|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Wah, wah, wah, Thea. Quit regressing to your useless Season 1 self.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
What really bugged me is that she proclaimed, "Do you think that I am just some jilted lover?" And for a moment, I was expecting some more powerful motivation or something genuinely serious... and instead, nope, jilted lover is it.
No idea why you'd expect something else... jilted lover as motivation is par for the course for the CW.
Lots of problems in the last episode or two, for sure.
But, with that said, Lance (Quentin, I guess) is (finally) getting more awesome.
Innocent until proven guilty is still a core concept in justice systems in North America.
There is no victim blaming in this thread. (Later on, once more information is available, there might be.)
Yet another place where 3.5 did it better.
The above seems to be a horrible amalgamation between the original 3.5 generic "Frightful Presence" rule:
And the original 3.5 dragon-specific frightful presence entry:
I only play with long-time, close friends.
"Guys night out", so to speak.
(So this would fall under picky to the extreme.)
Excellent post. Every one of those things my wife has yelled at. And she's right.
There's no question whatsoever that the show relies on the characters' unbelievable stupidity to move the plot forward.
(Despite that, I too am curious to see what happens.)
If I used the term "Toon" rather than PC, what would you say?
"What the f#%# are you talking about?"
What arguments would you use for or against it?
Against. It would slow and/or inhibit communication for us - we, honestly, would have no idea what the person is talking about (I've only heard "toon"... here. Right now.) and we'd have to spend time and energy always figuring out and remembering what this now-becoming-annoying person was saying. It also detracts from the "feel" - and "feel" (as subjective as it is), is very important to the particular group I'm part of. We prefer appropriate terms for whatever setting we're in - and "toon" is not appropriate.
It'd be like Fran Drescher or Gilbert Gottfried in their always-most-over-the-top as members of our group. Wouldn't work for us. Annoying.
Context? Well, hell - one of my players could mime as his/her communication, and we'd figure out "from the surrounding context" what they were talking about.
"You're injured and need healing? Okay, we're coming!"
"Oh, you're stuck in a forcecage? Okay, we'll help you out!"
"Bob... why the hell are you always getting stuck in a forcecage?"
Context or not, still doesn't make it appropriate.
James Jacobs wrote:
No... Unspeakable Futures wouldn't fit into Golarion at all. It's an entirely different genre, with entirely different themes. There's certainly a fair amount of crossover in those themes, but just as I'd rather not see Mad Max roll into King's Landing and challenge Jamie Lannister to a race, I'd rather not merge Unspeakable Futures with Golarion.
To be honest, that sounds just like Iron Gods... especially with an entire book called "Technology Guide" coming out (a book that is specific to Golarion) and it's particularly wahoo level of tech included (at least, according to the current product description).
Not sure how accurate your statement is (or rather, 'will become')... :D
Yes, it's the World Serpent Inn.
Mentioned originally in OP1 Tales of the Outer Planes, it also appeared in:
I've read a number of comments, in various threads both here and in other fora, with a common theme, implying if not explicitly stating that a DM's responsibility is to facilitate fun for the players—even if such requires that he or she has little to none of his or her own.
A mystifying and inexplicable position indeed, though I can't say I've seen it all that explicitly (and only subtly hinted-at, I think).
Needless to say, I consider the above opinion, if truly held, to be the height of wrongness and stupidity.
I've always found the best method of deciding on a campaign is to present the players with a handful of possibilities—say, five or six, of which a couple they themselves contribute—and letting them narrow it down to a few, then making the final selection from those three. This way, everyone's involved with the decision-making process.
That's generally how we do it (mostly). The DM presents a few options of what he/she wants to run, and the players come to a consensus from the options presented.
Because it's already included in the "profit". (Profit = Revenues - Expenses; buying other people's stuff is included as an expense, and comes out as profit. All a player/PC needs to care about is 'profit', nothing else.)
People (or rather, one or two people in this thread) are trying to micro-detail what the system already does, albeit at a higher level.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
I do like how fast they have kept things moving, since I thought dragging things out was one of Season 1's weaknesses
I totally agree with this - and if there has to be a trade-off between moving it along or getting stuck with some of those pace-affecting deleted scenes, then I'll take moving things along, no question. (Slowing things down would be severely detrimental to this show, AFAIC.) I choose that trade-off especially because there are shows that can move things along AND have good character development at the same time, so why can't Arrow? (Well, I know why, and it's not flattering so I'll leave it at that.)
Or, just maybe, people don't view it the same way you do Arnwyn. You know, different opinions and experiences and all that.
That I totally agree with. Hence, my original "Huh. Fascinating." post.
Actual people have held just as irrational, to your mind, points of view/grudges for many more years.
I also totally agree with that. I also believe it makes for a bad villain (and thus bad TV).
But make no mistake - no one (certainly not here) is going to convince me it's not a silly motivation that makes for bad TV. It wasn't Oliver's fault IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, and it's silly in every conceivable way to blame Oliver for some schmuck who murdered an unarmed person in cold blood, when Oliver was helpless and unarmed as well... unless Mirakuru turns you into a complete idiot. Which makes for a badly written and uninteresting villain. And, GentleGiant, the only defense I've seen is that 'Mirakuru does s@#@ to your head'. Yeah... that's what I just said above already. And the fact that Oliver couldn't explain his way out of a wet paper bag when he had plenty of time to come up with a myriad of plausible explanations is also incredibly lame. And there is zero - zero - reason that Mirakuru-idiot would believe actual murdering nutbag over guy-he's-been-with-through-hell-and-back-for-over-a-year. (Other than bad writing and a desperate and weak attempt at giving this villain some kind of personal motivation.)
If someone doesn't "get" this complaint... well, color me amused. It's obvious, AFAIC. (I'm not saying people should agree, but understanding isn't a particularly big hurdle here - at least, not for every single person I know. Hence my fascination.)
But - I'm willing to drop this, if you guys are. I've said my piece. Stupid-as-hell motivation or not, I'm still greatly enjoying Mirakuru-Slade chew up the scenery with his "I'll make you suffer muhahahaa raspy voice look at me in my awesome suit".
No idea if there's something in the works...
(For me, I've completely converted all of Spelljammer into a fully functioning model for 3.5 that we use in our long-running 3.5 wahoo Forgotten Realms-and-connected multiverse campaign. Sadly, it's all so full of copyrighted/Product Identity stuff that it's unsharable... and it's 3.5, which may not be acceptable to people, but is our preference...) :(
Oliver had a long time to think about it. A LONG time. He didn't, and it ended up stupid.
Plus the impression I get is that the Mirakuru will focus on pretty much ANYTHING to twist your head into a psycho.
Already covered in my post. Yet still unconvincing, and worse - lame. Mirakuru makes you an idiot? Ooooookay... that's not very interesting or fun to watch. Bad writing.
Now his entire arc and villainy motivation is sullied by this. A villain who has no coherent motivation whatsoever is the definition of uninteresting.
Oliver's dumber than a sack of hammers... and so is Slade.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - I know, that Mirakuru makes Slade all sorts of idiot. But still.
That whole Shado thing is just dumb, and entirely senseless. That's his villainy motivation? Lame. (And that doctor using his 'words' to confuse people was... not convincing. "You killed her by choosing the other!" Ummm... what?)
Oliver (the right answer): "Actually, I chose ME, dumbass. And what did you do then?"
I totally agree with you. Thankfully, that's not what I'm arguing.
I don't see HOW you can disagree on this.
Then try harder. Because you're not right now.
The only intelligent course of action, from a realistic standpoint, was for these guys to open fire on a potential threat they have no way of verifying is not a threat.
I agree. I have no qualms with mook guard #1 and mook guard #2 shooting at these unknown dudes, if that's how they felt they should best handle the situation they're in. Obviously, of course, they should expect to be popped back.
The guards didn't fire the first shot- Coulson's group did. They shot out the security cameras. Hostile intent.
*shrug* Not enough to be labeled "evil". The first shots fired at people, after attempts at diplomacy first, were made by the guards. Fair game. Shoot back and pop 'em, please.
Crying out "Really- we just want to talk!" after the fact seems somehow not quite so sincere.
False. Not after the fact. They even talked outside the doors, without brandishing any weapons.
We won't be agreeing on this.
Lord Snow wrote:
It could be that the guards have no choice but to defend the place with their lives. They might be under strict orders not to engage in dialog with anyone. Or, worse yet, there might be a serious reason that they need the place guarded. Some magic/technology in the facility that must never, ever be exposed for any reason. This is the Marvel universe and such things exist.
I'm totally with you there.
Killing the guards is a very questionable move.
"Questionable"? Definitely not with you there.
The guards opened fire first - after diplomacy was attempted. Whoops on their part! Now they're fair game.
I don't know about evil. The security guards did open fire first. And were not interested in any sort of dialogue. One could argue that breaking in was questionable, but after that, it was pretty much self defense. It didn't even seem like the guards would've allowed a surrender (although that's debatable).
Totally agree. The guards ignored dialogue and opened fire first. That's the bottom line, AFAIC.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
If you break into a locked facility - while visibly armed, hacking through security devices and shooting out cameras on the way in - I don't think you get to claim self-defense. Those deaths are on them.
Meh. They identified themselves, wanted dialogue, and even asked nicely. That's that.
And why the hell were they barking at people in FR novels and games...
Because of this:"and their language (which sounds like small dogs yapping),"
3) An admission that one's own creations are somehow 'not good enough' to stand beside old classics.
Even if it might be true. (And is absolutely true, AFAIC.)
But then, I still play 3.5, so I still have all these monsters (and every one listed on this thread so far) in 3.5 format.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
If a players wants to seduce you farmers daughter/son, barmaid/bartender, merchants daughter/son, etc how do you like to handle it? How/what game mechanics do you allow/use for this type of thing? Is it strictly a RP thing in your games?
A mix of Diplomacy and maybe a "yeah, sure, whatever", since we're not really all that interested in that in our games.
Some people may call that "unsatisfying". Our group is thankful.
How about just making friends and contacts?
This is almost always through long-term RPing, with Diplomacy checks at certain 'appropriate' times (which we won't know until they come up - it always varies).
No, not really. 3.5 recognized that and had specific ship-building rules in the Stormwrack book. (Pretty good.)
I don't blame them at all and it's not the classification of picks that's the issue with the underwater penalties. I think they could just have dropped the underwater combat modifiers completely (for simplicity's sake, since they don't represent reality anyway) or made them closer to reality (for realisms sake, to make weapon choice more relevant) by stating that penalty is gained dependant on use motion rather than damage type. Now I feel it's neither simple nor realistic and it just feels like the worst of two worlds.
Fascinating. I cannot relate... at all.
Vice-versa for me. I like Arrow, a lot. But it sure can't contend with Agents of Shield. So I look forward to see what Marvel has to offer (and am thankful it's not on the wretched angst-ridden CW...).
Viking Frog wrote:
Thanks for looking into this!
Just submitted by support request.
I've been running with the assumption he's meant maps intended for combat.
Me too. My post doesn't change. I hope the request is rejected.
(James already mentioned what I'm talking about earlier in the thread - e.g. giantish architecture.)
Some things just have big architecture. I expect to see them, mapped/gridded and all. 10 ft. squares... or even bigger, if the area demands it. For combat.
Agreed. Possibly sending in the character late (not a big deal on its own) combined with having a tendency to argue with that particular DM combined with already being separated (twice!) during something as relatively conflict-free as character generation... well... that doesn't sound all that promising.
Really - if you have to ask whether you should play, it's usually not a good idea.
I feel your pain, Dragnmoon... I still haven't gotten my Rappan Athuk sub #5 yet, when loads of people (everyone else?) has... :(
Indeed. In fact, refer to Kirth's own post, seen previously in this thread:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
In fairness, I have noticed that when the conversation veers to "Reeking-of-Privilege Barbaric Men should cross the street to avoid women on the sidewalk, and bow their heads so as not to subject Perfect Women to their Evil Lustful Gazes" (generally posited by a sycophantic male participant), we do get the rest of the White Knight cheering squad full-on telling everyone to STFU if they believe gender-neutral sidewalks could potentially be a thing. And they're supported in that. But -- so what? With no sarcasm -- totally seriously -- that's OK. Because, as noted many times, Paizo is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "present both sides" of ANYTHING. If people don't like that, there are plenty of other threads to debate things in, if that's what one is after -- so why make oneself look like even more of a boor by complaining?
Paizo does indeed have "stealth rules" on top of their normal messageboard rules, and it would do people best if they try to figure them out as fast as possible to avoid future pain for everyone.