Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Anyway, re: BSG: I already used this line a couple of years ago in a FAWTL thread but, if I ever get a chance to go back in time and visit my younger self, I will tell him to stop watching BSG and Lost at the end of Season Two.
Truer words have never been spoken.
For both shows.
Now there may be some disappointment that the art isn't in a more realistic style for the Osirion-centric AP, but c'mon, there's going to be a lot more art than just the covers, and quite a lot of it'll likely be in line with the covers of the forthcoming Osirion book and People of the Sands.
You'd think the first book of a certain AP would sort of do it on the cover. *shrug*
No biggie. Just personally not too interested in the cover, and I won't be showing it to my players, as they would be pretty disappointed and would run counter to their expectations (which can affect how invested they are in the campaign).
Lord Snow wrote:
I have never ever seen a GM force a player to make any sort of checks just to know what the creatures in his summon list can do. That's seemingly absurd.
Good for you. Of course it's not absurd.
Would you require a wizard using a fireball to make a knowledge check to determine if he is aware of the blast radius? Will you force a paladin to make a knowledge check to know how many times per day she can use Smite Evil? Will you force a barbarian to make a knowledge check to realize he'll get exhausted when the rage ends?
No. I, however, can see the difference.
Characters don't get a big list of monster stats. They have their list of monsters. There they go. Summon one, and then see what it can do. Or, actually use the Knowledge skill for what it was designed for, and learn about monsters. You don't get freebies or exceptions just because it happens to be on one of the myriad of available spells. If they should have the stats, it would be in the CRB in the spell. (See the PHB2 and Complete Mage in the latter days of 3.5.) But, to be honest, that's not even much of my concern. The greater concern is not rolling Knowledge (arcana) to properly get the weaknesses of the construct opponent. So, while it's all well and good to "know and fully understand all of her class features to their full extent" blah blah blah, the line is drawn at opponents.
With all that said, I can appreciate, however, that different groups approach this differently - and people should do what works for their individual group. Apparently their group plays it a certain way... so there we go and here we are. The thread.
Suggesting that everyone should do it one specific way is asinine. The OP isn't going to get anything solved here. They need to have a discussion of what the expectations are in terms of player and character knowledge. Bad on them for not doing so.
It's sort of an obscure/inside joke about "being wrong on the internet!". Yeah, pretty bad if the joke falls flat.
"Cheating" might be a bit of a strong word (though I understand why people would say so), but I'd say very poor form.
How did you know what a Lantern Archon could do? Did you make the appropriate Knowledge checks? After that, how would you know that what a Lantern Archon could do would hurt an iron golem? Did you make the appropriate Knowledge checks then?
Hmm.... now that I think about it, maybe "cheating" isn't that strong of a word.
To the people defending the OP... you're wrong.
Last night's episode wasn't to my taste; the SF angle was mildly clever, but didn't drive the story enough to overcome my distaste for hostage scenarios. However, I am impressed by the small background touches in panning/establishing shots--FX that don't slap you in the face but do what they're supposed to do.
This. Oh-so-this in every regard.
Lord Snow wrote:
But having this amount of LGBT couples in Paizo adventures is nothing new and no one had any trouble with it previously.
Indeed - but if people are actually having trouble with it this time around, then it could be because of this:
Lord Snow wrote:
People are only paying more attention this time around because this time the NPCs are more about being friends of the PCs than the utility focused NPCs of previous campaigns.
Now they're 'in your face', so to speak, and people are "forced" to deal with them (some think it's "forced", others just use 'em and carry on). Previously, these relationships could just be ignored... now, they have to be 'dealt' with in some way. So the response isn't entirely surprising.
My only problem is that, IMO, Paizo is wasting large amounts of precious space and word-count on all this NPC relationship stuff (and that's for BOTH hetero and LGBT) when they really should just be getting on with the actual adventure - particularly noteworthy when Paizo themselves constantly complain amount limited word-count space. What can (and should, AFAIC) be done with a simple single 7-character word ("married" or "partner") is starting to take up too much space. And Paizo and NPCs have been... spotty at best (see complaints around Jade Regent). Now, if Paizo does the unthinkable and increases word- and page-count, come back and talk to me. [And finally - let's not do a gaming-Godwin with 'roleplay!' vs. 'rollplay!' responses, please. Yeah, I get it. NPCs. Blah blah blah.]
It's not bad. I don't really look forward to it, but when I sit down and watch it I enjoy myself pretty well.
As long as they keep the humor up, I'm good. (If this show - with its generally asinine concept - ever starts to take itself too seriously, I'll be done. But if they keep the good mix of what they have right now, it's worth watching.)
And, yeah. This pistol and the voicemail. GOLD!
Bill Dunn wrote:
"Mistaken"? *chuckle* You could both be saying the same thing.
Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
This will vary for every individual group - you're not going to get a consensus on any of this. (Nor should you.)
My group, for example, is very detail oriented, so we say almost everything except for vital bodily functions and other functions that would make your character 'work normally'. So:
Often, for sake of expedience, there are certain assumptions made in character. Typically these are things like going to the bathroom, eating, drinking, sleeping, preparing spells at a set time, sharpening your weapon, etc..
... we make no statements on any of this. For us: assumed. (With some caveats - WHEN they sleep needs to be stated. HOW MUCH food/water they have needs to be stated/tracked.
Sometimes the assumptions can go larger than that. A request for a character to draw a map of where they explore by an NPC, can it be assumed it is done without mentioning it, because it is a re-quest and has a reward? What about sharing of knowledge or information? If the party sage makes a 30 knowledge check on a DC 12 creature, is it safe to assume they automatically tell everything they know to the rest of the party?
... would have to be stated. Every time. (But it's not hard for us, since we're a long time group and we have gotten into a smooth-running groove over the years.)
If not to any of these, do you play them out or require they be played out in character? Do you as a GM or player make it a point to mention eating rations or buying a meal? Do you ask if they are mapping or state you are doing so at the times you do it? Do you require they say what they know, or do you share the info as your character would?
Yes, to all of these. But, again, see 'groove' above. "We mark off rations/supplies" (every player does so at once) or the cleric "I cast create food/water" <marks it off>. When somebody "maps" they literally map on a sheet of paper (and even mark 'map of X' on their character sheet equipment) - and then [if they wish] share that map paper with the group when they make their decisions.
This probably won't work for more free-running loosey-goosey groups, but like I said - we're detail oriented.
EDIT: Oh... yeah. The first two posts.
If people want to nitpick the show to death they can always replace it with a reality TV show. People should be damn grateful that they're putting this out at all. Like every show there are things that I would do differently but I feel the positives way out weigh the negatives.
Indeed. Somewhat inexplicable, too, since AoS blows the living poo-poo out of Arrow (though I don't mind Arrow) and (though I loathe to mention it at all because it is truly a horrid show) The Tomorrow People.
Skeeter Green wrote:
Just saw this now. I'll have to do this tonight when I get home from the office... I have a subscription to both (RA and CD), and haven't seen anything of either since #3.
Pathfinder Adventure Path #77: Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth (Wrath of the Righteous 5 of 6) (PFRPG)
Pathfinder Adventure Path #77: Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth (Wrath of the Righteous 5 of 6) (PFRPG)
Scott Betts wrote:
When people are discussing glitches, what platform are they playing on?
I'm on PC and aside from one bug that prevented sidequest progression, I haven't seen anything in terms of glitches that would deter me from playing at all.
Good for you?
This is the kind of artwork that is BY FAR the best in any PF/D&D book.
This is the most evocative, and most helpful, to my players (and me). Not the ones with the annoying iconics front-and-center that get in the way of what could otherwise be useful artwork for our games.
My players hate the iconics. "Who are these idiots that get in the way of the picture?!"
No question in my mind the player crossed the line first.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
How many of you have gamed for months and months without the slightest problem, argument or string of personal insults being flung back and forth across your table?
Years. And years. And years. (Well, apart from the personal insults, which are part-and-parcel of this particular group of friends. They are flung with gusto!)
Good friends, smooth-running game, and our preferences all align. I don't even remember the last time we even had a hint of trouble. And never, in all our years of playing, has there even been a single instance of anger, much less a ragequit.
Our group is currently in our 21st year.
It's about tone, Arnwyn. "Useless subhuman troglodyte" is hateful, and discourages evenhanded discussion and puts those who disagree on the defensive.
I do agree, in theory. However, my tone was purposeful. I find her so awful and detrimental/damaging to the show that I (just me, personally) have zero interest in any discussion (evenhanded or otherwise) about her. (Other people certainly can - just not me, and not stemming from my post.)
I'm not really (and by not really, I mean not all all) inviting 'further analysis' about Laurel. If people disagree with how I feel about her character, my post is probably not for them. (I am very much okay if people don't respond to my posts.)
I can't really relate to the rest of your post. I assume that if people don't say much about something (while participating in a certain topic), then they otherwise like everything else. I assume happiness and satisfaction is the base state of affairs.
Josh M. wrote:
The "stay on topic" police (Paizo's moderators) have been a little overzealous the last little while, so the messy forum is a logical result of that type of moderating.
Holy crap, I got it, and it looks even better than what I was expecting. Loads of places to go, lots of different terrains and areas (even though it's all underground!), lots of NPCs to deal with and/or whack...
This really looks like it'll be an AP to remember.
As others have said - 'happy to wait if this is the result'.
Yes, you have a limited time...but as you're making 4 separate dishes anyway (since in your example 4 people asked for 4 different dishes) this isn't taking up any extra time for you.
I am? They did? Argh! I hate long rambling analogies!
Not being able to make it well is a valid excuse, but that's not affected by you liking something or not. I hate a lot of things that I can cook well.
That's cool. Not me (and not anyone I know). That might account for some of my confusion. (Though I probably should have stayed away from the cooking analogies in the first place, since that's not really my thing. Whoops on my part.)
"I don't like sushi" was just your excuse for not making it, not a valid reason.
You won't be finding agreement from me. It's valid.
Erick Wilson wrote:
Okay, so it's going to be that kind of post.
Yeah... it was the moment you responded to my post. The whole "restraint" line and all that.
Your post gives the distinct impression that you are the sort of man that believes that there is some kind of inherent superiority in playing the "pure," "classic," canonical form of a campaign in a given setting. You are highly and aggressively dismissive of anyone who would, in your eyes, dilute that purity. I know, I get it. I even understand and appreciate your desire to have such a game and to play in this way.
That's quite the impression. I suspect your past and the baggage you currently carry covers a lot of that. But, again - it's irrelevant what my friends and I enjoy. I wonder why you keep bringing it up, and pretend that it has any meaning whatsoever?
If what your group does has no relevance to anyone else, why are you posting about what your group does?
Because it's fun to post a real group/personal preference example in a fascinating thread while I'm whiling away break time at the office? You seem to be new to the internet. Believe me - I'm not here to 'convince' anyone of anything, or to tell anyone what to do. I will, though, on an internet messageboard, point out when I see something that is completely alien - or distasteful - to me. ('cause it's fun)
Is it "wrongbadfun" to play orcs in DL? Not if everyone agrees that that's a cool thing to do! But it *is* dishonest to agree to play in DL and then try to bring in an orc, instead of saying 'I want to play an orc - is there a campaign we can play that accomodates that?' and accepting that the DM isn't obligated to run anything he/she doesn't want to run. (If one wants to play an orc, why agree to play DL in the first place, then? It's something that I really am confused about. The only rational response I can see is - no, I don't really want to play in DL since I really want to play an orc. If that's all you're willing to DM, then maybe somebody else can DM, or I'll have to sit this one out.)
If you don't like that position... well, then I consider you a problem player. And you consider me (and my entire group) an authoritarian DM and authoritarian (?) players. It's not something we're going to get around, I'm afraid.
*sigh* I was hoping this discussion would be hater free. Oh, well, it's the Internet.
*shrug* Arrow is not immune to criticism.
Though I suppose I should have expected a response like that from you, given your previous rather... 'enthusiastic'... quote:
OH MY GOD SO GOOD. SO SO GOOD.
(Though, to be honest, I was hoping that you would just ignore my post.)
I was just exiting the forum the other day because I was tired of people just talking about who they hated and jumping up and down on the opinions of anyone who disagreed with them (so my frustration is borne from other people). Where's the love??
Well, you can like Laurel as much as you like. And believe me - I have little intention of responding to any of your posts in this thread. I get that you really like this show. Yay for you, I suppose. It could be, though, that my posts here really aren't for you, DeathQuaker. I am much much more critical of this show than you are (though I can see potential - and I like the DC universe, in general - at least from what little I know, since I'm a non-comicbook-fan), so I can imagine you won't like what I have to say about this show. And I absolutely reject that the thread should be some kind of weird love-in, so I'm afraid you won't get that from me.
If it's within you, could you ignore my posts? I'm doing the same for yours right now (only responding if I see a quote of me).
Don't get me wrong, you don't like her, that's your right, I just... I just... your comment made me SAD, Arnwyn. That's all.
It's just a TV show - and it's Laurel - so I'm not really sure I'm capable of understanding. /sheepish/
(And if you don't like my posts, be thankful my wife isn't here. My comments are tempered compared to hers.)
Your argument doesn't make a lick of sense to me. How does not liking sushi affect my willingness to make it?? *blinks* I don't like it, I'm terrible at making it, and I have limited time to make something if I'm going to make anything at all - if I'm going to make something, which I don't have to. How can it not affect my willingness? I'm truly baffled... and a straw poll at my office pretty much baffles everyone else. They're having trouble even figuring out the competing argument.
It's kind of a douche move asking someone who hates sushi and can't make it well to spend the time doing so when somebody else likes sushi and is perfectly capable of making it well.
Speaking as a food service worker, anyone who's talking about the Chef "wanting" to prepare anything has a vast misapprehension about how the industry functions.
... Is that where people were going with this? I'm just a dude in my own kitchen who happens to have a tiny bit of spare time.
Fun times with analogies!
Erick Wilson wrote:
This is fatuous. Obviously, the issue is that your "description" of events was heavily laden with sneering, insulting characterizations of the type of person that would disagree with you. Such a person, in your view, is "a dishonest git" whose preferences/values are "idiocy." You even go so far as to imply that actual physical violence against such a person would be a reasonable response.
Give me a break and improve your reading. I'm sorry you took offense - you must have seen a lot of yourself in my post based on how you're reacting.
But nowhere did I say someone who "disagrees with me" is a "dishonest git" (I made clear of that in the specific example - being dishonest about preferences gets one that label... and you agreed!) I was also clear and concise about what is 'idiocy' - again, read or don't bother responding to my posts... otherwise, we might really need to have a conversation about dishonesty. (Let me know if you need me to re-quote it... for whatever reason.)
The 'bodily thrown out' part was fun theorizing and hyperbole - though I apologize if you mistook it for something more serious. Such a situation would never even occur much less come to that, of course. We're careful who we game with. In any case, your concern is noted.
True, it may be that that the evolutions in this medium's complexity have entirely passed you and your group by, and thus have no relevance to you. I am not sure, however, that I would wear that as a badge of honor.
Again - irrelevant. What my group does is of no relevance to... anyone outside my group! (and certainly not you) Watch the wrongbadfun nonsense!
Relax. You don't have to make the sushi. Who can compel you to make it?
Awesome. I'm glad you agree.
But otherwise - nah. The person/people who like sushi and are good at making sushi should make sushi.
If I don't like sushi (and believe me, I don't), and people want me to cook, I am not going to make sushi. EVER. No matter how much my friends like sushi. They will never, ever, see it from me.
In such circumstances, I will wonder why they want me to cook for them (unless they're fine with - WAIT FOR IT! - other things I make, and like making).
I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them
Possibly, depending on existing relationship, cooking skills, other nearby food options.
while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence.
Strawman. Nobody's done this, anywhere. Stop it.
All because the cook has to break a sweat.
How much cooking experience does he/she have? How much time does he/she have? What are his/her other options? How much interest does he/she have in cooking?
Having to "break a sweat" isn't necessarily a good thing. In fact, given time constraints, other responsibilities, other options, etc. it is often a bad thing. (Generally, when we're talking about entertainment time - of which there are a lot of competing options - having to "break a sweat" is almost always a bad thing.)
Why are the players always assumed as being the ones who want to play their special snowflakes no matter what. If I was new to this hobby I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players. We never see ressonable players in these threads. Always the sterotype of the player out to screw the DM. With the DM of course always being shown as the poor martyr having to put up with such players.
Dunno. The players are free to not play. They are free to get a different DM that will cater to their desires and/or DM those types of things themselves. Why aren't the players doing that?
But: "I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players."
Gotta totally agree with that. For the love of pete, if you don't like half-oozes or 'homebrew races', why did you recruit such a player? And player: if you love half-oozes and the DM hates them, why in the name of all that is holy are you playing under that DM?
Laurel, not so much. Yeah Laurel, if you get the Hood off the street, everybody in Starling City is just going to magically stop taking Vertigo, nobody is ever going to get mugged, and the Chinese triads are just going to get bored and go away. Good plan. Still, if someone has to have a death grip on the idiot ball, at least it's someone I didn't like anyway, and not Felicity or something!
Erick Wilson wrote:
Sometimes it is difficult to avoid being incendiary or insulting on these threads, but I have taken a vow to restrain myself as best I can. I will say, though, that the quotes above...well, they do not show the same restraint. What's more, they represent what seems to me a calcified and narrow-minded point of view that is entirely out of touch with the complexity of modern gaming culture.
*chuckle* Oh? I'm not sure what "restraint" you're talking about. Describing my group's reactions and giving an example isn't really out of line, I'm afraid. And my group's preferences/reactions are not up for debate.
And you say "calcified and narrow-minded point of view", "out of touch", and "complexity of modern gaming" as if it has any relevance and meaning to my group and I.
Arnwyn, who said that anyone is being dishonest?
My group is saying it, of course, within the example I presented. (It was a familiar example, and thus I used it for my own purposes.) If a person previously agrees on playing DL, and then someone tries to bring in an orc or drow, that's being dishonest. They should have just said they weren't interested in playing DL in the first place. What I am not saying is that anyone in your particular situation was necessarily dishonest - I don't know how the information was presented and who agreed to what.
The situation you mentioned regarding the Dragonlance game happened to me, but with some significant differences. The GM in question wanted to run Dragonlance and, out of his five players, two (of which I was one) were seriously underwhelmed by the idea, and the other three were more or less neutral about it. And I DID tell him that I was not especially interested in the Dragonlance setting, but it was all he wanted to run. So I said fine, but work with me regarding character leeway. Needless to say, he was recalcitrant.
*shrug* Whatever process works for your group. If you don't like it, don't play. The DM isn't obligated to run anything he/she doesn't like. If that's all he wanted to run, that's fine for him. If no one likes it choose a different DM. (More people need to come to the realization that no game is better than a bad game/game they won't enjoy. Though I have a hard time believing that that isn't patently obvious.)
It's not as simple as "the GM isn't obligated to run something he doesn't like and the players aren't obligated to play something they don't like."
When it comes to people's free time and how they spend it, yes, it is. It is exactly that.
And it's not "idiocy" to want to play X race, or to be less than thrilled with Y campaign setting, though I agree that players should be honest about their preferences
No, that's not idiocy, but thankfully that's not what I said. Please go back and reacquaint yourself with what I really said.
But I'm glad you at least admit people should be honest with their preferences. That's all I said.
Now, you did say that the GM doesn't need to consider allowing (pick your poison) in an "agreed upon" game. But that is adding a parameter that I, at least, was not previously dealing with.
That's okay. I wasn't responding to you. (I just used the DL example because it seemed to be nice, clean, and concise for my example/illustration.)
Thea and Laurel - especially Laurel - make this show painful to watch. (Though Thea has noticeably been improved from S1 - she actually does something now!) Laurel, though, did an almost-180.
Now, Laurel was fabulously dumb in S1 - but now she's a useless subhuman troglodyte. Emphasis on the "useless". Every scene with her is excruciating.
The writers need to be... replaced.
Ah well. *goes back to enjoying Agents of SHIELD*