Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ameiko

Aranna's page

1,825 posts. Alias of Min2007.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,825 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Um... good luck I guess?


If he won't listen then he won't listen... but that doesn't mean you have to stop talking. Keep giving him advice outside the game and see if he doesn't eventually start taking it.

Now if you don't have that kind of patience then it's best to just find a new GM and hopefully the slap in the face that he wasn't good enough will motivate him to learn more before trying again.


Fair enough, no need to be glum DQ. How would you go about changing people's preconceptions?


~hugs DeathQuaker~
No worries I am having a blast. We have the same idea about the word and why people are annoyed. I just prefer to poke the bear and let it attack me and then when we talk about it more maybe the bear will learn it was being silly.


See I haven't even seen "toon" used in a derogatory way DrDeth. Even here, the insult is only in your head with that term.

I know a guy who refers to fast heal and regeneration as HOTs, Ongoing damage as DOTs, and often talks about aggro in a fight even at table top.


thejeff wrote:
Toon would annoy me. Just because of the word itself, referencing cartoons and/or Roger Rabbit, to me it sounds sillier and as if the user is not taking his character very seriously.

Is this fair? You are painting possibly very false motives onto someone else just because that is how you yourself feel about a word. In all likelihood they have their own completely unrelated way of looking at the term. I can assure you if for example I came from one of my niece's D&D parties and had the term "toon" stuck in my head. And then was referring to my character as my toon in your game; it would NOT mean I was taking your game or my character any less seriously then anyone else.


DeathQuaker wrote:

As I think about it... I think the people who feel upset by it... based on what's been said here... is they feel that they and their hobby is being disrespected.

It's not probably what the speaker intends, but they hear a phrase that in the context they are familiar with ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit" for example), the semantic connection they make is they and their hobby is accused of being something two-dimensional and childish.

It's not a logical reaction--it's the kind of immediate reaction one gets from context, before logic can be applied. It is what it is.

Just arm-chair psychoanalyzing why in this case the knee-jerk reaction is often a negative one. (And the negative reaction is reinforced when they are told they are being laughed at for having a negative reaction--shaming and humiliating someone is only going to reinforce the sense of being disrespected and encourage a non-civil, conflagrationary discussion. If one didn't care, of course, one would say nothing.)

So the more people behave respectfully when they use whatever words of choice they want to use (yeah, I know, respectful gamers, ha ha), the more likely it will probably become accepted over time.

Just going by connotation from my perspective no ill was ever intended by the use of "toon" ..."murderhobo" is a different story. But "toon"? Why get enraged that someone is getting all um... slangy or trendy with their language? If you want arm-chair psycho-analysis I would say the disrespect is entirely in the head of the one getting upset. And no good can come from such an attitude. I don't care about the use of the term... I do care about the people who are taking this way too seriously. Make me the bad girl if you wish as long as you can step back and laugh at yourself later. ;)


Slaunyeh wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I suppose I should be amused by all this nerd rage over what some people call characters. I mean really does it matter? As long as you understand their meaning and you obviously do or you would be confused rather than enraged.
Your definition of nerd rage is hilarious.

Is it? Yay!


If you truly want a headache over terms try reading Aria the RPG. By defunct Last Unicorn Games. They literally coined all new terms for EVERY term in a RPG. And that makes reading the rules difficult.


I suppose I should be amused by all this nerd rage over what some people call characters. I mean really does it matter? As long as you understand their meaning and you obviously do or you would be confused rather than enraged.

Toon: as I said already, it doesn't bother me anymore. To my ear it sounds extra cute and slangy. I don't use it but that is just because it still seems a bit strange to me. I suppose if I was in a group that used it regularly I might start using it without even realizing it myself.

Murderhobo: The first and to date only place I have seen this is right here on these very forums. It also caused me a moment of confusion when first reading it; and it strikes me as rather derogatory in nature despite the frequent use here. I might have even used it myself in an effort to be extra snarky.

Mob: I always thought this term was literal; as in that mob of minor enemies you have to fight to get to the boss. It has been fun seeing other peoples ideas on where the term may have started. I do use this from time to time as it is straight forward English and fits my interpretation of the meaning perfectly. And we all want to speak clearly don't we?

Tank, Healer, Controller, DeePS, Buffer, pull, aggro, DOT, HOT, ect.: MMO terms. I use them and I think everyone does now. They are as new as MMOs I think but they are also the perfect way to describe roles in a RPG, computer or not. No better words exist for these meanings.


No it was obvious from the start that Tahiti wasn't a SHIELD facility. Else why would Fury have to "move Heaven and Earth" to get Coulson admitted.

And yes it is the fact that Ward may have shot the fake clairvoyant on orders from the real clairvoyant that got him so mad.


Sissyl wrote:
Aranna wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Men are almost 4 times more likely to die violently as women, by the hands of other men.
FIFY

Sooooo... lethal violence against men is not as much of a problem as lethal violence against women, because idiot men are the perpetrators in both cases? Men shouldn't take it so hard if they are subjected to lethal violence (I suppose this mostly concerns the loved ones they leave behind, though), after all it's just expected that men should take a bit of violence, but it's not okay if someone breaks the rules of gentlemanly behaviour and hits a woman? Or is it that if someone happens to be a man, they should know how to and train well enough to be able to defend themselves against at least three attackers, and be ready to do so at all times, and failing that shows the person never was a real man but a pathetic, snivelling weakling anyway?

...

I really don't know what to say, Aranna.

Wow I can't believe this string of lies and slander. All I did was fix a misleading statistic posted by someone else and now somehow I am supposed to be saying violence against men is ok?! You owe me an apology.

The real issue is how do we help women have an equal voice in a male dominated world. How in ANY WAY is violence against men relevant toward improving the plight of women? Or are you somehow suggesting men's issues should take precedence EVEN in a thread about objectification of women? You want to solve the violent nature of many men fine that is a lofty goal but this isn't the place to do it. Why not start your own thread to cover violence against men?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Men are almost 4 times more likely to die violently as women, by the hands of other men.

FIFY


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it was because the curse could only truly be removed by real love... But there is a short cut cure if you are willing to pay a price depending on where you were hit. Hit in the head pay with your memories; hit in the heart pay with your life. Pretty harsh in the second case.


Thank you LazarX. That is it exactly.

Oh and Sissyl, the topic isn't domestic violence either. The topic is objectification of women. In case you didn't bother to read that. Although someone stated 40% of men are victims of domestic abuse, how much of that is male on male domestic abuse you know like fathers hitting their sons? I would suspect a lot of it based on the different statistic I quoted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The term threw me off the first time I heard it; I thought they were talking literally about a cartoon of some sort. But after it became apparent they were discussing a PC I had no real issue with it. I wouldn't use it myself, because it doesn't sound right. But who cares if anyone else uses it? As long as your language is clearly understood you are fine.


Dept of Justice wrote:
Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.

A lot of this violence against men is done by men not so much is done by women. Trying to dismiss sexism because men are abused too is absurd when so much of it is done by men.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How can anyone pick just one?

Imowen my twice fallen Paladin/Black Guard Archer... tragic but epic story of love and war but nearly impossible to go back to playing her.

Mei Chan Min my Rim Sorceress from Star Wars. So full of wisdom yet so powerless to affect her own fate.

'Hearts' My struggling investigator who liked both cybernetics and magic and could never choose between them from Shadowrun.

Lady Lucky my ancient martial artist from Palladium Fantasy who was ALWAYS deep into some form trouble in one of the best City Campaigns I have played in. Her in party rival was in no small part to blame for most of it. The GM should have just named his game the adventures of Lady Lucky and the Snake Sorceress. Frienemies to the very end.

Of course 'Mer-Maid' my marine biology based super who got Rifted to Rifts earth. Lots of craziness in that short lived game.

Or Evangaline the burning angel from Nightbane. Who somehow made it to more universes than I care to number ranging from Palladium Fantasy all the way to Rifts and even Robotech.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hama it is a musical. Kind of hard to have a musical without music.

Real love is what she and her sister had... not what she could get from her latest boyfriends. I still don't see any homosexuality... Ms Skaggs must have had a horrible upbringing if she can't identify with the love siblings have for each other and in her strange world reinterprets it as homosexuality.


Since Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are the twin children of Magneto I am kind of eager for an X-Men tie in... whatever term they call mutants.


I just download any pdfs I want to read directly onto my Ipad1. Not sure why you need all those extra steps. Even using iBooks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Again, Cowboy Bebop. It was a long time since I watched it now... But the one scene that truly stuck with me was Ed playing against the old, demented master hacker... And when he manages to defeat the guy, rearranges the pieces to let him win.

I am not sure depressing is the right word, though. It is melancholy, with the characters stuck in limbo together. And eventually, the things that need to happen do, and the world is sort of a better place. I found it beautiful.

The whole main cast have lost everything they cared about... and instead of finding each other and forging a new future they remain at arms length from each other.

Spoiler:
And by the end what has changed? Spike goes off to die. Faye has the whole girl out of time theme slammed in her face. Ed and Ein leave much the same as when they came and Jet just continues on. It leaves me feeling depressed by the end. Sure it is a fun ride getting there but still...


Yeah like Aelryinth I have been mostly doing solos to get the full experience. My wizard started act5 at 88k damage and blasted all out of her path at torment 1. That is until that first big angel boss where I learned the hard way why my build was weak. I had no way to escape being cornered and once cornered I was easily killed. So I dropped to master and kept going. At this point I had 200k damage because the drops of 61 level and up make 60th level stuff look like toys. However I was determined to finish the act at all costs and so I pushed higher and higher without regard for my ever worse gear score (I still have too many level 60 items to function effectively at level 70.) But as I hit points where I found it too difficult I would just drop the difficulty and keep going... by the time I finished act 5 I was all the way down to normal difficulty. Clearly my poor wizard needs a rebuild from the ground up.


I find Torment 1 to be my happy medium difficulty now. But I am taking time off for another day so I can start my Crusader with a fresh energy toward playing. I will be at work when the expansion goes live, so I hope the wait ques aren't too long by the time I get home.


That isn't surprising Pan. Men don't have to deal with sexist behavior on a daily basis. You probably only think of it in an academic sense if you think of it at all. So yeah, it isn't surprising if the term never came up in your circle of buddies. It isn't an issue for you, not even in the reverse direction.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:
The "reverse" is there to help you identify who is being targeted.
Why doesn't 'sexism towards males' suffice?

Sure you could use that too. It isn't the popular way but it gets the point across just as well I suppose. Feel free if "reverse" has too much baggage for you.


Well I had more fun with this in d20 than Rifts. Being me in Rifts was a lot of running for my life from very dangerous enemies and hoping someone bigger got the bad guys attention.

The d20 game was more like wandering from universe to universe and we weren't as bound by classes. I had a WWII era German submachine gun and a handful of spells by the time the campaign went on permanent vacation. Fun stuff. Good luck with it.


~shrug~
I can see what your saying... I just don't think I will use it as anything more than the descriptor it is. I really don't see the need for adding more nuance to the term. Already people disagree with simple definitions I doubt a nuanced version will stick.


Um no... it isn't different. The "reverse" is there to help you identify who is being targeted. I fail to see why you have such rage over a helpful descriptor.


Was there a point you were trying to make Rynjin? You know before you raged out over a common term.


Rynjin wrote:

"Reverse" sexism?

It either is sexist or it isn't. "Reverse sexism" implies that sexism can only ever apply to a single sex.

Which is sexist.

Are you confused by the term? Sexism is singled out in many cases as against women. While strictly it can mean against either gender; if you asked random people on the street about sexism most if not all of them would assume you meant against women. This makes the addition of "reverse" to the term necessary to make it clear you are targeting men not women.


Freehold DM wrote:
Aranna wrote:

The only thing surprising about the ad was that it was for a convention. Did you all miss the fact that she walks in in a sexy outfit and starts undressing next to a dice display case? So from the start I was expecting her to be using sex to sell something RPG related like dice.

Objectification of women is a form of sexism, so yes this was sexist. The fact that everyone it seems uses sex to sell isn't an excuse to continue... but since sex actually does work very well in selling I guess a few voices in objection aren't going to change anything. Money rules marketing not good ethics.

PS: Upon further consideration maybe men wouldn't have noticed the dice rack... they did pick someone attractive to undress, they probably didn't even look at the dice.

and if it was a man undressing? Is it still sexism when a man does it?

Would I be objectifying a sexy man who started undressing for an ad showcasing dice? I might try not to... but I probably would. So yes I suppose it would be reverse sexism.

It still doesn't make it right even if you do it to a man Freehold DM.


The only thing surprising about the ad was that it was for a convention. Did you all miss the fact that she walks in in a sexy outfit and starts undressing next to a dice display case? So from the start I was expecting her to be using sex to sell something RPG related like dice.

Objectification of women is a form of sexism, so yes this was sexist. The fact that everyone it seems uses sex to sell isn't an excuse to continue... but since sex actually does work very well in selling I guess a few voices in objection aren't going to change anything. Money rules marketing not good ethics.

PS: Upon further consideration maybe men wouldn't have noticed the dice rack... they did pick someone attractive to undress, they probably didn't even look at the dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:


I guess I dont run into this that often..nobody at our table does this kind of analysis on anothers character short of "hey maybe you should get a missle weapon" or something like that. I realize though that in a situation like to boards where people are soliciting advise things can get more contentious. Guess I have been fairly sheltered from this sort of thing in my 24 odd years of gaming. Probably why I dont always see what the fuss is about.

I'm approaching this from a similar situation. I don't know what all the fuss is about either, but it keeps on flaring up on the boards so I'm trying to understand it :)

EDIT: And given other threads right now, occasionally I just wonder if some people just want to argue for the sake of it :-S

Yes, this is the internet and that's what people love to do on forums is argue endlessly. Fortunately people aren't that way IRL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
I dont know I think he tried very hard to not make it a label but a descriptor of aproach. Maybe sensitivities being what they are right now there is no good way to make people happy. I felt like it was a sliding scale not a "your are type a, you are type b." thing. For example I would say I am pretty 50/50. I have ideas in my head of the person I would be happy pretending to be for a year before I ever even get started on numbers. But that doesnt change the fact I want that person to be good at one form of combat, and have at least one secondary function that contributes to the party...trap finder, crafter, social butterfly, smarty pants...whatever.

Arguing descriptors vs slider bars is moot. Attitude is what makes two dissimilar style gamers able to sit down and enjoy a game together. Lets face it the difficulty of searching out two random gamers with the exact same play style is high. But if they both come to the table with an inclusive attitude then they can both have fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Matt you do realize your three (system, story, and game) seem to align with the three established play styles (gamist, narrativist, and simulationist) except that you seem to have reversed the meaning of the numbers on the last one such that a lower number is more in favor of realistic portrayal vs that the higher number meaning stronger as the standard definition would have. This is kind of awesome, like someone working out through their own logic process something others have done before and getting a better understanding of it as a result. You should definitely check out the standard definitions and evolve your own work after seeing the work of others.

One bit of advise however, I don't like meaningless numbers. Rather than say 1-9, why not say high, medium, or low with a clear definition of each... or as many points on the range as you can clearly define if three doesn't seem like enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So scientific vs artistic seems to be a relabeling of optimizer vs role player? ~sigh~ Relabeling something doesn't change it. So the question can we reconcile the two in the same group? Yes, I do it all the time. BUT it takes a group of people who want to work past their differences to enjoy the game in order to do it. Sadly the GM is powerless to invoke such cooperation by edict. It helps a LOT if the players start out as friends outside the game, but it isn't mandatory; I have found myself part of a couple pick up groups with just such an evolved attitude toward inclusion. Perhaps the most important part is to NOT think about what I want from the game, and instead think about what I can bring to the game.


Not sure if this game can make it in a world with Diablo3 already holding peoples attention. But if they delay to the end of the year they might do better. By then people will be tired of the Diablo3 expansion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a second benefit to voting for Ahsoka. If Disney sees a popular following for the character it is far more likely to include her in future stories.


Poor Ahsoka is losing her bracket!
~Tries the Jedi mind trick~
Vote for Ahsoka, you will.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Just because the guards followed orders doesn't make them right.

If SHIELD had the authority to enter then the guards had the duty to stand down after verifying those credentials. If their orders were otherwise then following those orders turned them into the bad guys.

But all we have to go on is the information the show gives us. In the show, the guards clearly followed the protocals they had to determine who was authorized to enter - Coulson's team showed up unscheduled, claimed to be SHIELD, offered no credentials or authorization, and didn't have the appropriate passcodes to enter. After being refused entry to the secure facility, they broke in.

Even if SHIELD as an agency has the authority to demand entrance to any facility in the world, Coulson and his team weren't operating in support of a mission. So even any claims that they should be given authority, as agents of SHIELD, would have been in the wrong.

What happened is this: In a matter of personal interest, a team of agents attempted to abuse their position and gain access to a facility they weren't authorized to access. When they were still denied entrance, they broke in with force and killed the guards defending the facility, and their carelessness caused the destruction of the facility along with its research and any inhabitants who might be within it.

I can understand the logic in being willing to sacrifice the innocent to save someone you love. It is the sort of reasoning that can lead to some of the most interesting stories about villains. And if they decide to have the team continue down this road, and acknowledge that it is villanous behavior, that could lead to an interesting story. But the show seems to be acting as though their behavior was heroic, when it was anything but. And that is what I really find concerning.

First, I am sure SHIELD agents do carry credentials and if given the chance it is clear Coulson would have presented them. But the guards refused to consider anything other than their pass code. Second as agents in the field the are acting as representatives of SHIELD itself. I could understand if the guards used a secure line to call up the chain of command and maybe get further orders, but they simply locked and loaded. Which is bad for two reasons 1: They have NO idea if these agents have been sent here on an approved mission or not. 2: If they fail then their superiors have far less intelligence as to what happened at the destroyed facility.

I bolded the false part of your statement. From what we have seen so far SHIELD seems to have no limits to it's authority over local or national concerns. So you are false in assuming they had no authority to enter. I could be wrong but so far I have seen no evidence to the contrary.


Just because the guards followed orders doesn't make them right.

If SHIELD had the authority to enter then the guards had the duty to stand down after verifying those credentials. If their orders were otherwise then following those orders turned them into the bad guys.


Poor me my biggest failing in playing is losing track of the mouse pointer in all the explosive special effects. This means it's hard for me to control powers like Teleport it has consistently held me back on the more difficult settings.


Thanks Blayde I had no idea I could watch Robot Carnival on you tube. You saved me a bit of money.


What was Robot Carnival like?
There looks to be 3 copies of the DVD at the Amazon.com site but is it worth buying? Or is this one of those anime that was better when it first aired and will look extremely dated now?


Pigraven wrote:
I have no idea about the future of Skye as a character on the show or in the movies. But a family member of mine works as one of the editors for this show, and he said that in all the test viewings before release and the feedback from viewers, her character is the least liked character on the show by a large margin. The producers thought they hit a home run with her character but Marvel fans and testing audiences have both been brutal.

I did a web search for this claim and guess what I found? Nothing. The vast majority of complaints are bad acting and crappy stories. I am beginning to suspect you made this claim up. Care to post a link and prove me wrong?


Cthulhudrew wrote:

Of course, I'm still a bit shocked that the two single guards in the top-secret facility somehow didn't notice the SHIELD agents until they knocked at the door (there's no radar there, keeping an eye on the airspace? Not to mention all the noise a jet landing would have made.)

I say they kill off Skye and Fitz, knock Coulson down a security level or two, and let Ward lead the team.

Um... Radar at a secret base? That is as stupid as bringing a spotlight with you while you hide in the bushes so you can see if anyone is coming. And it is highly likely the base is sound proof. Now why there weren't passive things like security cameras aimed at the landing pad I have no idea. But it is good writing that they wouldn't see a plane coming or hear it land.

If there is one person they could stand to lose it would be Ward. I understand Skye isn't popular but I like her and would be a fair bit cross if they wrote her out just because her popularity was low.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Right. But there is a difference between casualties that occur in the line of duty vs those that occur in pursuit of a personal task.

That's the thing - let's go with the assumption that SHIELD agents sometimes need to do legally and morally gray things in the pursuit of a higher cause, or have the authority to bypass normal legal procedures and requirements in order to get the job done. That the stakes are high enough that it justifies operating outside of the normal domain of the law.

It is a completely different thing to do so while on the job vs doing so for personal reasons. And, ultimately, that is what was happening here.

If a cop's wife is dying, and he breaks into a hospital to steal medicine for her, and there is a security guard who fights back against the armed intruder, and the security guard is killed in the ensuing gunfight... the cop's badge doesn't excuse his actions. Nor the fact that he asked nicely before then forcefully breaking into the hospital with weapons at the ready.

Your analogy isn't right...

I would fix it by saying a cop with a search warrant in hand attempts to enter a hospital to take the medicine for his own wife's life. The guard doesn't know the cop isn't supposed to use that medicine for personal reasons, but he fights back with lethal force anyway. The guard in this situation is clearly the bad guy and the cop wouldn't get in trouble for killing him. He might get in trouble later for unjustified use of the medicine however depending on who finds out.


Actually Bill Paxton makes a LOT of sense. Who better to free Quinn later than the actual agent holding him?


Actually that episode convinced me that either Quinn or one of the other SHIELD team people has one of the occular implants. Why else would the clairvoyant set this all up? The clairvoyant can clearly track his own implants so he was counting on using this to get someone with an implant to the secret location and revealing it.

1 to 50 of 1,825 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.