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

Auxmaulous's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,618 posts (2,693 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 17 aliases.


1 to 50 of 342 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Hudax wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
Pan wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
(like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).
Oh man that's funny. Did someone counter with "RAW doesn't say you have to breath!"?
That response seemed obvious. What is scary is how much debate and how many pages those posts go on for. I honestly can't tell who is serious and who is trolling and who is laughing. It's way too trippy for me.

Bah. I've seen comparable threads here

"Is breathing evil?"

More importantly - "if a Paladin takes a breath, does he fall"?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Having walked alone through the dark woods in rural Norway in autumn nights I can see how an overactive imagination can make you believe in trolls and whatnot. Any strange sound or half-glimpsed movement is suddenly filled with menace, fear and uncertainty make you start imagining things....

I remember that night....I almost had you then.....hahahaha

Maybe next time?

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Liranys wrote:
As for the absolute truth thing, saying you aren't trying to invalidate my feelings and then making a STATEMENT that I should only feel cheated if the GM actually cheated invalidates my feelings. What you should have said was: "but I don't feel that I'm cheated at a legitimate death in a game and would only feel cheated if the GM actually cheated me." That would be a statement of your feelings and not a condemnation of mine.

What I was trying to convey is that it's a game, and when you die you don't necessarily lose. When you die that is component of the game. An "unfun" part of the game that sometimes happens (legitimately) during the course of play.

In effect, dying in game is part of the game, and unless the GM made a bad call or railroaded you into death it isn't cheating.

How you feel is how you feel, no one can take that away from you. Using "cheated" in the context to describe a negative feeling while playing a game carries it's own baggage and probably isn't the best term. "Cheated" implies that someone broke the rules to get a result, and it that wasn't the case then you probably shouldn't use that term.

And we can disagree on this; I do know that having a pc die sucks - flat out.

If you feel cheated that's fine, I just hope you understand that in the context of it being a game adds some extra meaning to that term.

Again, wasn't trying to invalidate your feelings or offend you in any way.
-

As to the luck thing, my players are not lucky - they just play cautiously. Which is part of the play style that they prefer and I as DM/GM am ok with. Sometimes they take crazy risks, but since we do not run PF anymore they know that all encounters are not designed for them to be beaten or are CR appropriate for their level in a head on fight.

It isn't for everyone and that's ok, it works for my group though.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Liranys wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Generally though - once the game is in motion, it's on them. If an encounter requires them to be at their top game so they can survive, they need to be on their top game. Or they die.

Anything else and my players feel cheated.

I, as a player, usually feel cheated when, due to bad luck or an encounter that's just too hard, the character I've put months of effort into, dies. That's when I as a player feel cheated. I have never felt cheated because the DM fudged a roll to let my PC live and continue playing the game. But I get attached to my PC's, maybe other people don't.

My players also get attached to their PCs, and they have a general rule (the experienced one do at least):

"Never let your fate come down to a single die roll."

Whenever any of my players die, they can go back and see where they (or someone in their group) made some major mistakes and put their characters life at risk. It is very rare for any of them to die from one "bad roll". The road that got them to that roll is what they control, and when it happens they see it coming and are not very surprised.

-
And since it's still a game and you failed those die rolls (due to bad luck) then you shouldn't feel cheated. That's the game. Does it suck? Yes, it does. I don't think players should feel cheated though.
I can't tell you how to feel personally, nor am I trying to invalidate your feelings. But feeling cheated at a legitimate character death in a game should only come into play if your GM actually cheated you.

-

I don't think many of us are playing the same game or want the same things out of our games, so making comparisons is just going to result in more conflict since these are entirely different schools of thought on gaming. Half the premises presented here by one side as the absolute truth (as they see it) I vehemently disagree with, and as long as they are presented as absolutes I can see nothing constructive coming from this thread and exchange.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
So for all the padding a GM may apply, if you roll in the open and drop that hammer then you are not running a "GM lets you" game.

I absolutely am. Because it has everything to do with allowing you to win, not allowing you to fail.

I can make the PCs fail every time. I have to allow them to win. And I allow that before I even begin the game.

I guess we do look at it differently then. I set the stage and they act on it. They can succeed and fail on their own. I don't allow them to win or fail, they decide that.

-
And yes, I understand the implications of being the DM - setting the encounters, taking it easy or hard, etc - the whole lot of what comes with the job.

Generally though - once the game is in motion, it's on them. If an encounter requires them to be at their top game so they can survive, they need to be on their top game. Or they die.

Anything else and my players feel cheated.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I used to think this worked, but I've changed my mind. The GM still has near absolute control. It's still the GM's responsibility to be sure to give the players adequate warning of challenges beyond their ability and to make sure they are avoidable or at least escapable. It's a different approach than the more standard one, but it's far from "make the world, throw things out there and let the players take their chances".

If it really was that, there would be cases where the party just gets whacked by an ambush beyond their level with no realistic chance to avoid or escape, because that can happen in the world. It happens to NPC victims all the time. But it's no fun, even for sandbox players.

Yes, but this comes down to players making the best choices based upon the information that they have.

I have had several players who fought and died because they put themselves in over their heads. They either checked out something they knew was dangerous in advance or just didn't go about utilizing best practices (whatever that is for each game).

The players are still making all the calls once the data is presented.
I understand that the DM/GM sets the stage, even sets the chances of survival/what is the right choice to make. But the players still need to make that choice. Even if it's dressed up with: Foreshadowing (not always the case), chance to escape (usually the case), option to address challenge (usually the case). With all of those the players still have to make a choice, and if they make the wrong one they die.

IDK, maybe we are all just running different games I suppose.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

It isn't a case of: A + B + C + D series of encounters, which all designed to be level appropriate/winnable, thus why bother even giving xp.

In some cases a few of those encounters are designed way above the PCs head, beyond their ability or even foreshadowing encounters - you can still give them some xp for running away/avoiding it. At least till they get higher level/x item to come back and trounce it.

But in both cases, the GM is allowing the PCs to win/escape. When someone has absolute control of the game, you only succeed at their whim.

Actually no - they need to make the decision to attack, hide, evade, deceive. Whatever path they take.

And we also use dice.

I know you don't believe it (based on your assumptions and arguments), but there are some GMs who throw out encounters that are not meant to be beaten at level, and the players can either hear about it and avoid it (till higher level), encounter it and run/hide/evade or die.

I don't buy this whole "at their whim", I think there can be GMs who make the world, throw things out there and let the players take their chances as they see fit.

If anything is "at their whim" I would say that story/plot leveling is - no matter how good or bad an individual player used his character the GM just decides that it's time. I suppose surviving can be the sole metric to level up at certain points but I'd rather assign rewards based off of play merit vs. attendance.

Absolute control is assigning arbitrary level up points when it "feels right". I think this moves away from the concept of this being a game.

---

This does seem to be (mostly) a new school/old school discussion and disagreement.

Again, with no side convincing the other - probably a good point to cut losses and move on.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Zalman wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Because there are rules, or at least guidelines, about how new spells work. And the first guideline is to look at the existing spell list and make sure it's balanced.

Any spell that is better than teleport trap would therefore have to be at least seventh level and probably higher. Making it cover a substantially larger area, enough that you can't even teleport "near" the BBEG's stronghold, should be at least an 8th level spell.

There are some false assumptions here, the largest of which is that a spell to counter teleportation needs to be more powerful than teleport trap. Redirecting a teleport attempt is a much more powerful effect than, say, simply blocking a teleport attempt. Or a spell that blocks the scrying attempt that allowed the characters to teleport right into someone else's lair in the first place. Or a scrying misdirection, that leads to the characters' teleporting intentionally to the wrong location.

I could go on.

Bottom line is this: if a 5th-level spell is powerful enough to transport a party across the world to a specific location, then the "guidelines" for spell creation should allow for an equal-and-opposite effect by a spell of the same level.

This is exactly it. The problem again of course is that the evolution of the teleport - the need to put it in the game from older editions was that the game was player adventure focused. Beat the dungeon sort of design philosophy and as the game expanded to a bigger world with campaign play designers should have put in common "counters" to existing technology (re: magic).

So a passive counter to teleport could easily start at 2nd-3rd level. Think about it - creating a passive ward with a single function that may or may not need to come into play - an insurance spell if you will.
While the teleport spell is an aggressive, convenient, fast and low risk method of possibly attacking a foe/infiltrating his base. Large area/more reliable counter raises the level of the counter-teleport.

As far as the quoted post - we set the rules and numbers we need. The spell level of Teleport trap is based off of a notion of "balance", a concept that is very subjective (when it comes to 3.x at least).

We are not slaves to numbers or systems, at least some of us are not. We realize that things like saves for fighters are not "game balanced" or well written. You can run it as is, house rule it, beg the devs to change it or run a different (and better) game. But there is no one single correct approach to addressing the issue.

And just because it's in print doesn't make it "right" or "correct". I've seen several feats, spells and rules in print that were not worth the paper they were printed on.

-

It all boils down to how relevant or how much of an impact you want those powers to have in your game. In the case of PF and it's precursors they didn't think about the impact of any of their spells on a given game world.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:

It may be a fix, but it's not simple, because some level of magical accomplishment is baked into the system. A party of level 20 fighters and rogues will not be able to handle a CR 15 marilith without magic. Indeed, without magic, I'm not sure how a level 20 fighter is supposed to be able to make the DC 25 Fort save against the marilith's unholy aura.

Re-write the terrible save paradigm, that's how you fix it.

Then the Fighter doesn't need to go to casters with helmet in hand saying "I need this so I have a chance to win".

Nothing to do with E6, 3.X has bad math.

Casters should be assisting/supporting non-casting classes - those classes should not require their assistance to survive. This is a 3.X problem.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:
The point is not that magic cannot be countered. The point is that when it works it can do things mundane methods cant. Can you always teleport to the big bads lair? No. But you can teleport across the forest of despair to NEAR the bad guys lair, skilling 6 months of walking.

And this is just an example of bad game design/creating things in a vacuum. A good game would have several magic traps and snares built into the system whereas teleporting anywhere near the BBEG's lair brings down a swarm of Dark Hunters while warning his Black Guard to head out to the marked (with targets who teleported perma tracked) location.

No one would expect people trying to kill the BBEG to actually walk through the Forest of Despair - that would be suicide. So the BBEG doesn't need watchers placed there since the natural inhabitants are bad enough. He just keeps his guards near the border of the woods.

Problem is, all the stuff in paragraph one doesn't exist. So you can in fact teleport around the Forest of Ignore/Win button. The defenses in paragraph one do not need to be derived from a spell. It could be sourced by a class neutral ritual, a curse, an item that can be used by anyone powerful (one that cannot be reproduced but needs to be found) - but whatever it is, the source it should exist in game.

-

Part of the problem is terrible in-game consistency of power and managing everything in spell equivalents (lazy), some of this design philosophy was derived from the early days when everything was created for the PCs to beat dungeons and in fact was written in a vacuum. Worked back then when the game worlds were small, now there are no excuses and it's just bad game design

There are several other parts to the problem, mostly stemming from 3.X easy mode for casters, but internal consistency is a big issue that should have been fixed going back to 1st ed. Maybe fixes placed in that era would have been expanded and enhanced circa 2000.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Have we really started discussing whether one magic system or another is "realistic"?

Consistent with other system/class expectations would be a better term.

-
Removing aging for Wish - there was no need to do that besides the 3.x dev team saying that they like magic over everything else and didn't want it to have consequences.

Going back to 2nd ed (or earlier) limitations on magic would go a long way back to making this game functional.

Though, I think it's a waste of time trying to fix this game.

-
Zard, if you want my AD&D3 notes I'd be more than willing to email you them. What I was working on was closer to a 2nd ed AD&D than wotc take on 3rd ed.

I just gave up on PF and started running 2nd ed again. I have also have conversion notes for making 3rd ed/PF compatible with 2nd ed.

Cheliax

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
LazarX wrote:

No one is expecting you to take the responsibility for the way this planet is screwed up.

You're not being asked to do anything besides being honest about the reality of race and culture dynamics on this sick planet.

The thing is - why stop at race and culture?

If you are going to discuss privilege are you going to include "good-looking" or "beautiful" privilege? Should a naturally athletic guy - maybe fast, maybe strong - address his privilege he has for his natural talent over others who have to struggle to get to his level?

Invisible knapsack nonsense makes the distinction between earned strength and unearned power. Are not people born more attractive utilizing unearned power? The didn't have to work for it - they were born with it, just like their race or gender.

So are these privileges? They give people advantages over others in society - better jobs, greater social status, wealth.

They are not listed as "privilege" because that crosses the line of idiocy (at least to most sane people). It can't be sold to people yet - but we are already seeing a race to the bottom with terms like "Thin-Privilege" and who can be the biggest victim (and earn the most sympathy - which in of itself is like a drug).

-

The use of the term privilege is derogatory and meant to be used to elicit a response or reaction. Just another race based insult and classification system that is framed as intellectual observation. A tool to create "permanent" disharmony. "Privilege" can never be ameliorated or lifted. It is a permanent state of racial inequality.

And who are the people asking and naming? These self-appointed keepers of racial justice and equality?

Sorry, the whole thing comes across as a race-based and racist scam and actually hurts those who are disenfranchised. Instead of attempting to reach a state of parity between the races, to fix or alleviate problems the term "privilege" seeks to create a permanent racial dynamic that offers little in way of helping the problem.

Intellectually lazy wordsmithing.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Rakshaka wrote:

Golem Manuals have always been a realized disappoint. At first you're like, "Wow, a book that has everything I need to make my own automaton of doom!!" Then you realize, "Oh I still need the body... which means I have to make it.. which (usually) means I don't have the skills or time to use this book."

I'd love to have a character just once pick one of these up and use it, but 4/4 times that these things have come up in games that I've ran, they are sold without a second thought.

You know what would be cool - and it would fit in well with a Gothic/Horror style campaign - if all the Golem manuals had an "emergency use" option. Change it from a potential "down time" item to be also used as a "we are all going to die anyway, so I might as well set off this bomb" item.

Recite the spells and then sprinkle the ashes on a twisted iron gate instead of a prepped body of an iron golem and it would make the whole affair insane.

Don't have a bunch of bodies on the ship for a flesh golem but you have the recently slain carcass of a giant shark? Instant defender in the water - or maybe not.

I would say for a creative application the more the animated target deviates from the core designed body the greater the variance in result an reliability (and loyalty). So on the dead body of a giant shark the missing criteria could be: Too big, one single body, not humanoid. Each deviation changing the potential outcome.

Some of these would end up hybrid of animated object/golem/undead and something else altogether horrid. Mechanically this could be an easy write up if it was formatted as a monster template (for each type of manual).

Just an idea....I think will change up my golem manuals in my 2nd ed game.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

My theories and view on the concept of "Privilege" and other newspeak single phrase classification language which are based on gender/race.

This is going to offend - probably everyone, but I will go ahead and put it out there anyway. Before the flamethrowers come out I want to stress that this is "my view" on the use of the term "privilege" in the context that it is being applied by SJWs and is not an effort for me to reduce the value of other significantly harsher derogatory terms.

Spoiler:
The term "privilege" and associated newspeak tagging of individuals is leftist, quasi-academia version of the "N-word" or other racist derogatory terms.

Take a breath. Ok, still there?

What is the function of derogatory/racist terms?

- Communicate an image/idea quickly among others who share the same view(based on stereotype/type)
- Empower the speaker (as an insult, hurtful words, establish superiority over the subject)
- Insult or hurt the target. Divisive function design to create more division vs. eliminating it.
- Circumvent discussing the individual and instead make them part of an established or accepted class/race/gender/group
- Control and restrict challenging terms or dialogue.
- Establish Hierarchy

The term "privilege" shares almost all the functionality of using the "n-word". Breathe.
The latter his its own historical context and power, while the former is more obscure and does not have a history of oppression behind it. But the functional use of both is the same. Not the meaning, the function as to why either phrase would be used:

Derogatory terms:

- Communicate an image/idea quickly (based on stereotype/type) among others who share the same view
Two people discussing someone else use the phrase "privileged" to describe a third person. This term carries the weight of the 3rd persons race, position in society, income and class level. This is often done for the purpose of expediency, but at the cost of that persons nuanced details, specific history, personality, identity, etc. None of those things matter or are used to describe you, you are the term.

- Empower the speaker (as an insult, hurtful words, establish superiority over the subject or used to establish a power paradigm)
Using the above example, the two people discussing the 3rd "privileged" person will do it with an attitude of superiority. That they see something or know something about the 3rd person that makes them feel more informed because they know (or are guessing) the subjects race. They become informed experts on class/race and victimology - which also makes the right (in their minds at least). And it's always nice to be right. Many great things (historically) can be done when you know you are "right".
So in discussing racism those applying the tags are acting in a racist fashion - albeit in a socially accepted method. The subject of the tag is not allowed any distinction besides what can superficially be detected by the person tagging them.

- Insult or hurt the target. Divisive function design to create more division vs. eliminating it.
The term is "soft" derogatory one - often implying that the subject is too stupid or ignorant to know what he really is. That this description encapsulates who he is as a person in one term, why he does what he does, reacts the way he does, etc. Most people who are called "privileged" will not react the same as person of African descent being called the "n-word". But both phrases are intended to put the subject "In their place".
While the subject is in this "place" they cannot escape it. You are privileged because of your race. You have committed a social crime of sorts for being in this place. While miles away from the use and power of "n-word" it does serve the same functions.

A) This is what you are, it is inescapable
B) You are ignorant
C) but even your Awareness doesn't change it
D) The person using this term for you is doing so from a position of superiority: their knowledge vs. your ignorance, their status as victim - which makes them better person than you (in a society that martyrs and worships victims).

- Circumvent discussing the individual and instead make them part of an established or accepted class/race/gender/group
Reducing a person to a descriptive term has been a dehumanizing tactic since the beginning of recorded history. It is often used during warfare to make the enemy/other, inhuman and as such, easier to destroy.
The other function of using simple terms is that the immediate subject - their thoughts, feelings, views and desires are all limited by the phrase. They (for the phrase to work) must live in that word used to describe them. It is social and intellectual laziness at best, sinister and destructive at worst. By putting an individual into a single term you have shut down the definition of that individual into descriptors associated with the term.

- Control and restrict challenging terms or dialogue.
The phrase is design to be unassailable. Derogatory terms generally have a long historical meaning. The ones tied to race often derived from modified a term of the individuals racial origin (N-word, S-word). But ultimately these terms cannot be challenged. They can over time be changed or applied in alternate ways though. (n-word used in hip-hop culture, an effort for gay activist to recapture the word "Queer" - queer nation, et al).
The point being that the phrase will stick and the subject will be boiled down to the quick communication of phrase. Similar to the way the term "prole" in 1984 was used to describe ignorant, non-party members.
These terms are ironclad and their design is as such so they cannot be changed or should not be changed by those who coined them.

- Establish Hierarchy
Racial terms are used by an oppressor to remind the oppressed who and what he is.
In the case of "privilege" and other newspeak terms, the established hierarchy is who is the greatest victim/endures the most pain, and as such the better person in the society. So if a cis white privileged woman is raped, her suffering is then ranked based upon her level of privilege/race. Because if a trans person of color is raped it is far more severe an act since the trans person of color is at a lower level of privilege (if at all) in that hierarchy. This is implied when you reduce people to hierarchical terms and phrases.

A Hierarchy of suffering is established, thus the newspeaker has provided a better understanding of "justice".
The reality of course is that both people were raped - suffered terribly and will be dealing with the consequences of that assault for the rest of their lives.

I think (imo - all of the above is imo and my own thoughts) that the newspeak terms were created and designed to be divisive. They quickly and lazily establish power, authority and hierarchy while subsequently reducing the subject to a term. All the aspects of the person get lumped in with no distinction and the inability to challenge the term.
They term also serves the dual purpose (as derogatory terms often do) of establishing superiority of the speaker utilizing the term. It is designed to belittle the subject.

A good test of my theory would be to find a discussion on privilege and instead substitute a derogatory racial term. It's a fun test, try it out.

Sorry for the length - and content if it offended you. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I think I lost some San and IN points reading those threads mecha.

Seriously, you have to be Western Privileged/Ivory Tower resident just to even think this way and make it the focus of your entire existence.

Cheliax

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
That women stayed away from gaming not because there was a lack of interest but because they were historically "kept out"?
Yeah.

No. It was lack of interest pure and simple. Anything else is framing it to benefit an agenda or cause.

Now that geek (somehow and someway) became cool (not really), everyone is jumping on the bandwagon.
Not just women who make the claim of geek, but many men. The same people who "back in the day" beat the living s+%% out of any nerd or geek they could gang up on.

mechaPoet wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Should a hobby that was made for boys/men created by men accommodate and change to adapt to a new demographic for the sake of being inclusive? Should inclusiveness be the focus of gaming creation and design?
Why shouldn't it?

Why should it?

No one owes you s#%%.
You want to be a female "gamer" or change the content of gaming to better reflect your gender then do so. Other people have.

No one is obligated to change what they like to accommodate you - be it accommodating your gender, your race or your favorite color.
No one owes you. These are things you hopefully lean that as you grow up and mature. Just as I would never ask/hope for/fight for a woman to create a novel, video game or rpg to be more "male" oriented to accommodate me.
I either: make it myself or buy if from someone who creates along the lines of what is attractive to me..i.e, what I want.

My favorite band is not obligated to write an album just for me, nor is my favorite author only allowed to write to my likes/dislikes. The create the vision of what they want and if anyone is interested in it then they buy it, that's how it works.

-

mechaPoet wrote:
And why do nerds act as gatekeepers to the things they like instead of being excited that other people are interested in them?

Could be a lot of things - resentment for when your gender was not there creating and propagating niche X (video game, rpg, geek sci-fi, whatever). Most people resent Johnny-Come-Lately's even it turns out to be a Jenny-Come-Lately. Gender doesn't always matter - who was there first does.

This goes for music, art, team fandom, pretty much anything that started small and gained a following. It isn't tied to gender but to adherence and proximity to the being there at the beginning.

I do find it interesting that every reference you make of "nerd" is the assumption/context of the male sex. Yet you use the term women who game. Interesting. Sexist, and also interesting.
-

mechaPoet wrote:
And why do women who play games and point out their more sexist aspects--while still be able to enjoy the experience these games--meet with this nerd gatekeeping in the form of gendered insults and threats of rape and death in far greater numbers than any male critics or non-gender-related criticisms?

Again - men = nerds, women = gamers, who play games.

You are making this distinction, not me. Seems like you can't even get over your own nerd bias.

As far as the gendered insults/threats - I think that stems from the maturity of the source making those threats. A troll is a troll and an idiot the same, you combine that with anonymity of the internet and you are going to get nasty responses to every and anything - check the comments sections on any part of the internet that are not supervised. This is not relegated to young men making threats to women, its anonymous people making outrageous comments and threats to anyone who offends or threatens them.

Your link and the guy blogging there where... eh, weak.
Let me break it down for you: a guy faking that he's a geek/nerd would not be questioned. Why you ask? Because back in the day nerds would be subjected to severe cruelties for what they were into. 5 on 1 fights (those were fun) having your gaming stuff stolen and destroyed (that was nice). Even without the physical violence or threats at best a nerd/geek would be perceived as ugly, less than a man/weak, undesirable, perpetual virgin, awkward. All with their own weights and implications when assigned to the male sex.
So a guy claiming to be someone or something that was traditionally reviled is not called into question because what man in their right mind would make such a false claim unless he was trying to fit in with other geeks?
A woman who makes the same claim is met with automatic suspicion and maybe some resentment - mostly because they didn't have to endure what their male counterparts in that same subculture had to endure (the physical violence stuff) and questioned because of how currently fashionable it is to be a geek.

Anyway, that went much longer than I wanted it to.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

One more to add, Ring of Protection - with 5ft radius.

Now why would I add such a purely mechanical item? The 5-ft radius of course.

The ring in of itself is boring (pure numbers) and doesn't do anything flashy (besides maybe keeping you alive). A player in my 2nd ed group had an amulet that did the same thing: +1 to him and anyone near him. For those in area with 5 hp or less the bonus to AC and saves went up to +2. He was playing a rogue/wizard and the secondary aspect of the amulet (ring) changed everything. How he moved around the battlefield (he avoided melee combat when possible) and supported other players and NPCs was epic. And it was a struggle for him, because he knew the ring could also help his allies while his character was at risk due to his average AC but terrible hp.

It made for some interesting decisions on where he was during the course of a fight as they progressed (PCs and NPCs being wounded, fighting creatures with SLAs or save based effects).

So that 5ft radius made a huge difference in what otherwise would be a pretty boring magic item that granted an internal numerical bonus.

The 5ft radius bonus to saves were dropped from the ring of protection during the codification process to 3rd ed (adds to AC only, not saves).

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
Someone seems a bit bitter.

He probably is - and rightfully so.

This was a developer contrived problem that could have been avoided or at least better thought out.

In other words - this was totally avoidable for anyone with an ounce of vision.

Keep in mind the subject matter of this thread - "what magic items do not live up to the hype". In 3rd ed based games that's mostly all of them, since they are all reduced down to spell replication (of some kind) which in turn makes them boring/flavorless.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I don't know of what I speak? So you are challenging me to a doooul then?

Roll for initiative sir!

Its days like these that I wish I had invested time in...any other hobby.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Cptexploderman wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

And when you got to "Stoneskin" levels, the fighter generally only failed his save vs. spells on a one or a two.

And stoneskin didn't stop grapple, overbearing or whatever the other one was, and all of them disrupted casting.

A fighter wouldn't get a save vs Stone skins? What kind of monster for a DM did you have? It's a magic effect cast on the caster not an effect that allows for an attacker to save versus it. Also the spell granted something like a d4 plus caster level in negating all attacks from a non spell source.

It wasn't the save vs. stoneskin that the fighter needs to save from, what HD is talking about is the saves he would need to make while the wizard was casting other spells/screaming while the fighter turned his head into grape jelly.

Stoneskin protected 1d4 +1 per two caster levels and each of those protections went down per attack he was exposed to in a round - not hits, but people trying to hit. So if a dart clown (3 attacks) and bow clown (2 attacks) both level 1 were attacking said wizard, that would count as 5 stoneskin(s!1!!!!1) that were taken off in that round. Hit or miss.

Magic attacks went right through - in addition to taking off hits. 3 magic missile attacks - 3 stoneskins wiped.

If you don't know it or remember it, please don't post it.

Back to the program in progress....

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:

Yep. 2e didn't do much to change the 1e relationship between the classes, other than to eliminate a few all together and add one (core). The magic user was still a glass cannon, and wasn't anything close to the 3x wizard, level by level, until well into double digits.

Oh, and Stoneskin, iirc, was a sixth level spell, so I doubt any 5th level magic users were casting it (for Cptexploderman). I think you also forget that a) you have to declare your actions before you roll initiative in 1e (I forget if they still did that in 2e), that high level spells took a LONG time to cast, relatively, and, even if you're stone skinned, it didn't take much to disrupt casting.

Oh, yeah, 3x was "wizard" edition.

Yes, Cptex has it wrong for the most part.

Stoneskin gave you almost total immunity for a variable number of hits - problem is, the wizard didn't know exactly how many. Plus a fighter of comparable level with specialization was getting at least 3 in (at no penalty) per round, so stone skin was merely a speed bump before a fighter would take the magic users head off.
Remember - no DC based saves, the fighter saves were internal (and bumped by Ring of Protection, high stats, etc). So while he is grinding down that stone skin (couple of rounds) he is laughing at the wizards spells being cast at him.

I guess all the frustrated m-u/wizard characters ended up writing 3rd ed, got tired of having sand kicked in their face or playing a class with some thought or consequences. So the the removed the latter two.

Magic users/wizards were glass cannons at all levels in 1e/2e, unless of course you had a DM who was handing rulings to the wizard character.

Osirion

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Greg A. Vaughan wrote:
Well, two-thirds of it were actually co-written by a combination of the Rand Corporation, the Queen of England, and the Bilderberg Conference. So there's that. Not sure what to do about the extra third now, though.

The extra 3rd goes towardss the lizard people who live under the Timesss-Mirror building in Loss Angeless. They manage a wormhole under the Timess building as their day jobss, but with print news media being what it iss they may consider doing 3pp full time.

It'ss a shame though, they actually do rather well as wormhole wranglerss.

Ssssssssss

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I can't take the full time I would need to this excellent thread due to the fact that I'm in a time crunch as I am editing/updating "The Pit" (Randal S. Doering/Dungeon Issue 17) for a short 2nd ed game tomorrow.

I would like to throw in "The Pit" (no pun intended, I think)

- Ruins of Nol-Daer (issue 13)
- The Moor Tomb Map (issue 13, one of my players who had a downed ranger had his head chopped off by the bandit leader Dougal. He was horrified when it happened!)
- Masquerader
- The Master of Puppets (with Qhyjanoth - bad ass Monk/Magic-User)
- Treasure Vault of Kasil (again, Issue 13)
- Phantasm Chasm (converted to Gamma World - don't ask me how)

These are all off the top of my head and there are a few more in there. I have actually run all of these but the Pit (which I will tomorrow night).

If you could (it would be nice) also include some early era Dragon Magazine modules?

So many overlooked gems out there!

This is a good thread and Dungeon deserves much props - thank you for starting this Joshua!

OK back to work!

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

At this point I don't think I will be switching to 5e.

I'm already in for 3 books via the Necromancer Games kickstarter for 5e, but that may be the extent of it. Too many concerns with the system, primarily it seems too easy (challenge wise) and they still have some 3e/4e legacy components that do not mesh with my play expectations.

I do like bounded accuracy, but I think they could have dropped the feat system (as written for 5e, incredibly generous), the level stat advancement and a slew of other smaller things (at-will cantrips, overnight healing, short rest healing, no long term effects).

Seems like too many things to change/house rule to make it run like 1e and 2e when instead I can just run 1e or 2e.

Again, initially it had promise for me, but the more I see newer content the more I think it isn't going to work (for me). The DMG is when I make the final decision on this, but looking at what they have put out so far in current content makes me think that WotC is incapable of making a 1e or 2e style game using their new rule set as a basis. I just don't think the design philosophy is in their DNA (never was) and their foundation (Basic and PHB rules) are too far off the mark to make it happen.

I will wait to see what the 5e DMG holds, it may change my decision on this - but looking at everything else released so far: all the monster stats, inflated hp across the board (no need for that) inflated outgoing damage (no need for that) and some 4e-philosophy (no lasting effects/low danger/high survivability mechanics) makes me think this isn't going to be the system for me.

So more than likely I may poach some of better ideas from 5e and incorporate them into a variation of 2e and just revise that system and just be content to run a "dead game" system.

No matter what though - I'm done with PF/3rd ed based systems. I'd sooner quit gaming than have to go back to running anything d20 based.

Cheliax

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Jason Nelson wrote:

I wonder if staves and wands are more boring now because they have been made almost entirely into spell-trigger items. It's a spell-gun with charges and (with rare exceptions) that's all it does.

Back in 1st/2nd ed, staves and wands often did things that spells could not, or had extra functions besides just a spell effect.

Thoughts?

This is why I prefer 1st/2nd ed magic items.

Was updating the Dungeon module "The Pit" (issue 17, excellent mod) from 1st ed to 2nd ed for a mini-tournament I'm running this weekend. Was looking at the loot in the dungeon and equipping the premade characters with magic items. In doing so I revisited a ton of 1st ed/2nd ed items and was looking at the Wand of Fire (as an example) - It was a very cool mid level utility (for combat) item!
The counting of 1s as 2s for the fireball effect, the fixed damage for the Burning Hands, fixed rounds without the need for required concentration for the Wall of Fire effect, different IN speeds for different spell uses, etc. It felt like a magic wand, not something the exactly replicated an ability my wizard could already do.

The small quirky features and deviations from listed spells made those items feel special and not just a spell multiplier (3rd ed). Same goes with potions. Same goes with everything actually.

I think magic items should be similar to existing spells, but I think they should also get a detailed entry with some small variations, perks, drawbacks or limitations that make them distinct from listed spells.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:

Low magic has never been the default for D&D since ever. Not in 1E, not in 2E, and certainly not in Pathfinder. Seriously, this "back in my day it was low magic" is purely wishful thinking on some people's parts. Every adventure module released had loot crammed everywhere it could fit. Why? Because even old time GMs realized that getting loot is fun (and crucial to your advancement back far enough).

If you want to play low magic, D&D and it's progeny have never been the system you are looking for. That isn't to say you can't play them that way, but you are literally fighting the game and it's expectations every step of the way.

Certainly not in Pathfinder, I'll give you that - but since no one here is mentioning PF being a low magic game I don't know why you mentioned it. No one was auguring that it was at its default (unless I missed something)

As to 1e and 2e some facts from the 70's -90's disagree with you:

A) Not everyone ran modules
B) There was no mechanical need for gear as you leveled up besides the increasing +X needed to-hit for fighters. That was the closest thing to a Christmas tree effect for those systems.

Modules frequently broke their own rule of Monty haul-ism and are a terrible metric for continued campaign balance since they are all over the place. Also keeping in mind that while some adventures did give out quite a bit of loot - they also assumed party sizes of 6 to 8 people, so you needed more items to go around.

Going by some pre-made Module PCs is also a bad example (sticking to modules) since many were heavily outfitted with magic while others were woefully crappy in their gear... as in 7th level character with one solid reusable item and the rest expendables (potions and scrolls). Go back and re-read some of those pre-made characters, those +2's and +3s on armor you remember were also on armor that was subpar (fighters wearing +2 splint or chain, etc).

Looking at the Slavers series I can see more that a few 5th and 6th level characters (these are ones you are supposed to play) with NO MAGIC WEAPONS.

Edit: Just reading my notes from the original B2:Keep on the Borderlands: 6-9 players recommended. If you have less than 6, the party needs help. Man, that thing was a meatgrinder!

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I think if there was a mundane way to easily block teleport that would solve a lot of issues.

Such as Marble scrambles teleportation within 5 feet.

Those details will be coming out in the newest splat "Ultimate World Consistency/Advanced World Consistency Guide" which was never written for BECMI/0E/1E/2E/3E/3.5E/PF/4E/5E + all other versions of the game.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
One way (of many) around that magic shop design consideration would be for the players to seek out the specific items they need via actual adventuring.
That can totally work, but some groups are leery of anything too railroad-y, and that solution (while very good for players who want to be told where to go next) would not be optimal for some of the people I've DMed for. You really need to know your players.

I think it does depend on how well you know your players (as with anything else: houserules, allowed races, sandbox vs. linear games, etc.) but I think it also goes to where the players started playing and what their experience was with magic items in their first games.

I don't have a problem selling my approach with pre-2000 era players, post 2000 is a different story.

I would guess that what you know or how you learned the game goes a long way towards expectations.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:

Here's a couple easy ones:

Z: A case with four stones in it! Not one or two or three but four! Four stones! What the hell am I supposed to do with an empty case?

Z: I hate warriors, too narrow-minded. I'll tell you what I do like though: a killer, a dyed-in-the-wool killer. Cold blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. Now a real killer, when he picked up the ZF-1, would've immediately asked about the little red button on the bottom of the gun.

The Fifth Element.

Simon Legrande wrote:

Let me sneak an oldie but goodie in here too:

N: I'm giving you a choice: either put on these glasses or start eatin' that trash can.
F: Not this year!

They Live - excellent move, great fight scene.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Hoover, I've been wanting to chime in on this one for awhile but rl concerns have made it hard for me to sit down and post anything of real value or substance in the last week.

I'm going to throw my two cp in the ring - I think you're a good GM to great GM. Not having sat at your table I can't comment on exact GMing style but based on you and I bouncing ideas back and forth you seem to have a fantastic grasp of the creative process which is a big component of being a good GM (keeping the story interesting, rich immersive world and encounter background and overall creativity).

That all being said you can be the greatest GM in the world on the creative side but you could be lacking in other areas (that can be developed). In addition to Knowing the Game (system mastery) and being a Creative GM (overall imagination and immersion) there are two other major areas of concern:

- Game Management (c'mon, this could not be a "real" Hoover-Aux exchange without me using bullet points)

- Knowing your players/game expectations

Game Management is my MAJOR weakspot - I have excellent system mastery but since I: have my own houserules, make my own encounters to making my own GAME SYSTEM - many sessions are clunky. A mess.
I'm trying to run my Beta - Gamma World re-write as clean as possible, but with many sections of the system incomplete, rules not 100% organized (getting better at that) there is some down time in game. That is a GM SIN. Players become distracted, you loose focus and immersion at the session (the ultimate failure).

So I would say - is your Game Management down? Does it take you forever to set-up your game: maps, PC, music, minis, friendly chat time to the start of the game, distractions - eating, calls, etc?
How long from the start of the meeting does it take to get in game and in character?
How much time in game do you take looking up rules or deciding on a ruling?
Does your level of preparedness ever slow down the action of the game?

Knowing your players: how well do you know them? And I mean "know them" I'm not talking buddy-buddy HS or Collage chums - how well do you know them?

Do you know their favorite genre? Fantasy, Sci-fi (action, hard science, serial/episodic (Star Trek/Firefly, et al), horror (alien), Modern, Espionage, Horror - Full game (action horror, modern, psychological, etc).

Do you know what their favorite game style? Old school, new school, mmo background to tabletop, wargarmer, technical, high drama/intrigue

Favorite movies and tv shows? Favorite video games? Favorite books?
And ask them (directly or indirectly) - why?

I have been blessed with regular (if not small) group of guys to play with and we are all friends outside of the game. We don't get to see each other outside of gaming as much as we like, but I can say that we are solid.

a few of my players':
I have one player who is/likes:
Min/Maxing and system mastery
RPG Inspiration: Fantasy Novels over movies or shows
High heroics
Downtime RP - he will follow up on leads if they are out there.
Loves combat

Another player (his brother):
The charisma game (uses whatever means - force or guile- to beat objective)
RPG Inspiration: Modern movies and TV shows.
The market player (loves downtime RP, buying and selling gear/loot and handling financial concerns of the group).
Will follow up on leads if he thinks the leads have a strong chance of payoff
Loves combat - will avoid pointless combats if possible.

Another player:
Hard time immersing himself in his character (1st person)
RPG Inspiration: RL History/Military buff. Some ancient Military history, comic books.
Comes up with wacky theories and angles (and is sometimes right, which baffles me)
Plays it a bit more reserved and survival/preservation focused - but knows when to lay it on the line.
Focuses on small things - small obscure leads/lore to small bits of equipment/gear
When it serves him - has an exacting memory for detail

Last player (in current group)
High heroics but very practical
RPG Inspiration: RL History (Ancient/classical), Lit (classical), 80's sci-fi and horror (not the cheesy stuff). Excalibur over Lord of the Rings
Grim/gallows humor
Believes more in character story and type vs. "build"
Will go down in a blaze of glory, if in fact it is glory.
Avoids pointless conflict - but when engaged is ruthless

We have similar backgrounds (due to our age) but we have wildly different tastes in: music, sports, modern movies and hobbies.

What I try to do is I try to figure out - even going so far as to ask them:

What did you like about the game/last session?
What didn't you like? (for my group it's delays, prep time and starting the game on time - they just want to play)

What would you like more of in the game?
Less?

My advice in all of this/TL:DR - know your players and know yourself. You can have the game you want (ex: old-school dungeon crawl) but it should be modified to fit your group: RP parts for the drama player, fast combat for players focused on bashing things (blowing off steam), investigation for the fan of that style, etc.
Your adventures and how you run them should not be a one-size fits all approach but more of a - I want to run my adventure "this way", but what about the parts for Mike, Tim and Andy? What are they going to like?

You are a good GM Hoover, I can tell just by our past exchanges that you have the skill and chops. When a player leaves or you are in-between groups it can be a confidence shaker - on top of the fact that finding good players/GMs groups can be difficult depending on where you live. Never give up and never stop improving your trade - every GM/DM has room for improvement and growth.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I guess now we have appointed posters to decide who's white or a person of color,and based off of that who can or cannot experience racism (even if they have experienced racism).

Yeah, this thread jumped the shark. Just not sure if it was a great white shark or a shark of color.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Back to the OP and original posts/link

Outside of government everyone is on their own to determine the level that a culture/counter-culture, scene or in this case a hobby is inclusive.

If you are black and want to see more black Punk bands - start a punk band with black bandmates, want to see more black gamers - promote the game among the people of your race (if that's your desire or agenda).

Gaming doesn't owe you squat - if there's a predominantly white following it's because of the genesis of gaming back in the day (and continued interest) was primarily with white people - specifically geek culture, though that has been changing over the last decade.

You want to change it - become part of it, put your face on it. This isn't a special club or union.

The AA George complaints would be akin to a white guy going to a local inner city hip-hop concert/event and complaining about the racial makeup of the fans (lack of white representation, etc).

I could understand Mr. George's complaints if he was stopped at the doors at GenCon or was given looks but that wasn't the case. Also the symbolism he's complaining about in gaming isn't institutional, it's artistic - its the people who made the game stamping it with their faces and influences as human beings (not just white people) are known to do.

You are not owed representation beyond public institutions -
You decide your level of attraction and involvement and subsequently how that "X" is going to change over time if it doesn't look or act the way you want it to.

You want to see LGBTQ people represented in gaming, create that content (see Paizo.com) - the hobby doesn't owe it to you.

If AA George wants to see more Black people represented at GenCon maybe he should consider securing a booth/write a product/create a game.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
haruhiko88 wrote:
Never heard from or of the guy since.

Don't worry - I'm sure he made the news somewhere.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point.

Actually no on this also.

3e = healing be UMD/Wand of CLW
4e = healing is triggered internally/tied to character
5e = healing is tied to character via HD

Eliminating the need for a dedicated healer was a side affect of the terri-bad, class ability stomping UMD. It could have been a deliberate design consideration - but considering how badly 3rd ed was designed without any long term considerations/repercussions of 2e-3e changes I seriously doubt this (hp outpacing damage, terrible save paradigms, DC abuse, skills being useless class features and easily gamed, meta/numerical spikes taking characters wildly out of CR for each encounter, etc).

Self-healing in 4e was a deliberate design consideration.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
Logan1138 wrote:
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.
It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder.

Mal - you need to look at the "old-school devotee" part of what you quoted.

3rd =/= Old-school

No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point.

And frankly, despite my preference for older systems in many ways, it's a good choice. I remember arguments about who'd get stuck playing the cleric back in the old days. Healbot really isn't a fun role for many people. It's not good game design to force people to play things they don't like.

That's why a lot of clerics were NPCs.

That's why I never heard of it before the internets.

Everyone has a different experience/YMMV/insert Internetism

also

14 =/= Old-school

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Malaclypse wrote:
Logan1138 wrote:
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.
It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder.

Mal - you need to look at the "old-school devotee" part of what you quoted.

3rd =/= Old-school

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Not at the gaming table per se, but playing Arkham Horror on one of our off-game cycle weeks.

Well, being gamers we snack and drink soda while gaming - this goes for RPGs, Board Game night or Poker.

One of my players was eating his Hostess Apple fruit pie and had bitten into the end of it, so there was a hollowed out part of the pie (as those pies are known to do on the first bite). No problems.

The next thing I know, he puts up the end of the apple pie for another bite but missed his mouth by a few inches - he put the end of the pie in his eye socket.

I laughed, he was upset.

IDK - maybe the Stars were Right that night or maybe it was a spell cast by Carl Sanford (jerk cult leader from the Silver Twilight lodge)?

No reason was given - he was wide awake when it happened and in just as much shock as the rest of us when the ocular incident occurred.

To this day I will send him pics of Hostess products to get a reaction or I will even buy him an Apple Pie before we start gaming and hand it to him.... only to get a vile and ungrateful expletive laden response - every time.

He always still eats the free apple pie though.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Troodos wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

Next Summer hardcover: Occult Adventures

Six new psychic magic classes

Finally psionics!!

Hopefully that will finally get us a Vudra AP in what ....2016?

LOL, better late then never I suppose.

Edit Damn, even though mine list first I was ninja'd by a Slaad

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Obsidian Link

If it wasn't already posted somewhere.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Some ideas

Stuff:
If you are going with an owner/defender or herald of the artifact you could build it up like so:

(Since this generic I will try to provide specific examples as a point of reference you your situation)

Let's say that the artifact is an Ancient Crown of Evil - something that belonged to the worst tyrant the world has ever seen

* Small almost imperceptible reality changes (with build-ups).
- Couple of previously empty rooms are found to have shackles in the walls
- Then, old bloodstains
- Then, fresh bloodstains
- Maybe some old torture gear starts popping up
- Audible screams of torture can be heard - faint at first, then louder (near the end of the scenario)
- Fleeting glimpse of an emaciated figure (starved) or a short haunt/phantasm of a man trying to scream with his tonged ripped out.
- Smell of something burning, or phantom smells of rot that come and go (in set critical places).

* Reality changes (part II)
- PCs or NPCs start feeling phantom pains. On their backs, bottom of their feat - the sensation of pressure on the chest and the inability to breath.
- Failed Will or Fort saves may result in physical manifestations of torture.

* Minions/Defender/Thrall or Herald (Conversion)

A well loved NPCs could be a good vessel for the defender of the crown (my example I'm going with).
- Slow changes in demeanor
- Starts acting upon information that he shouldn't posses (knowledge, language, etc).
- Minor changes (I know there's no handedness in PF, but may switch favored hand, sleeps in when used to get up early, or vice versa#. Perceptive characters may notice - and informed characters who know the history of the artifact may put 2 and 2 together.
- Full transformation - may be preceded by death, slow physical changes or the host may hide/disappear (assumed dead if PCs don't put the earlier 2+2 together).
- Multiple NPCS (guards, aids, sages, etc) could also be possessed or transform. This can be a simple as demon-zombie horde, or they could #using my Crown example# all turn into the Tyrants court, acting out bizarre behavior as they adopt court roles - Jester, Council, Executioner, etc.

* Minions/Defender/Thrall or Herald - Part II (Arrival)

Spot in dungeon or Fortress has some kind of draw to it. Small changes that build up.
- Physical change (changes composition, oozes blood, etc)
- Attracts vermin
- Radiates negative light/absorbs light
- Absorbs heat
- Makes people feel ill
- Makes people feel weak (saps life force)
- Physical change part II - So for my crown example a part of the complex could start to form a stone stump, which in turn changes to a malformed chair, which near the end turns into a throne.
- Herald starts to form or gate begins to open. Too many ways for this to happen to list. Scratches on walls eventually become runes, runes begin to glow, walls begin to breath or weep, etc.
Or more dramatic - a gate fold occurs where another plane starts to spill out onto the prime. Meaning that the PCs are already in between two worlds. Marked by series of small changes - and of course, it's growing.

All the small stuff I've listed (attracts vermin, feel weak, etc) needs to played up very slowly with little information or explanation given upon examination. Once everything is falling apart it won't be needed to downplay it. Unless you have a big phase II reveal.

Anyway - just some ideas

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Arn, maybe I did - I can re-mail it out to you if so. I don't want to burn the Froggies margin on this.

They didn't send out mailing notices on this one (at least, I didn't get one) besides the general comment last week that the books came in and they were going out.

I will make sure that I limit your tome to any ichor and chocolate stains while it's in my possession.

----

Well, I will try to at least limit the ichor stains.....

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I have no problem with complex or simple games or games with increased or limited choices as long as the focus is on actual game play and not the mini-game of character option management.

And more choices doesn't always equal good.

I'd rather have my Fighter take a broad Brawler Training/Feat that covers all aspects of brawling/unarmed rough combat (punching, pushing, tripping, etc) than to a have a game that offers micro options that each require a single Training/Feat for all the components of brawling, i.e. a feat to give +2 to pushing, a feat to give +2 to tripping, etc - where the latter is presented as "advanced", more complex or presenting more "options".

So the above an example of when more is not always better.

More options are good if they (imo)
- don't override focus from game play
- do not create a micro game
- don't create a dire need for system mastery
- don't create a drastically uneven play experience by picking choice B over choice A. Different play experience should be expected, radical differences in success rates based on build choices should not.

Again, - options are good, options for the sake of having more options are not. IMO (assume this disclaimer if I don't mention it at the end of every statement).

Players and GMs need to look at systems and ask themselves if the options work, and to what end all those options are serving their game play expectations or to enhance their game play.

Anyway

Cheliax

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

And we lost another gamer.

Godspeed you sweaty toothed madman.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
People who defend religion are usually not big on discussing the practices of what they call NSMs, New Spiritual Movements, to distinguish them from the older power structures they cherish, no.

And people who equate secular economic or political systems like Communism and National Socialism as religions for the sake of not looking wrong are self deluded and I should avoid having a conversation with them.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
There are so many things wrong with that statement in so many ways that I'm just going to cut my losses and do something more productive with my evening.

I should have read this one twice.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Hama wrote:
Also, I don't see protecting people from religious indoctrination until they are old enough to make the choice themselves as intolerance. I see it as my duty.

And you can raise your kids how you see fit in that regard. But it would be sad if said kid wanted some kind of faith experience and you took it upon yourself as your "duty" to "protect" them from it.

Just saying that maybe you should be careful that you don't become a variation of the thing you hate.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Aranna wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Aranna wrote:

So much intolerant atheism in here, sad.

More like intolerance if intolerance. And the source of that intolerance has been identified (correctly) as religious doctrine.

Nonsense, the source of that intolerance is intolerant people with crazy ideas, not religion. They may like to pretend it's something else but it's all on them.

I would VERY much like to see data on that. It is an interesting claim, but I am afraid it really has very little to do with reality. In every such case (the satanist scare we're discussing, remember?), the offered excuse for the perpetrator is the same: RELIGION. There are official religious leaders preaching this kind of behaviour. Ask a random religious person if doing this kind of thing is wrong, what answer do you think you're likely to get?

No, you don't get to make that claim unsubstantiated, Aranna.

IDK - Does Communism and National Socialism count as secular belief systems that preached intolerance? Or intolerant people with intolerant ideas and notions?

I think those systems took more away from people than their right to play AD&D or read the latest Leomund's Tiny Hut article in Dragon magazine. Body counts are well documented.
Bad people will find the tool that works: new economic systems (that purge), racial ideologies (that purge) and religions (that purge).

----------

And back on topic - while many fears were stoked by "Satan taking your soul" courtesy of the 700 club, I would say the majority was stoked by incredibly bad journalism.

Fear of suicide/murder/mind control didn't need satanic overtones to get parents excited. I saw the same terr-bad and ignorant news pieces on Punk rock and Punk rock violence in the early 80's you would have thought the world was going to be overrun by extras from the Road Warrior (I wish!). Some of those pieces were so ill-informed that they are laughable now if you watch them.

It wasn't the bible or the devil, it was ignorance. That religion was just a vehicle and method to extol concerns in some venues doesn't make religious intolerance the sole bad guy here - there were plenty of people who were afraid of gaming due to: bad press (see above) and Zero understanding of RPGs - "what, you don't have a board? It's all in your mind????" (eyes widen and while it doesn't sink in).

You don't need to be a bible thumper to be afraid of mind-control and cult behavior - keep in mind how many weird groups were flourishing in the late 60's and throughout the 70's. My cousin's cousin (so - not related) was also a gamer - his dad was very casual about faith and he was a brilliant engineer and he kept a sharp eye on his son's game and gaming habits. Why? Well because of the news.

-----------

When I was young I remember being very concerned when I would hear about a shooting (they didn't happen as often) or a strange attack (sword) on the news. It would be a "here we go again" moment. The media loved this stuff because they knew people didn't understand it.

Also according to the media of the day we should all be dead by now from Africanized Honey Bees.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
If anyone were to take my stuff to burn it for religious reasons, and this was someone I cared about, I would give them one chance to make full restitution twice over and a written and verbal apology before witnesses, along with written promises it would never happen again. I would also take the extra money and donate that to an atheist organization. Otherwise it would become a police matter with no further questions asked. Theft is bad, and doing it for religious reasons needs to be stamped out hard.

Big talk - I wish I had that level of control and influence when I was 12 and my books were periodically purged (until I got wise and hid them). In the real world burning an adults tv or any other property in response would result in a beating, a visit by the cops or being put out the house for the night.

1 to 50 of 342 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.