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

Arnwyn's page

1,892 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.

1 to 50 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to be sticking with themes, because music overall is just too much. (I'll arbitrarily choose 10, but I can't possibly number them...!)

- Inner Universe (GITS:SAC)
- Seventh Moon (Macross 7)
- Tank! (Cowboy Bebop)
- Yakusoku Wa Iranai (Escaflowne)
- Kiri (Ergo Proxy)
- Sea of Miracles (Lodoss)
- I'm a Pioneer (Tenchi Muyo)
- Cruel Angel's Thesis (Evangelion)
- Full of Memories (Ranma)
- Mad Machine (BGC)

Freehold DM wrote:
*Lynn Kaifun* that claims FIRE BOMBER!! is a rip off of their original music. If you know who that is, I'll give you a million internets.

You mean Minmay's cousin/erstwhile manager? Where's the hard question (unless I missed it)? ;) (Reading the liner notes in the various CDs are great fun, especially the Galaxy Network Charts.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lord Synos:


Lord Synos wrote:
Charisma/Diplomacy is the only skill set where GM's punish you for not having those skills in real life. Of course no one is inclined to take them.
Arnwyn wrote:

Absolutely false.

Do you let players make decisions for their characters at the table? Oh, you do? Even if the player playing a fighter isn't a tactical genius/great warrior? Even if the player playing the wizard isn't a spell-casting genius who has never cast spells in combat or even chosen spells before? You let them make those decisions on their own?

Uh huh.

So you do allow real life Intelligence and Wisdom to play at least some role.

The suggestion that Charisma is somehow separate (and that making people at least say 'how' they're talking to someone else - just like making people say 'how' they're combating those monsters) is inconsistent laughable nonsense.

Lord Synos wrote:

I can't say what I let players do. (A) I wouldn't use the phrase "I let my players do this", because it speaks to a kind of condescending, arrogance that I dislike, and (B) I've GM'ed all of 2 times. I don't really consider myself as having "players". However, yes, a player's attributes do affect their characters to some extent, mainly their mental attributes. However, you're arguing the reverse of my position, which isn't the same as my position. A strawman, effectively.

I am saying, if a player is less skilled than their character, their character should still be able to use their skills. If a player can't cast Magic Missile, the appropriate character still can. If the player can't wield a Greataxe, the appropriate character still can. In this, we completely agree, it appears.

However, if a player isn't very Wise, I won't prevent them from playing a character with high Wisdom, or restrict their Cleric's spells because their real life Wisdom isn't that high. If a player isn't the brightest, I won't prevent them from playing a character with a high Int score, or limit their Wizard's spellcasting. This is a different point from the above. This is the point I am making about Charisma. If someone isn't a great talker, isn't particularly social, doesn't read social cues the best, I wouldn't punish their high Charisma, high Diplomacy character for that, because the character can still do those things, even if the player can't.

Thanks for arguing against a strawman and then calling my actually point inconsistent, laughable nonsense on that basis though. That was a very pleasant thing to do."

Since this topic is still being covered...

Sorry for coming off way too strong. Do you know how you mentioned how you have "frustration" with the above and that it "bothers you intensely"? Ditto on my side. I'm not a big fan of erroneously conflating and comparing physical actions and mental actions within a mental game. It doesn't make sense, and is unhelpful. No one explains climbing because that's a physical action - this isn't a LARP... it's sitting around a table playing a 'mental-based' game making 'mental' decisions. Anything physical is entirely and completely irrelevant. It should never even be brought up. If one allows players to make their own decisions (regardless of their actual real-life knowledge), then the line is already drawn.

With that said, I do understand your position of advocating for those who are new (an understandable situation) and those who aren't as eloquent as others. I can certainly see making some concessions for a new person (assuming they want to keep said player) and even on those who are less eloquent who might want to maybe try out a character with high diplomacy/charisma. It's definitely important to give those people a break.

But it is dependent on the group - I'm not sure I entirely appreciate the suggestion - or even faint implication - that those who expect a little bit more out of certain game interactions are somehow doing it wrong (rearing its head in the questionable comment [among others] "of course no one is inclined to take them" - Oh? No one? A strong statement indeed). It may not be a good fit for everyone, of course, but it is a good fit for certain groups who want to have fun a certain way. In those groups, a shy/non-eloquent person always playing a "face" and always saying "I diplomacize!" instead of any attempt at further interaction may wear thin somewhat quickly. In the end, some players are simply not a good fit for some groups.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingmanHighborn wrote:
Some call this bloat, me I call it being realistic

Of course you do.

Also Pathfinder has the ONLY cool monkey race in the Vanara.

Incorrect. Vanara was first in 3e's OA.

Thumbs down again.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thecursor is quickly becoming my favorite waggish poster.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely, totally would play in a game that the OP suggests.

In fact, it would probably be one of my preferences. I have zero interest (less than zero interest) in Mos Eisely.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
The thing is, I've only seen entitled DM behaviour in person, yet only hear about entitled player behaviour from others.

*shrug* Limited experience on your part then, I suppose?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad it's not as dire as the original report made it sound.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Michelle Yeoh.

(But really - Cynthia Rothrock won this thread already.) :D

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Do Your Players Expect Treasure?

Well... yes. It's sort of one of the points of playing. ;)

But apparently, they don't "expect" it to the degree that your players do... Do they expect treasure? Yes. Do they expect it every encounter? No. Do they expect it every session? No, not even that.

As to your problem... you could talk to them about it. Explain - as specifically as possible - why you give out treasure they way you do, and why giving it out other way(s) will cause problems (and how it will cause problems). Again - specific.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
What purpose do the Iconics serve?

To get in the way of otherwise good art.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
How about banning a book, or possibly many books, based on not wanting to go through each book in a massive library (that you may not even own) and analyze each option in combination with every other possible option?

Exactly so.

I'm glad other people are made of time, I guess. *shrug*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.

So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?

Time is an investment. My friends and I have precious little time as it is - we have it nicely set up to meet once every 2 weeks and play in our long-running campaign that we enjoy, using a system that fits this campaign perfectly - a system that we really like and know well.

And as others have said - to what end? We're not interested in learning a new system (in fact, that's the LAST thing any of us want to do, it's the antithesis of fun), we're already having loads of fun playing something that is suited very well for us... with a new system, could we have "more" fun? What is "more"? It is measurable, or even relevant or material? (Very likely not.)

Why not try it? Why would we even bother, given the above? Time is a real investment... and it's a HUGE one.

(I find your "don't really understand" pretty strange, when it's pretty obvious AFAIC - I don't think you've thought about it as hard as you should have.)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't pick one. My favorites:

- Final Fantasy VI
- Chrono Trigger
- Final Fantasy VII
- Xenogears
- Final Fantasy Tactics

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sprain Ogre wrote:
Why wouldn't you modify the tactics for both to deal with your party?

Then why waste precious space in the adventure by including them at all?

Mythic is EASY to deal with.

Yes, it's very easy to deal with thing by ignoring the rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
I've never understood the hate for the SW prequels.

Hey - it's great that you liked the prequels. I'm sure lots of people do.

But... are you really sure you don't 'understand' the hate/dislike of the prequels? Really? I find that somewhat hard to believe.

Because I'll be honest here - it's really not that hard to at least understand the dislike for the prequels, even if you don't share it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
roguerouge wrote:
Unfortunately, since Hollywood will never ever kill a kid in these kinds of movies, those scenes have no dramatic tension whatsoever.

Fortunately, of course. I'm good with no dramatic tension by not killing children.

I feel sorry for those who aren't.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
I find this an interesting comment. To me, you're essentially doing what you'd like them not to do: hold something hostage. Your statement seems to be "if you don't do it this way, then not only will I not buy it I'll actively try to get others not to as well."

Just as a brief aside:

In a consumption-based economy driven by consumers (which is what "we" are all in), the above statement is impossible (i.e. in such an economic system, consumers simply can't "hold something hostage". Alternately, if someone insists on defining such a thing in such a way, then doing so is right and proper. That's how consumers actually work, and how they should work).

Carry on.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
The simple fact is that only a portion of paizo's customer base will buy pure setting material. Most of those are GMs. Players (which in general outnumber gms) want things to use for their characters. Option books sell better. Period.

Turns out this is false. And this line of thinking is years out of date. (Yikes!)

The AP line is the flagship line at Paizo, and started ramping up even in the Dungeon magazine era.

Your post is old WotC thinking - long since debunked.

To answer the thread title:

Of course "bloat" is coming back. To snerk at 3.5 and then turn around and laud Pathfinder is inexplicable, delusional, and hypocritical, AFAIC.

(I make no comments on whether the "bloat" is good or bad - only on the comparative reaction between 3.5 and PF. I also make no comment on the issue of power creep.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'll suffer the same fate as Almost Human.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never heard of most of them...

And I consider that a good thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really glad you talked about the Tulita in your review, Endzeitgeist (and, unrelated, that you stated your biases up front). Only one other review did that, which pretty much made all those other reviews valueless (IMNSHO) - and possibly even misleading.

IMO, the Tulita (and, more accurately, how they were portrayed in the text) is the biggest issue surrounding this book - so much so that it could be a flat-out deal-breaker.

(It was pretty much a deal-breaker for me - getting through the Tulita sections was a struggle. It's still salvageable - if one is good enough to work around the complexities of Razor Coast, one is good enough to excise a lot of the Tulita portrayals.)

And also, you provided some of the absolute BEST advice possible when dealing with Razor Coast - IGNORE THE GIVEN PREMISES. Those things are the second-biggest issue with Razor Coast... they could potentially cripple the entire value of this book if followed or even given too much credence.

Great stuff, Endzeitgeist (even if I deeply disagree with your final star rating and 'seal'!).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

GMs, how carefully do you screen players joining your group? Is there a pre-game interview? Are they on probation for a time after acceptance? Will you excise someone who's otherwise a great player and good person, but has a personality conflict with you or a long-standing player? Have you expelled someone from your game? If so, why?

Players, do you join any game with the idea that "it could be fun," or are you choosier, looking instead for a group and play style that meshes well with your own, and people that you like outside of the gaming environment? Do you pack it in for minor reasons, or would it take an act of God (or the DM) to get you out once you're in?

I only play with long-time, close friends.

"Guys night out", so to speak.

(So this would fall under picky to the extreme.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Manimal wrote:
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.


Thus far, one of the more convincing arguments I've heard is that using lingo from a different type of game (in this case, MMOs) could cause confusion; however, this particular word doesn't seem all that egregious—most people, even having not played an MMO, could pick up from the surrounding context that "Toon"=PC.


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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
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),"

Set wrote:
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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).

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Really? Huh. I thought that I heard you sing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now THAT'S the way to make a season finale. No craptastic cliffhanger nonsense - and actual ending that's upbeat. That's more like it.

(Might make sense if it isn't renewed, but still.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trying again with Heroes, huh? That's brave of them.

With that said, Heroes season 1 was one of the best shows (if not the best show) on TV at the time.

Every other season was basically unwatchable. (Well, Season 4 was... tolerable.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Chuckg wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Keep in mind this only happens if a PC openly mocks/disrepects a diety. Redering them mute.
Keep in mind that openly mocking or disrespecting someone is not an offense legitimately punishable by blinding, maiming, and near-death experience... at least, not by the tenets of Iomedae's own religion.

Yes it is, just not in the modern era.

It's called Lèse-majesté. Please look it up.

No thanks. I won't be looking it up, and my players especially won't be. TBH, I suspect the vast majority of players won't be doing so either.

If that's what's required, then it's a failure of the AP's writing. Again - bad design.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
my snowflake idea

Your what?

If this encounter is "trash" (your word, no one else's, and too strong), then it's because it's an unfun encounter (bordering on obnoxious) - and I can confidently say would be unfun to the vast VAST majority of players.

And, if it's true that the vast majority of players 'wouldn't be affected by it', then it's a "trash" (again - your word and no one else's, and still too strong) encounter because far too much wordcount was used on something that most people supposedly won't experience (when it could have been used on setting the scene and helping the DM portray, you know, a god).

In the end, it was comparatively poor encounter design that likely wouldn't have survived a Dungeon magazine submission.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
A few people didn't agree with this decision, and have been fairly vocal about their displeasure.
A few? Heh - not hard to see which side of the argument you fall on, my friend.

Actually, a count of unique posters in one of those threads showed that there weren't that many people at all.

So... yeah. "A few".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)
I honestly fail to comprehend why a simple 'no' isn't sufficient. Why do I have to provide details about my story that could easily be spoilers in order to justify a decision? If pressed for a reason a mere "it won't work for this campaign" should be sufficient.

Me too, TBH. You're preaching to the converted. I've discovered, however, that different groups have wildly different styles and methods with how they communicate with each other - so communication is really important in those particular groups.

(It also makes me very very glad that I'm not in those groups, and the only [thankfully passing] contact I have with them is through this messageboard when I'm taking a breather at the office. This isn't even a player-GM issue, AFAIC, because even the players in my group are flabbergasted at this thread and some of the comments found herein. Alien to all of us.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:

Not only do I entirely doubt any of that would occur on Paizo's boards, I don't even know how you are possibly coming to that conclusion. I don't think your prediction is even remotely realistic. *shrug*

(They could even participate in 'heated' threads - well, all but 1 could, theoretically. They just couldn't moderate anyone else in there with them. The one(s) who aren't in there, could moderate as usual.)

How many employees do you think Paizo has?

Not very many. Though I have seen a rather surprising number of Paizo employees taking part in various thread - way more than I thought there would be, and more than I though would have time and/or be available. Hence my measured comment above.

They have jobs to do, of which moderation is only one. Probably not their most important one either. If the involved staffer doesn't moderate there is a longer delay in moderation. Maybe much longer. More replies get eliminated as a result, the thread becomes less coherent (many posts contain a lot of information beyond replying to something in another post that initially gets moderated). More information lost due to delaying moderation.

Indeed, a possible trade-off. (Though nothing close to what Deanoth suggested, which was what my comment above was specifically addressing.)

(Please be aware that nowhere did I say they have terrible - or even poor - moderation. I do think, however, that there is definitely room for improvement.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?

No, regardless of what certain people in this thread erroneously think.

If they don't like the style or restrictions, they're free not to play. But they don't curse at someone else, regardless. And they're wrong to do so (and so are the apologists for this type of behavior).

I agree, disruptive outbursts don't make a game better and they should be avoided.

Do you consider it to be an apologist when someone tries to look at a situation and understand why something happened?

No. (Quite the strange question, given the context above. Are you apologizing for the deeply inappropriate - and indefensible - outburst? I certainly hope not. Further, note that managing to successfully determine the "why" may still mean that even the thought of an outburst, of any sort, is not justifiable; and the problem still lies entirely with person who made the outburst.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not only do I entirely doubt any of that would occur on Paizo's boards, I don't even know how you are possibly coming to that conclusion. I don't think your prediction is even remotely realistic. *shrug*

(They could even participate in 'heated' threads - well, all but 1 could, theoretically. They just couldn't moderate anyone else in there with them. The one(s) who aren't in there, could moderate as usual.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
I'm not seeing what's wrong with telling a player "That character idea won't work for this campaign. I have an NPC later that will be closely related to that concept, and it might cause some issues story wise." How is that a dick move?

It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deanoth wrote:
So lets not go down the slippery slope of preventing someone from modding a thread they are participating in.

A "slope" that I would love to see occur (though understand and accept won't happen on the Paizo boards... as unfortunate as that is).

6 people marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?

No, regardless of what certain people in this thread erroneously think.

If they don't like the style or restrictions, they're free not to play. But they don't curse at someone else, regardless. And they're wrong to do so (and so are the apologists for this type of behavior).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deanoth wrote:
How is it inappropriate?


Conflict of interest, of course. But that's patently obvious. Moderators are only human, after all. They run the risk of "moderating" posts (and worse, users) that they don't agree with. If they are taking part in a discussion (especially a "heated" discussion), it would be wise if they did not also moderate that particular discussion.

You will find that most staffers and or mods even from different sites take place in conversations and such in most threads.

That's great! But then those taking part shouldn't moderate those particular threads.

If they were to excuse themselves from moderating simply because they are taking part in the thread they would not be much of a moderator then.

Interesting. But not even remotely true, AFAIC. I'm not even sure what you mean. Not only would they be "much of a moderator", they'd be among the best moderators there are.

If you have a problem with a moderator and their discussion and or moderation actions you have the report link in their post. Many mods and staffers have brought this up.


Indeed they have. I'm not sure why you are.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It might also be a good idea for staff not to moderate discussions they're taking part in. Pass it on to someone else.

Holy cow - this, so much this.

In fact, I'm shocked this even needs to be brought up.

Moderating a thread in which you're also taking part is deeply inappropriate. (There's at least one Paizo staffer who does this far too often, and probably a couple more.)

Very inappropriate.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

There have - unquestionably - been moderating consistency issues in the past little while.

(And that's coming from someone who's very much okay with "left" views.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
My party of 6 ... Plus, it is the GM's responsibility to adjust challenges and treasure for larger groups.

Indeed, and one method is to have the strength of a party of 6 and give lower wealth; and then not have to adjust any opponents.

That's legitimate too (though some on the Paizo boards seem to forget that).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:
Most APs, by Paizo's own admission, aren't built for gunslingers.

Then the flaw lies with the gunslinger.

If an adventure/AP works (i.e. is "built for") almost every other class, then the problem lies in the badly-designed class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
Hama wrote:
Because people are lazy and entitled and want anything in a digest version. Pro tip, some of the long stuff are really worth reading.

Yeah, read too much crap before that ends up being somebody's "my opinion is awesome, here's why in 4000+ words" that really isn't worth it. If you can't give a decent outline of an opinion in a fairly brief manner then my opinion is that you really aren't as good of a writer as you think you are. I have wasted too much time reading people's ego-stroking musing in my life and unless your forum name is some famous writer's name then I will pass on reading when I have 4 screens filled with text.

My opinion.

Did someone piss in your cornflakes? What's up with the hostile response to a rather innocuous post that can be easily passed over?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm just still stoked that Todd Stewart favorited my post.

Not that impressive when you got in there "Todd does some absolutely amazing work. I'm always impressed when I read his stuff."

/joking :D

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Begging your pardon... Mage in the Iron Mask and Around the Realms in 80 days. Ummm... Neither is all that good, admittedly.

Oy. Understatement of the year.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

AFAIC, it's the best show on TV. And that's just after 2 episodes.

(It's my new replacement for Fringe, the previous best show on TV.)

1 to 50 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.