Okay, trying to catch up on everything here! I'll probably send things out once everything is selected, or early this week if there are a few stragglers. :)
Apologies Rune, but Path of War and Dragon's Demand were already claimed. If DM Beckett wasn't actually asking for it I'll pencil you in as next in line there though. Otherwise anything unclaimed in the updated list is still available!
Raging Swan goodies, Oone adventure, SuperRogue Genius, charming looking HeroKids RPG for kids, 13th age core rulebook all still available!
1) The Dragons Demand from Paizo. - DM Beckett? (Is "I've been thinking about picking up Dragon's Demand" meant as a request for it?)
Super secret last thing - 13th Age Core Rulebook. (okay, secret might be pushing it since I said what it was in the same sentence...)
A couple of years ago I was the lucky recipient of Mikaze's first (I think?) run of Christmas generosity on these boards. It really made my day during a tough period that year so I paid back the favour when I could and then followed in Mikaze's coattails again last year.
It's becoming very unoriginal now, but doing the same again this year. There's one pdf of each of my 12-ish Days of Christmas gifts up for grabs. First in first served! Everything on the list is either something I got this year and think is great, or something I plan on getting shortly and think looks great. :)
1) The Dragons Demand from Paizo.
Super secret last thing - 13th Age Core Rulebook. (okay, secret might be pushing it since I said what it was in the same sentence...)
But anyway, one of each available. Limit of one per person. Merry Christmas!
I will buy Chronicle of the Righteous, Champions of Purity, Distant Worlds, or Cerulean Seas: Beasts of the Boundless Blue for the first twelve posters that want them
Really awesome to see this happening again Mikaze, an inspiration as always. :D
I may or may not have been spending the last few days trying to decide what form my own Mikaze inspired giving may take this year too... ;)
Is Destroying a Fellow Player's Raised Dead / Commanded Undead an action that Constitutes PVP in Society Play?
Now I don't play PFS, but it seems to me that this is just a matter of players needing to compromise.
Look, if you're going to play a Paladin in Society play then you should think a little about compromises you could make to justify working with characters you might prefer not to work with. Equally if you're playing a Necromancer you should be thinking about compromises that can be offered when working with characters that don't like your methods.
An organisation like the Society is broad enough that most every character should be prepared for the fact that there are other members of that society that they would object to, and others that would object to them. Players in turn should have some ideas of how their character can justify working with people they object to and ideally have some areas they can compromise if the situation comes up.
I'm going to join in on saying that my preference is for things to not all be balanced. I've enjoyed a lot of characters over the years that were intentionally made to use a suboptimal weapon and it's a fun challenge to build those characters. To my mind the game is much more interesting if there are actual meaningful differences between weapons and classes and the like. I don't want weapons to all come to the same average damage per round on an optimised build.
Having said that I think most weapons/characters/abilities should be viable for at level play, but I'm happy for some to be suboptimal choices compared to others. Viable doesn't have to mean the best at all. If Sword A and Sword B are identical, except one does 1d8 damage and the other does 1d6 damage then that's fine. It's obvious which weapon is weaker and if somebody wants to use the weaker weapon for whatever reason that's fine.
Now trap options are certainly a concern and I'd prefer not to see those, but something being mechanically inferior isn't a trap in itself. It doesn't take rules mastery to realise that a longbow is better for a specialist than a crossbow for instance.
I started out reading his short story collections Zima Blue and Galactic North, both of which I really enjoyed. I'd recommend starting with Zima Blue, as the stories aren't part of the Revelation Space universe so it can be an easier way to ease into his work. Though I read Galactic North before reading any of the main Revelation Space novels and enjoyed it a lot as well.
I'm pretty behind on reading through the novels to be honest since I seem to gravitate towards more 'bite-sized' reads like the short stories these days. But I've enjoyed his work a great deal so far.
Is the argument really (as some people seem to be making) that so many movies fail the Bechdel test because women are happy to see either males or females as the lead character, but men really need the story to revolve around a man or they just can't get into it?
I mean, as a guy I personally find that pretty insulting if the implication is that movie executives make movies guy-focused because they don't think I could cope with a female lead who has some other females to talk to. For other guys here, do you feel that your ability to enjoy a movie focused on a female is less than the ability women have to enjoy a movie focused on a male? Or is the argument that this kind of thing needs to be done to appeal to a nebulous group of 'other men'?
Darn it... Last night I was going to get this, but I'm a bit tight on finances leading up to Christmas so decided to wait and let fate decide in the morning by seeing if it was still available or not. Now I have relying-on-fate remorse. :(
I don't think I'd have run the details of the encounter in quite the same way. I think the grappling should have woken the PC, and I'd have given the players a round of actions before the grapple was maintained and they jumped off together. I'd have given the PCs a round to fire missile weapons or spells at the BBEG after she cast Feather Fall, and I'd have considered letting the fighter have a reflex save to grab on (or maybe ready an action to hold on if they could).
But I don't really think the rules details are important in this situation. Some of the areas are fuzzy and I don't think your interpretations were blatantly wrong anywhere, I think the real problem is that the group is dysfunctional. If things break down into screaming matches and people storming out over the rules then that's a big problem regardless of who was right on the rules interpretation.
Well the sword fight between Inigo and Westley in The Princess Bride was a classic. I don't know how easy it would be to capture in an RPG, but somehow getting that level of energy and humour into an in-game duel would be great.
Though to be honest the first thing I thought of here was the Great Crunchie Train Robbery. Which is admittedly an ad, but it made a big impression on me as a child in the 80's. And hey, it's basically a big bar brawl on a train, how can you go wrong?
And my last thought is towards the end in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. The time when all of the various plot threads just all come together and you end up with chaos. The PCs would maybe need to be more active than the main group of guys were there, but having the group suddenly start to find out how various seemingly disparate factions were getting involved could be a fun moment.
Sure you can. For somebody highly invested in a character losing your friends or loved ones can be worse than having your own character die, let alone worse than losing some items. Look, most people here have said they're okay with 'meaningful' death, and I'm pretty sure most would consider dying to save friends and family in-game to be meaningful (maybe depending on the circumstance). For myself I'd say that having friends and family in danger would be a much larger motivator for most of my characters than having the character in danger.
um, he said that he doesn't want a game where the GM has to fudge the dice to make the party survive. He just wants a game which is less lethal than what some other people enjoy.
Look, every game based on randomness is going to have an element of chance to it. But in a game where there's a trap every 5 feet there are going to be more deaths than a game where there are no traps anywhere. Both of those groups are playing within the rules, but one game is more lethal than the other.
A similar argument can be made for monster encounters, where the chance of success or failure is going to be influenced by how those encounters are set up.
There's always an amount of chance, but in simple terms some people want a game where they're 99% likely to succeed all the way down to some people wanting a game where they have a 1% chance to succeed. None of those people are wrong, they just want a more or less potentially lethal experience.
I'd much prefer Paizo write what they believe in rather than worrying that some people may be offended by the lifestyles of some characters in some of their adventures. Certainly all of the Paizo staff that I've seen comment seem to be in support of homosexual marriage, I don't see any reason why they should ignore that in their writing.
The badwrongfun card only gets played because you keep saying people are having fun wrong.
To re-iterate from my last post though, I've said very little about how I personally run a game, you seem to have just decided I handwave a lot because I think people should play the way they most enjoy. What handwaving do you think I've actually said that I do out of interest? And regardless, how much of the system do you think directly revolves around death? Even if I played Pathfinder with all normal rules, except the PCs literally couldn't die then there are a whole lot of rules to still use.
I've played upwards of 20 different game systems. Frankly I play Pathfinder because I enjoy Pathfinder.
Couldn't I just as easily say that you should be playing Dungeon Crawl Classics, or Hackmaster, or a retro clone if you want a more lethal game than I play? But I wouldn't say that, because I know Pathfinder works well for a variety of game styles.
Quite right, you're not asking at all. You're telling people that they're having badwrongfun.
And you seem to have a lot of ideas about the detail of how I run a game that I haven't mentioned. But I run the system because I enjoy the system. Enjoying different parts and focusing on different things from you doesn't mean I'm doing it wrong. And you're not doing it wrong by playing however your group wants too.
It's perfectly within the rules of the game to play a less lethal version of the game. Certainly in a home game a DM is perfectly able to tailor encounters for his group so that the chance of death is very low even playing 100% by the rules. It's fine for you to not enjoy that style, but people doing things differently from you aren't automatically breaking the rules, doing it wrong, or playing the wrong game.
Arbitrary isn't a synonym for a bad thing. If my character goes into a combat that I should win, but my dice completely fail me and I die then I've been killed by the arbitrary whims of fate. Whether that possibility is a good or a bad thing obviously depends on the people involved, but it's not inherently pejorative to say that a death was arbitrary.
The 'game happening' includes a lot of arbitrary things. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, that's the outcome of working with a system that uses an element of randomness to determine results.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Well perception can matter, but for me the difference goes deeper than that. Yes, if I'm playing a character with 14 con and 7 wis then (all other things being equal) I'll likely play the character in a similar fashion whether regardless of how he was generated. But since I don't like dump stats very much the reality is that the 14 & 7 is more likely for me with rolling, if I was doing point buy I'd probably go for 12 & 9 in a lot of cases.
Rolling forces me into choosing from whatever I've rolled for my stats, and I find that a fun way to do things. With points buy I usually end up with a more balanced spread, which is fun as well but not as much to my tastes.
Edit: To explain further point buy tends to put me in the mindset of minimising weaknesses with my stats. With rolling character creation ends up instead coming down to working with whatever stats I rolled. Since I usually go into character creation with only a vague idea of my character in mind before rolling that works for me.
If the only value of this thread is to discuss points from another thread that were not even included in the OP then this thread probably doesn't have a reason to exist.
But there have been plenty of points here that relate to points that were made in this thread, not the other thread and I've been responding to what is said here.
Why would you respond directly to me and phrase things like that? I've made some comments about preferred playstyles and enjoying a relatively low lethality game, but I haven't made any statements about what is 'disrespectful' or 'mean'. Beyond the fact that I agree with the person who apparently said that on other matters in this thread, why have you started off assuming I have a position from a thread I haven't even been involved in?
I'm not going to go back to what was said on some other thread about trap death or not without reading it. I never commented on that thread and haven't been talking about that. No interest in being dragged into that discussion and I'm not going to make a conclusion from one quote that may or may not be in context.
Broadly I'm not a huge fan of overdoing it on traps because they're a tricky thing to balance, but it has little bearing to the point I was making.
Sure, I've been saying from the beginning that the group should do what the group as a whole wants to do. If you'd read my posts rather than tried to pull out random elements to attack a point not being made by me you'd have seen that. Bill, John, the DM and any other players should be happy. Most friends I've played with have no trouble organising that even when individuals have different tastes.
The DM is a person too. I'm not quite sure why you think I'm suggesting they wouldn't be okay with it. Do you not believe that other DM's could be okay with something that you're not okay with?
Except part of my scenario was explicitly 'and John doesn't mind Bill not facing death'. My argument is that if these people are okay with these things, it's fine to try and give both what they want.
If different people aren't okay with these things, then you need another solution. I'm just saying that when people are okay with different players working under different assumptions then that's okay.
There isn't a problem, but we'd be much further along in this conversation if you'd actually have a go at saying what you think the problem is. And hey, as long as we're asking questions, if Bill doesn't like to face death, John does like to face death, and John doesn't mind Bill not facing death, why is it any kind of bad thing to run the game in a way that accounts for that? The only complaint seems to be that you wouldn't find it fun, therefore nobody could find it fun.
Giving different people different treatment isn't 'special', it's the normal way of dealing with things. If I have one friend who I always greet with a manly embrace and another friend I always greet with a handshake which one am I giving special treatment to when we meet up? Or am I just giving different treatment based on what I know about them?
It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want. If nobody in the group ever wants to die then I'd run a game where nobody dies. They're always miraculously saved, or come back to life, or whatever else the solution becomes. Equally if people want danger around every corner then the game can be set up to reflect things as well.
If one player wants his character to be always in danger of permanently dying, and the other player never wants his character to permanently die, then setting the game up to reflect that isn't giving either person special treatment. They're getting the treatment that they want. Now sure, if John wants to play the game where the whole party is always in danger of permanently dying then that's different. But if John doesn't care whether Bill dies or not, or if he'd prefer Bill doesn't die as well since he knows Bill's preferences, then nobody in the group is likely to be surprised when John dies and Bill escapes. And both people have gotten the treatment they wanted.
Really though, as far as I can tell you're just saying that everybody who doesn't play the way you do is having badwrongfun and playing the wrong system. I've been playing D&D for 20 years now and I've enjoyed both lethal games and times and (more often to be honest) games where death is extremely rare. If you don't think the system works for certain types of things then great, don't use it for those things! But why do you feel the need to tell people who are doing things differently from you, but still enjoying themselves, that they're doing it wrong?
But why is it a failing as a player? That's just a 'badwrongfun' argument isn't it? If somebody else can only have fun if he's spent three weeks solid thinking about the character and writing about him before the game starts and I've spent an hour why am I right and he wrong? If he isn't monopolising game time and insisting on reading through his long background during the game then why should I say his way is a 'failing'?
Equally, some people like lethality and danger and others want their hero to be the type who always finds a way to overcome, always seeming about to die but always surviving in the end. Neither is a failing, it's just different tastes.
Say that I have a friend named Bill. Bill is a good guy, but for whatever reason it takes him about 3 weeks to come up with a character to play. In play he doesn't demand any more 'screen time' than anybody else, but he gets very attached to the character and I know he'd get pretty upset if his character died.
Where do people actually see the harm from avoiding killing Bill and setting things up so that if he does die he can come back with the same character? If I was a player who enjoyed the thrill of my character potentially dying I wouldn't be resentful if my character could potentially die but I know that Bill's would always survive in some fashion. That's just the GM trying to accommodate both players in the group.
Sure, if I had somebody in the group who would throw a fit over Bill miraculously surviving then it's a different situation. But we're all friends, if having his character not actually die is what makes him enjoy the game most and it doesn't take attention from everybody else then I'd see no harm in doing that
I prefer rolling for stats. I like to decide what I'm going to play after rolling, trying to pick what would be fun from a selection of rolls is something that I enjoy. Point buy can be fun too and there are some people in my group who prefer that, but we tend to alternate. We do tend to eyeball things a little and allow small increases if somebody is behind everybody else, but there aren't any hard and fast rules for that.
And on the initial topic it's totally fine to be happy with arbitrary death, but it's equally fine for somebody else to not be fine with arbitrary death.
For myself I'm perfectly happy with a game where I know that nobody can die and tension is achieved in other ways. The game that Umbral Reaver described is very much the kind of game that I'd be interested in. Even for games where death is possible (permanent death that is, plentiful resurrection magic changes things a little) I prefer it to be exceedingly rare. If a character is played relatively smart I prefer it if death can only come directly from the characters actions. Things like holding back a superior force so the rest of the party can escape or the like.
I don't expect to survive if I play stupidly and do something like charge on into an unnecessary battle when I'm on 1 hp. But in the normal scheme of things I prefer something where the characters face numerous trials and tribulations, seem to be on the brink of defeat or death multiple times, but make it through and triumph. If somebody prefers things grittier there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not my preference.
I'm the kind of person who can happily reread a book I enjoy or rewatch I movie that I like. It's still enjoyable to me even though I know what's going to happen in the storyline. If it's well produced I still feel tense at the appropriate times and still laugh at funny moments. So in a similar vein removing the threat of death from an RPG doesn't make things worse for me and it doesn't make it harder for me to get invested.
I wasn't actually all that bothered by Wash's death, but I didn't think much of the reasoning mentioned for it. My position is that a good writer should be able to build tension for a climactic scene whether somebody has just died or not. You shouldn't need to kill off a major character suddenly just before the big battle to make people believe the other major characters could die in that battle. In a way the death of Wash actually made me feel less tense for the other characters living or dying. I didn't believe it was going to be a bloodbath, so one major character already dying made it seem more like everybody else would get out okay.
I like the beefy dwarves, I think it makes them look more like another race rather than just humans with dwarfism. In Pathfinder they manage to weigh more than humans while being much shorter, so I'm happy with the hugeness. That and I find them easier to paint being so wide, which is a plus. :D
i think it's more that Hasbro are happy to keep lines around just ticking over, they seem to realise that not every line is going to make massive profits all the time. But shelving it or scaling it back for a while and accepting steady profits even when it isn't the 'in' thing any more, so they can try to get a second dip at the product being a hit.
Take Transformers. A lot of people have the same idea that Transformers vanished and reappeared with the movie to appeal to parents who were kids in the 80's. But apart from a few years in high school I've collected Transformers on and off since i first got Warpath as a little kid. They were only off the shelves in the US for a couple of years and were still being produced in the UK and Europe then. Even before the movie they peaked again to be a big line around Beast Wars and the Armada series of shows. I'm not a GI Joe fan in the same way, but I don't think that line ever really took an extended break either.
All that said I agree, I don't think it's very likely that Hasbro would sell D&D. It's probably more likely that the entire WotC division could be sold at some point if Hasbro decided it wasn't core business, but I wouldn't expect it. And I don't really think it would be worth the price for Paizo to buy if the option ever came up. They already have a massively successful roleplaying game, I think there would be other potential buyers who had more to gain from the purchase than Paizo even if the brand came up.
I'm in on this one as well. I have more minis than I'll be able to paint in my lifetime after all these Kickstarters, but I've roped my gaming group in to help a bit now. And I'd say that of all the mini projects I've backed the ones run by Stonehaven have gone the smoothest.
This is indeed the project formerly known as The Phoenix Project, and Heroes and Villains was an offshoot from that group. There's also now Valliance Online. The last one came up the most recently, but was from an existing indie group who decided to have a crack at making a successor. I haven't been following too closely, but they already have an alpha build I gather.
Between the three of them I'm pretty hopeful we'll at least get something like CoH in the next couple of years, though I'd miss the CoH lore it's still pretty exciting.
Isn't this just what the FAQ is saying though? It's suggesting that it's reasonable to model a gunslinger as being able reload three times a round, stating a common option. It doesn't suggest anywhere that being somewhere where it's harder to reload a gun than that is wrong, or that it being easier to reload a gun is wrong either.
I'd much rather a situation where a statement like 'a GM may sometimes limit the free actions you can take' is accompanied by an example to at least give an idea of what the writer is meaning. The text around the example seems pretty clear that it's just one way to interpret how and why such things might be limited, it isn't stated as a be all and end all of how it must work. It seems to me it's trying to help interpret what the writers mean by 'the GM decides what is reasonable', it isn't meant to be making a new rule.
Personally I don't much like firearms in my fantasy games and wouldn't normally use them. Times when I do allow them I'd generally either make them especially primitive where you could only reload once a round (and thus making them clearly suboptimal) or make them a little more advanced and able to reload at the same rate as a bow in game. With all the phrases like 'reasonable', 'no specific rule', and 'guidelines' I really don't think I'd be going against the FAQ to use either option for my game world.
Hi all, since City of Heroes shut down last year there have been a number of fan-based projects working towards making a successor to the game. One of them City of Titans has made a Kickstarter project. As an old fan of City of Heroes it looks like a lot of fun to me so I'm hoping that it does well. But even beyond my interest in the game I like that the fans of CoH are making such progress towards getting back a game.
Check it out if you were a fan or just like superheroes!
And personally I feel that balancing actions with alignment is a subjective thing rather than being able to weigh them up and use a formula to determine alignment. I mean, somebody could spend 80% of their time doing neutral acts, 10% doing extremely good acts and 10% doing extremely evil acts. Now in most cases I'd say that individual is evil. You can be a completely lovely seeming person and commit all sorts of good acts in the community, but if you're sneaking away 10% of the time to commit unspeakably evil acts then I think you're evil. Evil people doing the occasional genuinely good deed is perfectly in character, even evil people are liable to actually like and want to help certain people. But it's tough for a good person to do an occasional genuinely evil deed and still be anywhere near good.
I don't really see how Beyond Morality makes a difference in this case. It seems to state that you have no alignment and if you lose the ability then you revert to your previous alignment. If the DM had already moved you to NE before you got the ability then I don't see how Beyond Morality would shift you back to NG.
As for moving there in the first place that's really a discussion for your group. Personally I think of Animate Dead as being an evil thing to do, so I wouldn't let a character stay good who used the spell on a regular basis. Repeatedly doing an evil act makes someone evil in my book. Also doing some things that aren't evil doesn't change that to my mind.
But there are plenty of people who view Animate Dead differently and that's fine. I've got a friend who feels differently, so if he's running a game the spell is okay and if I am it isn't. But it's something best decided by your group.
It's tough to think of something that ticks all of the boxes which you're after, but I think that Hackmaster could be worth a shot. I haven't had as much fun with character creation for a long time and while it initially seems pretty complicated the game is simpler than it looks in practice. Plus you can check out Hackmaster Basic for free now.
I don't really have a massive axe to grind against it, but I think boobplate is overused. The only purpose it seems to serve to me is to make it that little bit easier to tell which heavily armoured figure is male and which is female. Even beyond the sexual politics of RPG art I've always thought it looked rather silly.
It's certainly not the worst problem with female depictions in fantasy art (a search for 'female in armor' in Google shows up plenty of images that offer much less protection than boobplate), but I'd still prefer to see less of it. Paizo are pretty good with it though for the most part, Seelah's armour does a good part of looking practical however many issues it may have.
Sure, some players like to keep it low-key, but there is and always has been the majority that want flash and show. Money and power, signified by ostentatious displays of wealth.
If you want to say that you want 'flash and show', then by all means do so. Heck, if you want to say that most people you know feel a similar way then go for it. But why do you feel the need to decide that there's always been some majority who agree with you? My personal experience is that most people I know are a bit embarrassed by flashier and showier pieces of roleplaying art, but I don't have the information to go around trumpeting my stance as the majority position to try and give myself some faux authority.