50 damage. He smashes you dead. Next is...
Nice, concise, and to the point.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Nah. You'd be going on far too long (even just with that). My players would tell you to shut up and move it along. (And so would I, honestly.) Over-describing the killing blow, again and again and again, when the players mow through loads of opponents every session, would be a massive time-waster.
(So, if that's what TriOmegaZero's players wanted to hear, he didn't - couldn't, in fact - fail at anything.)
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
You are absolutely free to claim that it is a reasonable business decision for a company to disregard such people. But the last couple lines of your post come across as very dismissive of such people, and putting the blame on them for not having access to the internet. And that is very not cool.
It's also what an a+&*!!~ MS employee did on Twitter, and got his ignorant ass fired for it.
Wow. Just... wow. That was the most unoriginal, uninspired load of drek I've had the misfortune of seeing in quite some time.
And "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"???? Really? Really?
C'mon. It was almost embarrassing to watch.
And are they just going to give Spock a ringy-ding each time they run into trouble and get the latest cheat sheet?
I saw this movie 25 years ago - when it was called Wrath of Khan and was (is) ten times better.
(With all that said, it was still better than I thought it would be... McCoy is still the best, and it was nice to see a tad more screen time with Scotty.)
In my opinion, a GM who has the BBEG use a coup-de-gras action here is not really acting to make this encounter "the most fun it can be".
Hmm. That's quite the opinion. I'm glad my group doesn't share it.
This more reeks of a GM who wants this BBEG to leave a legacy of killing a character.
And, according to everyone in my group, that's a good thing. To all of us, that's what makes him/her/it the BBEG. He's willing to actually go out of his way to gank someone - and to all of us, that's badass.
The suggestion of a BBEG spending his time capturing them so he can monologue and then the PCs can come up with some ham-fisted way of "escaping" is, in the words of my group, "effing lame".
I'm glad, though, that what you do works for you and your specific group. I'd be a tad careful about expanding that to anyone else, though.
As a GM tactic, if you ever find yourself considering a coup-de-gras action, as a personal challenge to yourself, think of something else you can do that would be universally heralded by all your players as even more bad-ass.
Done and done. I think you know what the answer is, at least some of the time.
Gruingar de'Morcaine wrote:
One of the guys even said he would like to try a real sandbox campaign where the players decide what to do an write the story. I just gave him an incredulous look and said “You mean the players that just spent 5 minutes arguing over who was in a better position to make the perception check? Those same players?”
While I can't help you with your dilemma (that type of irrational behavior just seems nuts to me), I laughed at the above. Nice!
My contention has always been that GMs who hate crafting simply hate the idea that PCs can have good things. They want ways to steal from the players and be as unaccountable as possible simply claiming "that's how the system works."
That sounds pretty tin-foil-hatty...
The biggest problem with Prometheus was that people wanted it to be something that it wasn't and was never meant to be....an Alien film. It's tangentially connected to Alien, and it's set in the same world, but it's NOT an Alien film.
Nah. The biggest problem with Prometheus was that it was a bad movie, period.
I went in not expecting an Alien/Aliens film (and not wanting an Alien/Aliens film), and I still got a bad movie.
(And I don't know what all this talk about post-Aliens movie is... there are only 2 Alien movies. ;) So given that, what happened to Colonial Marines (and that there's an attempt to make it 'canon') doesn't surprise me in the least. That franchise just keeps going down the drain. Sad.
While I am uncertain about this whole "Mythic Adventures" thingy and what it might entail (since I'm not really keen on adding much in the terms of new rules anymore, and at the same time not interested in doing too much extra conversion work), the premise and everything else falls heavily into the "neat-o" category.
No! Just speaking about consumer behavior (one of my favorite university courses, BTW). Not buying something you're not interested in is normal consumer behavior. Believing it to be "childish" to not buy something you're not interested in is abnormal consumer behavior.
(I've taken a few consumer psychology courses in the past, so it's fascinating to see the things people put out there on the internet. The Paizo boards, especially, would probably make a good case study, come to think of it...)
James Jacobs wrote:
If we cut the fiction from the Adventure Paths, I suspect that the 6 pages that frees up would most likely just be "absorbed" by the Bestiary, the adventure, and the support articles. Most likely by the support articles.
This would be a fine substitution. More words put to a town gazetteer (for example)? Woo!
I could definitely see it being cut for various reasons, and I'll respect Paizo if they do (though I really, really hope they provide the same fiction somehow or another).
Based on everything you said, it sounds very well-suited to the Campaign Setting line.
James Sutter wrote:
So please, regardless of which side of the fence you're on, don't be shy about giving us your opinions! If you'd rather that space be filled with more support articles (longer adventures is *not* an option), tell us that, as well as what sorts of additional articles you'd like to see.
More support articles. What kind of support articles? Anything that's not random fiction! Articles that directly tie into and support that specific AP.
Adam Daigle wrote:
The real thing isn't cutting an author's turnover. The real thing is the second part of hogarth's post—there's just not enough time to expand the adventure that much more. As it is, it takes a month to develop the adventure in each AP installment. Since they come out each month, adding more content to the adventure would make us slip our schedule, which is something no one wants to see.
Does this include support articles that are specifically related to the AP at hand?
If so, why, and how does it differ from the fiction?
Paizo has an irrational love of fiction in the APs. It's not going away.
But I'm still going to say it anyways: the fiction in the APs is a massive waste of space (especially painful when you keep hearing about "page count" issues that have demonstrably caused problems in past APs).
But yeah, I've resigned myself to the fact that the fiction is here to stay. *sigh*
(Though, that said, for some reason, I am obsessed with the fact that NCIS is able to generate multiple seasons worth of television given that their jurisdiction should be extremely minimal).
It's because a whole s~+#load of Navy personnel keep managing to get themselves killed in the Washington, D.C. area.
Hint: If you're in the Navy, stay the hell away from Washington! It's a freaking deathtrap for you!.
(More seriously: That show is popular due to its characters, and not its stories.)
Just watched it recently as well.
- No, they looked different to me. (Beckinsale vs. Biel)
- It was one of the worst movies I've seen in years. It's just a big long boring chase movie, with boring characters and boring/no story. Made me go back and watch the '90s version to try to get the crap of the 2012 version out of my brain.
- Props to the OP for mentioning Total Recall 2070. The movie wishes it could have been a fraction as good as that short-lived TV series.
Stefan Hill wrote:
Where T$R left off - that would be producing enough splat books and campaign settings to have enough mass to form a black hole and follow that up by going bankrupt....
I'll take the black hole if it got me FR + Al-Qadim + Spelljammer + Planescape, thanks.
+1 for 64 pages (well, +2 at least, since 64 pages+ is awesome)
So... yeah. +1. A really good change, for me at least!
64 pages really is awesome; 32 page adventures often suffered from the 'too big for its britches' syndrome (trying to do way to much and way too 'big' of things for the page count).
It is correct for the particular group I'm in. (Note that we are all fine with how our very-long-running group works.)
Don't pretend you know other people's groups and their group dynamics, wraithstrike.
APs that might get me to start subscribing again:
1) Land of the Linnorm Kings – all Vikings. No Irrisen, no elsewhere. All Linnorm Kings.
What I don’t want to see? No more “journey” adventures. Those are dull as dirt, AFAIC.
Hrrrm. For now, I want to say that at this point in the show's development (i.e. the very beginning), the writers had bloody well better know exactly what caused the blackout, why electricity doesn't work, and why combustion engines don't work.
I don't want to be fed garbage that was Lost and BSG.
Overall, it was... okay. The son is indeed annoying (and I wouldn't cry at his demise), the villains are stupid as hell ("Shoot him! Even though we want him to answer questions! We're idiots!") and even a bit grating (if you have a reason to be nasty, fine. If you're nasty for the sake of nastiness, then you suck and aren't worth watching). The varying tech just seems weird right now.
I mean, how many of us wish we had the article on the Whispering Way which appears in Broken Moon when we started handing out clues about them in Trial of the Beast? Or the info on the Church of Pharasma which appears in Trial of the Beast when there is ZERO interaction with Gravecharge in that module but one of the key NPCs in HoH is a Priest of Pharasma and an important location is a Pharasman temple?
The correct methodology is to never - ever - run an AP until you have ALL the books available to you (and read). To all those who don't - you're just doing a massive disservice to your players. (With some sympathy [though not much] to those who must do so out of necessity and not choice.)
Evil Lincoln wrote:
The basic premise was that you need cover or concealment to get stealth, which makes sneaking "behind" someone impossible, since you auto-fail stealth the moment you leave concealment. So sneaking from pillar to pillar, for instance, was impossible. I think we can all agree that the rogue should have a chance to Tenchu up behind folks and stab them, especially if the target is really statistically oblivious.
I approve of this post, for:- referencing Tenchu, and
- using it as a verb.
Jal Dorak wrote:
However, where the game loses compatability is when attempting to run Pathfinder material in a 3.5 game.
Thankfully, it turns out that it's pretty easy for me to convert Pathfinder stuff for use with the 3.5 rules.
I use Pathfinder APs in my 3.5 games all the time.
I don't like my PC being told they like an NPC in lieu of that NPC doing something in-game to cause me to like them and want to help them.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you...
One has to wonder: If the above is the case, why did you agree to play Jade Regent in the first place, since that's what the entire thing's about, from day 1?
Stefan Hill wrote:
then you get into your late teens/twenties and you want, well 3.5e + splat books + combos of death to show how smart you are,
That's an interesting experience.
Mine is that people move to the 3.5 stage because they realized they hated playing Mother-May-I.
This... seems like you are using your personal judgements of others as a measure when put in a position of control. This is dictatorial and irresponsible with the position you've been given.
Hmmm... to be blunt, the above statement is so out to lunch that it calls into question your credibility on anything else you might have posted in this thread.
It is certainly not irresponsible in any way, shape, or form - and anyone who has spent any length of time in a corporate environment would know that Haladir's policy is the correct policy.
Yes, but not the eidetic memory part.
It should absolutely not fall to the already-overworked GM (or even the other players) to take the time and effort to remind you of stuff. They can certainly do so at their leisure and convenience, but you'd get no right to complain if they miss something, and go back for a ret-con or re-do.
It should be your responsibility to actually take the effort to WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN. Tough on you? Yeah. Too bad - you're the one wanting the photographic memory.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Basically put there is no real ownership except for the maker of a product.
Indeed. I suppose the rest of us are simply more practical and practical-minded than Betts. While he certainly has an interesting opinion of where the "ethics" are in this matter, it does involve the near-entire removal of the concept of property rights, which I suspect the vast majority of the populace would (violently) reject.
Given the above, mentioning "ethics" in this thread becomes useless and meaningless. Whoops.
Scott Betts wrote:
This is about ethics, and whether it's ethically sound to enjoy someone else's work without compensating them for it. I don't believe it is, and you do. That's what this boils down to.
Incorrectly stated. Try again.
I believe that, if you asked a random sampling of the United States population, "Is it ethical to enjoy the work of someone else without compensating them for it?" they would respond, "No," in droves. For whatever reason, we as a society have sort of glossed over that particular ethical snag when it comes to applying the first-sale doctrine to certain commodities.
Properly giving them full context (e.g. "giving up all property rights", etc), I do indeed know how the majority will respond. The "glossed over" is for a reason - people know what they are/are not getting, and what's reasonable.
That's a shame. I only consider you wrong when you're actually wrong.
I was sort of hoping that you would do the reasonable thing. I guess that was unfounded?
Incorrectly stated. I did do the reasonable thing.
Again, you're free to look up case law. This is an unsettled legal issue, with cases supporting both sides. This shouldn't be an argument of rights, because we don't really have the ability to decide which rights we have or don't have for ourselves.
Certainly. The status quo and what we can do today is abundantly clear.
"Yes, and because bad things never happen to me, they never can possibly happen to anyone else, ever (plus who cares if they do as long as I am having fun?)." I love video gamer logic.
Actually, that's not necessarily "video gamer logic". It's just a@@~*++ logic.
Scott Betts wrote:
It's not really relevant whether you, personally, purchase or don't purchase used games. Enough people do - and have the right to do so - that your particular habits are meaningless. Keep that in mind.
Purchasing used products (of any sort) is certainly legitimate - and consumers do have the right to sell their property, and have the right of first sale. The above complaint is nothing more than a complaint against libraries and used car sales, as well. Pretty dumb.
If you "don't understand the fuss" and wonder "why anyone would care about this", then you simply aren't thinking hard enough. Whoops on your part.
(Generally, it is a wise idea to purchase a game in such a manner as to give the original creator as much money as possible in order for the creator to continue to make games that you are likely to enjoy, but that breaks down a bit if the creators are inconsistent, or only rarely come out with something enjoyable. At that point, consumers can/should exercise their rights and make whatever purchasing decision they see fit for themselves.)