|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
When I first saw the movie, I made a guess that the Engineer on Earth was some rogue 'martyr' who decided to create life on his own, unauthorized. (So, when the other engineers found out, they got upset and wanted to 'get rid' of the potential(?) problem.)
Now... I don't care. I decided the movie wasn't good enough for me, personally, to analyze any further.
That being said, Paizo is still WAY behind WOTC in terms of big-book-bloat.
Separating out "big-books" is an artificial (and probably unhelpful) distinction, AFAIC.
and it's done more to create a dynamic game in 15 books than 3.5 did in 30.
Arguable. I, for one, don't think this is even remotely true.
I think he's sort of saying it in this statement:
Dragon Knight wrote:
If I want my character to wield his grandfather's warhammer, he can do so without worrying about being underpower and overwhelmed later is his career.
Big Justin wrote:
I read something about this show to the effect of 'the cops think they're in nolan batman and the villains think they're in adam west batman' which I think is extremely on point
Yeah, actually I totally agree with this.
And I like it. (If it was all Nolan Batman, I'd probably drop Gotham. Boring and dreary. Bring on at least some camp, AFAIC.)
Orfamay Quest wrote:
So play Call of Cthulhu. Why try to develop a set of house rules to make Pathfinder into CoC instead of just playing CoC in the first place?
Because some people might like the core 'chassis' underlying d20. d20 + modifiers vs. AC or a DC, cyclical initiative, move/standard/full-round actions, easy to use movement system, a class-based system, straightforward and easy to understand/implement multiclassing... that sort of stuff.
Some people (inexplicably) forget that the above stuff has value to some people. The ubiquitous magic doesn't have to go along with the rest of the basic mechanics of d20. Why learn a whole new action/resolution/movement/etc system when the basic core works exactly how you want it to... and when WotC did close to no analysis of the impacts of magic when they released the 3.0 PHB?
(With all that said - is there a CoC d20? I thought I heard that that might exist...? If that is a real thing, then yeah, I'm with Orfamay Quest - why not play CoC d20?)
I mean, it's cool if you want your speculative fiction and games to be escapist fun. But if that escapism means erasing or ignoring the parts of history where white imperialism destroyed, exploited, and stole from other people around the world, then that's not something that I'm interested in.
*shrug* Everyone's entitled to their preferences.
I certainly don't share yours.
Actually, by taking the stance of "if an author does not finish a series that she no longer wishes to work on, folks should no longer purchase her work", you are in essence forcing the author to continue a path she does not want to follow or lose her source of income. It is not holding a physical gun to the head, but it still is a means of force. So, explicitly no one has said anything about forcing an author to do any such thing, but implicitly, yes, yes it was said.
And this is a very good thing. Nobody is entitled to money from the consumer market if consumers don't want to give it to them. Nobody.
And no, there is no "force". The author chose his/her vocation, and chose the consumer market. They will meet market needs, if they want money. No "force"... they can decide. But they're not entitled to money, or do 'what they want' and expect money.
(I have to say... your statement above sounds suspiciously like: "Oh no! I'm somewhat beholden to the people who give me money!" Uh huh... You don't say?)
Granted, people should vote with their wallets.
And there you go - you said it yourself. That's all that needs to be said.
Now, with all that said, I do think it is foolish for fans to 'demand' authors to finish what they started. It's closing the barn after the horses have fled. If authors not finishing stories becomes prevalent in the industry, fans should simply smarten up and quit purchasing series until they are complete... that'll smarten up the authors pretty fast once that happens even over a short term. Might properly shake up the industry a bit.
Fantastic read, James. And absolutely correct. I found this statement particularly cogent:
James Sutter wrote:
If we as authors want to take a no-strings approach, then we can hardly turn around and beg readers to support the early books in our series. And if we instead want to ask people to be our patrons-to have the faith to invest both emotionally and financially in a series before it’s complete-then we need to keep our side of the bargain and do our damnedest to see things through.
Now, I'm not sure I like the word "owe"... I don't think the author necessarily "owes" the consumer anything.
But then - does the author want to take consumers' money and make a living? Oh, he/she does? Well, then. I don't have to spend a red cent on anything the author releases until the entire series is out.
And good luck making a living, dear author, if a certain number of consumers begins to think that way.
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)
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.)
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.
Lord Synos wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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'!).
I only play with long-time, close friends.
"Guys night out", so to speak.
(So this would fall under picky to the extreme.)
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.
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.
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).
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.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
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.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
my snowflake idea
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.
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".