.
I respect your opinion on this matter, but the above is just your opinion. Quite frankly, I disagree.
For example, by combining #1 and #2 you can end up with the sub-idea that Paladins are overpowered but that's okay because they're balanced by their special roleplaying restrictions (which is false, but still something you hear often).
That idea is as true or as false as the people playing the game make it. The nature of the paladin's inherent restrictions on their conduct are meant to be just that: restrictions. Whether or not they're brought into play - and how artfully - is up to the GM (and the player).
Now, you can argue that this is less effective/fair/fun/etc. than a mechanical penalty, but that's purely a matter of opinion. It's more germane, I think, to argue that the perks that these restrictions are supposed to offset, in comparison to other characters, have been comparatively devalued as of Third Edition onward.
Paizo doesn't hate prestige classes per se. Rather, this is an offshoot of their hatred for multiclassing.
At the Gen Con 2013 seminar where they unveiled the Advanced Class Guide, one of the Paizo staff (I can't recall whom) said something to the effect of "multiclassing has never worked right."
I won't say that I disagree with this statement; multiclassing has been something of an issue in every version of D&D - OD&D and BD&D didn't have it at all, 1E and 2E had demihuman multiclassing and human dual-classing, which required the now-reviled demihuman level limits and ability score prerequisites, and 3E and Pathfinder use the current "buffet-style" multiclassing - but I wish that they had put their collective talents to trying to figure out how to fix/improve multiclassing (while still retaining back-compatibility), rather than side-stepping the problem with ten new "hybrid" classes.
Is it me, or does this kind of suck in that epic DR no longer seems wuite so epic?
It's not just you.
Paizo was content to give us solars and Tarrasques that had DR X/epic before, without toning down what constituted an "epic" magic weapon. Apparently, giving us a book with more ways to reach that status also required redefining the term so that the bar was lowered.
I'm confused as to how this would work with the basic assumptions of Pathfinder races and classes. Would this be another "visitation" adventure a la "Rasputin Must Die" - that is, the PCs are whisked from their high fantasy world to Earth during World War II? Or do we assume that WWII-era Earth has clerics and elves?
Skeeter Green wrote:
My off hand answer would normally be "Crap!", but I did write a short little PF module for Center Stage Miniatures, to be included with their Tsathogga model. It'll be exclusively in print with that model set; color art and digest size, under 20 pages.
*ears perk* I wasn't aware of that. Is it RA-specific?