|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
James Jacobs wrote:
I mean... we don't require every player at the table who plays the mighty barbarian to perform feats of strength each time she wants to smash down a door or swing an axe. Why would we require the player at the table who's playing the Intelligence 20 bard who's got skill focus in all the Knowledges to rely on the player's likely less-impressive knowledge in order to solve a riddle? Makes no sense to me.
Then why do you allow the player at the table to choose a wizard's spells? They aren't wizards, can't cast spells, and aren't (necessarily) super intelligent. Why do you allow the player at the table to choose a fighter's tactics? They're not (necessarily) tactical soldiers.
(There's lots of good reasons for groups to not use riddles - but the above examples aren't actual reasons... as they're entirely inconsistent. I'm having a bit of fun here, but the above is inconsistent - and everyone will draw the line somewhere... differently.)
The players deviating from a set adventure to pursue what entertains them, does not make them 'dicks' no matter how much cash one spends on a pre-packaged adventure.
Yes it does, if they all agreed on the set adventure.
(Of course, the degree of "deviation" - and how they communicate that deviation - is really what matters here.)
Just saw it recently... and I liked it way more than the first Avengers.
I particularly liked the sense (and scenes) of camaraderie, which is very much appreciated for an actual team.
It was also funny throughout - and that's what I'm looking for in most of my action movies these days (especially superhero action movies like this one).
Ultron was one of the best villains ever. Interesting and - again - funny... and the fact that it was a robot/AI made it even better. (Though I admit, Loki is no slouch: "If it's all the same to you, I'll have that drink now.")
Black Widow and Hawkeye still suck and are boring - but I will concede that Hawkeye was made way better in almost every way in this one (not hard to do, admittedly) - humor up a notch, and the family part was really great as well.
I was okay with Captain America being blasted (at the truck scene, right?). It just made him look more badass, and that's what I want to see out of my superheroes.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Every single time they announce an AP, no matter what it is, people say "I'm cancelling my subscription!" By the time they've announced it, it's already way too late for them to change it because a few forum denizens threaten to cancel. I don't know what people are attempting to accomplish.
LOL. You don't possibly think the messageboards are actually for accomplishing things do you? LOL again.
Even the hint of trying to stifle the expression of opinion on an internet messageboard is bad form - and reflects poorly on you. Stop that.
...and remember that imaginary people doing imaginary evil things doesn't hurt anything in reality.
Turns out, that's not an excuse. (And even Paizo admitted there are actual lines, and they wouldn't cross them.)
I'm wondering here - was I in the wrong for speaking up?
Absolutely not. Everyone in the group is playing in the game, and players need to 'police their own' - the DM isn't solely responsible for that (and may not even need to be responsible for it at all), since everyone is playing the game. Everyone might have different views on the matter. (And, I'll reiterate: IMO, players need to step up to the plate and be just as responsible about things in general.) AFAIC, you were right to do so. (Though it still might not be "cheating" - some people really are that incompetent.)
With that said, the group dynamics could be different, so it might work differently for your group (doesn't sound like it though - just because a single player thinks something "was the job of the DM", doesn't mean it actually is).
So I decided to bring it up to my friends, and when one responded with "if someone has to cheat to have fun, then so be it," I decided to bring the question to the forums to see if my anti-cheating attitude is antiquated.
I doubt your view is antiquated.
I... didn't like it that much.
First, the cliffhanger. Cliffhangers suck. If it ended one episode before, it would have been far superior.
And, the entire episode's storyline didn't make sense.
All the reasons not to go back in time:
- Mess with the timeline, changing who knows what
- ...including possibly yourself (no Flash?)
- Your dad (with a fantastic - and correct - feels speech) thinks it's a terrible idea
- The villain thinks it's a good idea
- You could die
- And... AND... you could open a black hole (which you did)
And reasons for:
Sooo.... all you did was open a black hole. Woo!
What the hell was the point? WTF? The whole thing was so full of dumb it hurt. You could have kept Reverse in the tank o' villainy, continued on with your lives, yay. The whole idea was just put in to try to create drama, and give a vehicle for the cliffhanger.
(I'm not going to go into the whole running "Mach 2" (??) to collide with a particle to create a stable time wormhole, because that ship sailed a while ago. "Speed Force", I guess (note: I'm not a comic fan).)
The fight near the end in the accelerator was cool, though. And it felt "super-hero-y / comic-book-y", so I really appreciated that. And hey - helmet! Awesome visions! That stuff was really great.
(Oh, and fantastic observations, Damon Griffin.)
My solution would always be to buff the martials instead of nerf the casters. But that's just because I like stuff.
Yeah... not me.
AFAIC, nerfing the casters is the way to go, not buffing martials. Casters are already problems - moving more things to the level of 'problems' is a bad solution, IMO.
1) Casters can already 'solo' or 'one-shot' encounters. Moving more classes to be able to do that simply makes it a race now as to who can one-shot an encounter first. (And, one-shotting encounters on even an uncommon basis sucks.) Bad.
For the may-or-may-not-be-inevitable PF 2.0? Nerf casters (or, rather, nerf their tools). HARD. Into the ground. In many ways. Often. Twice on Sunday.(Outright removal of certain problematic spells, and weakening others, wouldn't even be noticed much, and wouldn't even be considered the 'slaughtering of sacred cows', AFAIC.)
Uh... is my post wildly off-topic? Or do nothing but contribute to the 'caster-martial disparity' debate? Sorry... :(
1) Macross (whole saga)
(I have not yet seen some of the 'newer' stuff, like Psycho Pass and a number of others mentioned here.)
I don't know... Maybe because some people are interested in playing a game of heroic fantasy rather than a game of fantasy dynamic entry?
"Some people" being the operative words.
Don't pretend everyone likes to play the same way you do.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Again: Don't pretend everyone likes to play the same way you do.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
That was one of the issues with 3.5's splat explosion. A lot of new material that all got no/minimal support past the book it was released in.
I highly doubt that was any "issue" at all - at least, not a material one.
In fact, it was probably a benefit - TSR-then-WotC learned fairly quickly that forcing people to own other books to make use of a new book was fantastically stupid.
In fact - the only way Paizo is getting away with this right now is because the majority of their rules are free, on the internet. Without that, you'd see things very differently from what they are right now.
Steve Geddes wrote:
It's not an issue if you own everything from the beginning and keep on top of stuff,
Nah. I'm a big fan of the Realms (still run 2e-era Realms [in 3.x] to this day), owned/read everything, and it was still an issue. I like the Realms despite all that timeline-advancement nonsense, not because of it. The timeline advancement damaged the setting, no question.
Timeline/campaign advancement is the DM's job, not the setting's.
But in any case, the dumb has been strong in this show for the last little while (well... stronger than usual).
Everything from the previously-mentioned-in-this-thread Arrow's return, to the hilarious comment from Slade (paraphrased) "You're growing apart from Thea - I can see it in your eyes". Ah, the most overused CW nonsensical quote, used yet again. Especially hilarious when it's abundantly clear in the show that - due to events/skills - Oliver has never been as close to Thea as he is right now. But... CW.
Oh, and the city seems to be filled - entirely - with the worst investigators the world has to offer. Ray: "Hood! Arrows! The Arrow must now be EVIL!" Right. Because no one else in the world can wear a hood and shoot arrows.
Big Lemon wrote:
For us - the GM absolutely has the right (though generally only in the "may not be in the backstory" direction). If the player creates a backstory for the PC in which they know, personally and friendly, every noble in the land... mehhhh. No.
Both the player and GM must agree.
I'm not sure about those other items - I'd probably need examples. (They seem a bit vague and undefined for me to say anything about them.)
Some of the best news I ever heard in quite a while. (But I don't truly understand the article heading "ignore Aliens 3 and Resurrection", because everyone knows there's only 2 Aliens movies.) ;)
And I'm further excited about Blomkamp, as I consider both District 9 and Elysium to be among the best movies I've ever seen.
Would you have told them all that before the product was released?
(Heck, the updated AP descriptions for Giantslayer aren't even out yet.)
Your expectations are interesting... but premature.
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.