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

BigDTBone's page

3,321 posts (3,353 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Zhangar wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
...nor have I seen anyone explain the importance of players who aren't "setting out to wreck their friends' games" with their rogues.
I'm sure there has been at least one claim about that.
Yeah, there have been. Those usually come down to the rogue's player actually being a terrible person, rather than any rogue class abilities.
A person who is real and exists wrote:
What do you mean they can sneak attack undead in Pathfinder?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Xexyz wrote:

Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong:

Wizards are invincible.

If you go by these boards, wizards will never lose to any opponent(s) ever. They're all diviners who will always have perfect knowledge of anyone who seeks to oppose them, will always know and have prepared the exact correct spells to foil any threat. They always have an army of golems & planar bound minions to fight for them, and killing them is pointless because they always have a dozen or so clones secretly stashed away in the exceedingly unlikely event they are killed.

In the RotRL game I'm playing in our party has killed at least a couple of wizards, but I guess the GM was either being deliberately easy on us or is just a bad GM who doesn't know how to properly play a wizard.

"Wizards are Invincible" is incorrect.

"The Wizard/Sorcerer/Arcanist Spell List is sufficiently powerful that a sufficiently clever player with good system mastery can solve basically any problem the GM can come up with" is correct.

A sufficiently paranoid, clever, hyper-optimized wizard is hilariously overpowered in a fair fight. In an AP, the wizard is not optimized, does not use overly meta broken tactics, is heavily outnumbered, and usually gets taken by surprise and, this is important, is played by a character who WANTS YOU TO WIN because the wizard scry'n'frying the party in their sleep or evading them forever is boring.

I think what you are saying is that the player who uses guile and smarts and all their available resources to make the rogue "very playable," will make a wizard "invincible."

I just want to make sure I'm following that correctly.

They certainly could, though in my experience a wizard becoming "invincible" depends on both (a) a player deliberately setting out to destabilize a campaign and (b) the GM being okay with that.

"Yes, you can have any spell you find on the internet."...

The point is, if someone is going to claim that the rogue is fine as published because clever players can use extreme system mastery and superior tactics with planning and preparation; then that same person MUST be prepared to admit that the CRB only wizard breaks the game in half.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

New "pacman" Google maps filter lets you turn your neighborhood into a pacman game!

Independent Story


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Xexyz wrote:

Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong:

Wizards are invincible.

If you go by these boards, wizards will never lose to any opponent(s) ever. They're all diviners who will always have perfect knowledge of anyone who seeks to oppose them, will always know and have prepared the exact correct spells to foil any threat. They always have an army of golems & planar bound minions to fight for them, and killing them is pointless because they always have a dozen or so clones secretly stashed away in the exceedingly unlikely event they are killed.

In the RotRL game I'm playing in our party has killed at least a couple of wizards, but I guess the GM was either being deliberately easy on us or is just a bad GM who doesn't know how to properly play a wizard.

"Wizards are Invincible" is incorrect.

"The Wizard/Sorcerer/Arcanist Spell List is sufficiently powerful that a sufficiently clever player with good system mastery can solve basically any problem the GM can come up with" is correct.

A sufficiently paranoid, clever, hyper-optimized wizard is hilariously overpowered in a fair fight. In an AP, the wizard is not optimized, does not use overly meta broken tactics, is heavily outnumbered, and usually gets taken by surprise and, this is important, is played by a character who WANTS YOU TO WIN because the wizard scry'n'frying the party in their sleep or evading them forever is boring.

I think what you are saying is that the player who uses guile and smarts and all their available resources to make the rogue "very playable," will make a wizard "invincible."

I just want to make sure I'm following that correctly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:

Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong:

Wizards are invincible.

If you go by these boards, wizards will never lose to any opponent(s) ever. They're all diviners who will always have perfect knowledge of anyone who seeks to oppose them, will always know and have prepared the exact correct spells to foil any threat. They always have an army of golems & planar bound minions to fight for them, and killing them is pointless because they always have a dozen or so clones secretly stashed away in the exceedingly unlikely event they are killed.

In the RotRL game I'm playing in our party has killed at least a couple of wizards, but I guess the GM was either being deliberately easy on us or is just a bad GM who doesn't know how to properly play a wizard.

No, you just fought dumb wizards.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

It is a campaign trait for an AP though.

An alternative is a 1 level dip in Cryptic, Urban Ranger, or Investigator.

That doesn't change that it is published in a first party product. It tells you exactly how Paizo values the rogue iconic ability. A little less than a trait.


Sissyl wrote:
Thoroughly debunked, let me guess, by a foaming plethora of anticapitalist think tanks? Colour me not impressed. For starters, you have no clue how bad it would have been with a market that did not self-correct. Such as... The old soviet union. Capitalism has many flaws, but if bread grows too expensive, someone will produce it cheaper and outcompete the previous companies. There has to my knowledge not been bread queues in the US. Consider yourself blessed that you did not grow up in the old eastern bloc, my friend.

Modern food production technology is to thank for that, not economics. Soylent green isn't people.


Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.

More like, "give characters with high INT scores things to do in combat." And then there is an implied, "besides cast spells."

This book has tons of stuff for making casters into better martials. Le sigh. I'm just gonna start writing my own RPG.


We generally go for 18-24 months per game but that isn't straight through. We play our main campaign 8 months out of the year, and we play a "distraction" game the other 4 months. We just finished our previous long running game last April which took about 3 calendar years. Players ended at 12th level. We are now about 5 months into our new long game (which we started at 5th) and will probably continue for quite some time.


Kthulhu wrote:
Its not as horrible if you remove it from all prerequisite lists. Or give it free to all front-line warriors and remove the INT prerequisite.

It would actually be a good feat if it let you go total defense without giving up your turn. But it still would be a stupid prereq for maneuvers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

I agree with Alex that it is actually a good feat in its own right. The problem is that it is used as a prerequisite for so many other things.

Now, I'm not a professional game designer, but I have the sneaking suspicion that if there was, say, a Dex 13 prerequisite feat that grants the AC benefits of CE, and an Int 13 prerequisite feat that allowed you to make combat maneuvers without provoking an AoO, and the Int 13 plus feat prerequisite were removed from all the improved combat maneuvers, there'd be a lot less griping about feat tree synergies.

I think that 5+ years of playtesting with CMB/CMD has shown that the "improved" maneuvers feats dont need prereqs at all. And in all honesty, maneuvers shouldn't provoke AOO's at all, but instead have a proficiency penalty based on the weapon you use (IUS needed for bare handed maneuvers.) (which creates a neat synergy with catch off guard and dirty trick)


Doomed Hero wrote:

It has already begun.

Everyone who said we wouldn't actually see businesses posting "no gays allowed" signs, it looks like you were correct for nearly one entire day.

And, there you go.


littlehewy wrote:

The bolded question below still hasn't been tackled by anyone on Team Pro-Liberty, and I'd really like someone to give it a crack, hence this little bump...

littlehewy wrote:
Kysune wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Being refused service would hurt, I imagine.
Do we need to form the "Emotion Police" for people's feelings now? We're all adults here. If a restaurant is an asshat to you then go to a different restaurant. It's call customer satisfaction and if you're not satisfied then you have the freedom to complain or go elsewhere. How is this so hard to understand?
It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

Because social stigma hasn't made it unpalatable to be anti-gay in all the corners of the country yet.


Chemlak wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.

To which I can only say "so frigging what?"

I don't play to be optimised.
I don't play to be the best at something.
As long as a character is not actually a hindrance to the party, then it's welcome at my table.
If someone tells me "you need Power Attack to be effective in melee", I will outright laugh in their face. Sure, it can make you more effective at dealing damage, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that a melee character without it will cause the party to do less damage than if he wasn't there.

My my what a low bar.


MattR1986 wrote:
I thought I included birth rate. Historically birthrates have been very high because deathrates are very high. It still is that way in developing (third world) countries. Population starts surging when conditions begin improving and birthrates have not adjusted to declining deathrates such as the case of places like India or China at one point. In non gritty roddenberry fantasy like Golarion and pathfinder I. Would just say birthrates and deathrates have stabilized from things like stabilize and clw and have the population go up maybe 1-5% a year.

Given a 35,000 starting population and 500 years:

1% growth rate would be 5 million
2% growth rate would be 700 million
3% growth rate would be 91.7 billion
4% growth rate would be 11.5 trillion
5% growth rate would be 1.4 quadrillion


Krensky wrote:

The author of the abstract described the consequences of viewing porn the women reported as negative. The consequence the men reported had no qualifier.

It says there's a symmetrical relationship, but it doesn't say what is actually related. It suggests that increased incidence of viewing porn and men being jerks is the relationship. However a symmetrical relationship does not show anything resembling causality, and in fact that term is used for things that fluctuate together and are related, but do not have a causal link.

The symmetrical relationship between the responses of men and women means they fluctuate around a common link, not in responce to each other. The common link is porn.

Ie. The study finds that the variable of "women who identify with diminished self-image" and "men who are more judgemental of their partner's appearance," and the common link between proclivity of those variabls to be true was "viewing pornography."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Quote:


No, I didn't miss that your swashbuckler doesn't qualify for power attack. I'm well aware that as is you couldn't take it. I said that for your swash if you HAD power attack your DPR would go up. And if your build was to be doing damage then getting power attack is most likely the way you'd want to go to accomplish that. Also I'm not understanding where you're getting the +2 damage and hit if you don't have power attack.

Just that I'd rather spend the 8 build points I'd need to up my str from 7 to 13 on dex. Upping my dex from 14 to 18. I wasn't doing math, just saying my build points could be much better spent.

As for power attack being one feat? I don't know about you, but I'm constantly feat-starved when coming up with builds. Maybe it's because I'm playing the game wrong and not dipping fighter.

Maybe it's because your builds are as passive-aggressive as that post was.


thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
But the abstract doesn't give a conclusion. It doesn't even say what the relationship is.

Seriously?

Is there anyway to read that than as "as a result of viewing pornography", "women reported more negative consequences, including lowered body image, partner critical of their body, increased pressure to perform acts seen in pornographic films, and less actual sex, while men reported being more critical of their partners' body and less interested in actual sex."

What more of a conclusion or relationship do you want?

Indeed, that is the actual purpose of an abstract; to decribe what type of study was conducted and summarize the results.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
You seem to be a very literal person.

No, just giving you room to speak for yourself, rather than risk strawmanning you. :)

Quote:
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.

Okay, so you're saying that if someone declares that the rogue is weak and something else is better, they're telling the player that they're stupid. Got it.

Quote:
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.

Okay, this seems self-contradictory.

First you said that claiming X was stronger/weaker than Y meant implying that the player was dumb.

Then you said that it's okay to point out the differences between X and Y.

How do those two statements work together? Are you saying that it's okay (for example) to say that the rogue has a "different" attack bonus than the bard, but not to say that it has a "lower" one?

If that's what you're saying, well, that seems pretty ridiculous. If that's not what you're saying, then I need some clarification on how to read your post differently.

I can only hope that most people see my point. It seems clear that you will not no matter how I word it. So I'll leave it there.

Just as an aside, I don't see your distinction either. It comes off as "I feel dumb for not seeing that, therefore he called me dumb," and it is entirely dependent on whether or not you feel dumb and not whether the person said you were dumb.


Just to be clear, I'm not drawing conclusions from the study; I'm restating the conclusions of the study.

Quote:
A symmetrical relationship was revealed between men and women as a result of viewing pornography, with women reporting more negative consequences, including lowered body image, partner critical of their body, increased pressure to perform acts seen in pornographic films, and less actual sex, while men reported being more critical of their partners' body and less interested in actual sex.

If you don't like the abstract then find a study that contradicts it or dig into the methods yourself. I'm not going to violate their copywrite to appease you.


Krensky wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Do you have a link to this study?
I provided the link in this very thread. You are welcome to read the thread and find it.
You provided a link to an abstract that doesn't contain the statistics you posted and that does not describe the methodology used.

The full text is 3 clicks away. It is, regrettably, behind a pay wall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
you are making less and less sense on this, at least to me. If you can rephrase so I can get another perspective, I'd appreciate it, but for now it seems we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Sure.

BigDTBone wrote:
No, but when 60% of female respondents between 16 and 20 say that their partners expect them to perform acts they don't want to and that those partners openly admit that they desire to perform those acts because they saw it in porn, and that those female respondents ultimately capitulate to those requests, then it is reasonable to conclude that porn is adversely affecting the self worth of those females.

Which was a summation of the abstract from a peer-reviewed scientific research paper on the topic of porn and self-image. Granted, that the summation was from memory so the exact numbers may have been off.

Your response to my summation of a peer-reviewed scientific paper was

Freehold DM wrote:
I'm sure a similar number of male respondents would not want to take their partner to a restaurant they can't afford that their partner saw got a good review on yelp, so yelp is adversely affecting the fiscal self esteem of those men.

That is called "drawing an analogy"

Oxford Dictionaries wrote:

Analogy:A thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects

or Logic A process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.

I found the analogy to be dripping with male privilege, so I stated it.

BigDTBone wrote:
This statement is the definition of male privilege.

You seemed to think that the part of your comment which followed somehow mitigated your privileged statement.

Freehold DM wrote:
It would be, if I didn't state that one DOES NOT HAVE TO ACQUIESCE TO EVERY REQUEST MADE OF THEM FOR INTIMATES in the post you replied to.

I disagree that that statement mitigates the privilege in the previous statement. So I made a flip comment which illustrated that the ability to "say no" doesn't change the gravity of the analogy.

BigDTBone wrote:
Sure, saying no to spending money is exactly the same as saying no to sexual acts you don't want to perform.

You then tried to deny making the analogy at all.

Freehold DM wrote:
i didn't say they were the same.

But your post is there clear as day where you do draw the analogy. I was kind of surprised you would try to claim that given that your statement was right there in the open for everyone to see. So I replied.

BigDTBone wrote:
You drew the analogy, not me. You set the equivalence, not me. If you didn't believe in the statement you shouldn't have made it.

Which I think brings us all up to speed. Did this perspective help you understand where I'm coming from?

edit: fixed a quote, and some typos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Do you have a link to this study?

I provided the link in this very thread. You are welcome to read the thread and find it.


Freehold DM wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

It would be, if I didn't state that one DOES NOT HAVE TO ACQUIESCE TO EVERY REQUEST MADE OF THEM FOR INTIMATES in the post you replied to.

bolder and enlarged in case you missed it.
Sure, saying no to spending money is exactly the same as saying no to sexual acts you don't want to perform.
i didn't say they were the same. I said your argument was poorly made and based in missionary thought.

You drew the analogy, not me. You set the equivalence, not me. If you didn't believe in the statement you shouldn't have made it. You can't put your words off on to me though.


Freehold DM wrote:

It would be, if I didn't state that one DOES NOT HAVE TO ACQUIESCE TO EVERY REQUEST MADE OF THEM FOR INTIMATES in the post you replied to.

bolder and enlarged in case you missed it.

Sure, saying no to spending money is exactly the same as saying no to sexual acts you don't want to perform.


Freehold DM wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But I suspect the peer reviewed study is more likely to take that into account than anecdotes from random teens.
But there's not much they can do for it. Its simply a limitation on the social sciences that make the social fine but when they add science they prevaricate.

No, but when 60% of female respondents between 16 and 20 say that their partners expect them to perform acts they don't want to and that those partners openly admit that they desire to perform those acts because they saw it in porn, and that those female respondents ultimately capitulate to those requests, then it is reasonable to conclude that porn is adversely affecting the self worth of those females.

That is all true whether you believed in science or not.

that is a rather long and winding road to that conclusion, and one that is easily turned on its head-I'm sure a similar number of male respondents would not want to take their partner to a restaurant they can't afford that their partner saw got a good review on yelp, so yelp is adversely affecting the fiscal self esteem of those men.

Just because someone saw something in porn that they want to try doesn't mean their partner should immediately acquiesce, that they themselves are a bad partner for being curious, or that porn should be punished for providing them the idea. This is missionary philosophy at its most insidious.

This statement is the definition of male privilege. "Her not wanting to take it in three holes and the face is exactly the same as you not wanting to spend $100 on dinner."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But I suspect the peer reviewed study is more likely to take that into account than anecdotes from random teens.
But there's not much they can do for it. Its simply a limitation on the social sciences that make the social fine but when they add science they prevaricate.

No, but when 60% of female respondents between 16 and 20 say that their partners expect them to perform acts they don't want to and that those partners openly admit that they desire to perform those acts because they saw it in porn, and that those female respondents ultimately capitulate to those requests, then it is reasonable to conclude that porn is adversely affecting the self worth of those females.

That is all true whether you believe in science or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.

This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.

Uh-huh...

I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:

So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.

The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."

So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.

Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

You seem to be a very literal person.

What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.

Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.

You shouldn't imagine people saying mean things to you that they didn't actually say. This skill will help in other places in life (away from the message boards) too.


ElterAgo wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.

I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed. No, I did not exhaustively research every topic and read thousands of posts to track down every differing opinion, so as to "fact check". Many of us cannot keep up with the sheer magnitude of post output on these boards. But, I have consistently seen the same or similar "absolutist" opinions that are being discussed, and I drew the same conclusion as to the prevailing attitude toward the subjects outlined by OP.

I think many of you are being very hard on the OP. In fact I have rarely seen so many well considered opinions posted on these varied topics in all my years here.

I don't fall into the trap of the absolute opinions, just as I don't go for all the "optimization", but I can easily see how someone could.

Extreme viewpoints get noticed because they are extreme. That does not make them the majority. If I look into the first 5 threads on each topic and I actually count posters the ones with extreme points matching what the OP said will be the minority. I am sure of that.

Agreed they are more noticeable because they are extreme. Sometimes they are also more numerous.

Couple years ago, I had a big long post with almost everyone acting like I was a complete moron because I was trying to help a friend build a combat healer. He was familiar with PF and wanted to try a combat healer and his party was ok with him making the attempt.

Almost no matter what I posted or the couple of people trying to help me posted, there would be 1-5 posts...

It was TOZ, wasn't it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Maybe I missed it somewhere... But I never saw a porn flick where a man calling out to a woman on the street led to sex or was portrayed as anything positive. Admittedly, I am no connoisseur. I have seen other, decidedly odd, things with that effect in porn, though, so who knows?

A doesn't have to lead directly to B in order to make a point. It is one contributing factor amoung many that contribute to "female bodies exist solely for my enjoyment," mindset of young men.

Disclaimer: 2 points, not every male has this attitude and many (read all) men with this attitude will either deny it or be unaware of it. That doesn't make it not true, and it has been systematically proven true over and over.


Fergie wrote:
bookrat wrote:
This is why I said earlier that based on Vamp's posting history, he's unlikely to apologize to anyone for "misunderstanding" what's been said on the forums.

Given that there are several comments about healing on this very thread that are wrong, and many of them favorited several times, I think he is dead on about the general attitude towards healing.

I addressed it here:
Healing myth busted
and here:
Whole thread about healing in combat
(with posts by James Jacobs and Evil Lincoln)
and here:
And you barely break a sweat healing
** spoiler omitted **

Two issues with this and views expressed in the linked thread.

1) The healing domain cleric casting her highest level spell should be healing more on avg than the "high avg" for a CR appropriate monster. Ie, you are specialized in healing and you have just dropped one of your most powerful daily resources. You should be able to MORE than undo the damage caused by a single monster in a single round.

2) the burst heal myth is just as bad as the fireball myth. "If we can get all of the baddies to stand in exactly a 20-ft radius circle then I can do 123,547 damage with my 4d6 fireball."

If that works out then great, but that isn't exactly likely. Also, who cares if you can heal 100 damage in a round if it is spread out in 17hp chunks to all of your allies. The dude at the front soaking that 50hp a turn isn't helped by you patching up "grimoire" the witch's familiar for damage he hadn't taken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I still find it funny how the "but it influences people!" crowd never seem to inude themselves in their claims... Nope. It's always everyone else who is too stupid to separate fantasy from reality. "Porn influences people negatively... Not me, because I'm Oh-So-Enlightned, but everyone else, because they are obviously not nearly as smart as my brilliant self!".

Can we stop assuming that people are stupid? They aren't. Most of them might be uncultured, but they aren't stupid. 99% of the world can (and does) tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I'm so f!@@ing tired of this holier-than-thou atittude...Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!

And if are going to mention Japan, let's remember that even though rape is a very common theme in Japanese pornography, it's one of the nations with the lowest number of actual occurences of the crime in the world.

I posted a peer-reviewed scientific paper that disagrees with you on this very topic in this very thread.

Do you have any thing to backup your claims or is it just a gut feeling?


Imbicatus wrote:
Duboris wrote:

You know. Just a question, but, err. Isn't the Rogue the only class that can disable magical traps?

...

Regardless, him aside, Why is the fact that Rogues are the only one's that can disarm magical traps ever brought up, or do we just assume that wizards just automatically dispel them with their caster level checks?

Because they aren't the only ones that can disarm magical traps. Investigator, slayer, ranger, bard, alchemist, sorcerer, oracle, and monk all have archetpyes or PrCs that give trap finding. Even without trapfinding any caster can cast dispel magic and get rid of them.

Plus there is a trait that gives trapfinding and there is always summon a monster to run down the hallway ahead of you.

Edit: ugh. Failed my will save vs troll. Vampbyday has 400ish posts and 102 of them are new threads. Masterful troll is masterful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
If GM scarcity allows a GM to get away with being a jerk, the GM is still being a jerk. We shouldn't set our expectations to accept that as the default or the good.

Sorry, got called away before I completed my thought there. The idea isn't to accept a GM being a jerk or a player being a jerk, but for people to be able to talk to each other like we want to play a game together. If the GM or rules lawyer/player cannot, for whatever reason, express themselves without being a total jerk then they should get a translator or reconsider interacting with other humanoids.

Point is, there is a way to say "hey, I think you may have misread this or made a mistake" without coming across like you are attacking the other person, or taking offense at being corrected on the copious rules that exist in RPGs.

I agree completely.

Some folks in this thread are pushing an agenda that if the GM is being a jerk, it still makes you wrong to call them on it. Just because they are the GM. I find that to be highly objectionable.

Please note, knightnday, I don't see you as someone doing that, but your statement did come off as a rationale for that mindset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

A rules lawyer, good or bad, or really any player in the game is welcome to give commentary on a rule in my game. That said, I ask that we don't devolve into 30 minute game-derailing arguments over rules if they aren't a matter of life or death to the character. If they are, I'll call a break and we'll dig into the problem while people attend to snacks, bio needs, smoking, phone calls or whatever.

A bad player/rules lawyer/or really a person is one that won't take any answer that they do not agree with. One that tries to slow the game to a halt to argue over a +1 here or there on every roll, and in general is less a participant and more a very vocal irritant.

I have, in the past, instituted a "one but" rule. You get one interruption to make your case and then we move on until the next break when I'll talk to you more about it. This came about after a particular player would constantly break the flow of the game to try and use obscure rulings, grey areas, and otherwise angle for an advantage. Other players suggested the rule.

A last comment regarding BigDTBone's comments regarding players taking up the GM mantle when being kicked out of a game and GM ownership in general. While it is true that this does happen in some games, in a lot of others and in a number of areas, there is a lack of GMs or lack of people willing to do the task. Whether this is lack of desire, talent, rules knowledge or whatever, it still comes down to that one person willing to do the deed.

I think every player should have to GM several sessions, especially rules lawyers (good or bad). It is incredibly easy to backseat drive and point out where a GM may have fumbled a ruling or missed something in the chaos of 2-12 people yelling what they are doing. It is something else to be the person having all that going on.

Not every GM is a complete master of the rules with an encyclopedic and eidetic memory. A gentle reminder, a "hey, isn't it blah" and so on are much more welcome than "you are doing it wrong!" or giving a...

If GM scarcity allows a GM to get away with being a jerk, the GM is still being a jerk. We shouldn't set our expectations to accept that as the default or the good.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:
Have you read what I actually posted?

Oh, boy. This is gonna be wunna dose days isn't it.

Darkheyr wrote:


Yes, it can. As said, the rulebook can declare the GM to be God Supreme for all I care. We're talking about social interaction, not a rules discussion.

Oh, so we aren't discussing rules lawyers?

*Looks at title*
*Back at Darkheyr*
*Back at title*
*Back at Darkheyr*

ok

Again, he was forced down that path. He was given a hypothetical which was really a social question and was bullied into answering it. Maintaining that reference frame is completely justified.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:
Having taken over for a GM myself, and having handed over the GM post to someone else... nope. Fallacy. If no one else is willing to GM that might hold some sort of limited truth to it, but only then.

It becomes the new GM's game. Even if you are following notes that explain that Lavinia and Vanthus Vanderboren are really aspects of Demogorgon, you now have the responsibility for everything in the world. You may make calls that I wouldn't. You may make calls that I would. But no matter how closely it resembles my game, it is no longer mine. If you decide that the Aventi priestess is just using the party's wizard as a setup to an aquatic invasion, that's your call, no matter how far it might have been from where I was intending to take that thread. If I hand off a half woven blanket to you, the half you weave is 'yours', even if the blanket as a whole is 'ours'.

But even from that standpoint, the game was handed off BY THE GM, to his or her handpicked successor.

Quote:
And a GM has to find new players first, too - they do not magically appear in complete groups while that other complete group can't possibly hope to find replacement.

Completely irrelevant to the presence or lack of ownership.

Quote:
Plus, as to his game not going on: A campaign can be salvaged right from the point where you left off. It might lead elsewhere as the original GM intended, but that's not a problem by itself.

Not a problem, simply not the same game.

Quote:
Completely new players on the other hand mean you basically need to start a new campaign. You can't just 'drop them in' where the other guys left off.
Yeah you can. Done it for years now. To paraphrase Tim Curry's Cardinal Richelieu, "Players come and players go, but one thing remains the same. And that, is me."

Being a person who makes calls doesn't make it "your game."

You don't get ownership of a game because you got to decide that the oceans are purple on in a setting. You may have ownership of the setting (if you homebrew) but it isn't your game. Players make decisions all the time, making decisions doesn't impart ownership.

Edit: I also find it extremely telling that you have had a rotating cast of players for years. Color me unsurprised.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
A lot of stuff

He tried to make the point early on that he wouldn't find himself in a game where that level of angst was present. He got bullied into answering a hypothetical that he rejected the premise of. I don't think it's fair to beat him up for an answer that he didn't want to give, with reasoning that parallels why he rejected it in the first place.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:

The rules can declare the Gamemaster to be the supreme god of the universe for all I care. That still does not make it his game at the table, but our game. The GM is on the same team. There is no player versus gamemaster. He is as much responsible for the fun at the table as everyone else, and his role as a gamemaster does not give him any leeway in behaviour.

We're not talking rules here, we are talking social interaction - and that can't be regulated in a rulebook.

Quote:
And once that comes, you're done. You have the choice to prolong the inevitable by arguing, accept it and move on, or accept it and quit.
You seem to be quite hung up that the only choice is for the player to move on or quit - as opposed to the GM getting his act together before the party decides they need a new GM. Or, of course, the GM walks away because he can't cope with whatever it is his players are doing.

Because that's the DM's choice. We're discussing rules lawyers, despite the derail. The DM's choices don't really matter for that. The DM can decide to give in. He can decide he is right, and that is the way the game is going to go until he decides differently. He can decide to kick the offending player out of the game. He can decide to ignore the argument and start running the game, pretending the arguer is not actually there.

The DM actually has a lot more choices in the scenario, because despite statements otherwise, it is the DM's game. Without him the game does not go on. Any single player cannot make that statement, only as a whole, and even then, if replaced with other players, the DM's game goes on, while they have to find another one. It's an imperfect analogy, but consider Paizo, and their customer base. If some customers leave Paizo, Paizo's products continue. If enough of Paizo's customers leave, they shut down, but then no one gets Paizo products. As long as enough remain that Paizo continues to want to produce their...

The ownership you ascribe to the GM is an illusion. Yes, he can say what happens today with complete autonomy. But that autonony is credit, and it's borrowed against the good will of the group returning next week.

I have personally seen many a group bail on a GM and one of the players take up the helm. I've even seen them invite the previous GM to join as a player.

Some groups rotate GMs and that puts ownership in a very precarious place.

I've even seen a GM punt a player and when he got up to leave asked who wanted to start a new game at his place right now and the entire group get up and walk out.

It's not the GMs game any more than an individual player's game. You can't GM to an empty room.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Vycamros Chandler wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?
It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.
Wouldn't the GM changing his mind or seeing your side be you winning the argument?

If that is the definition you wish to use then literally just saying, "I'm not sure that's how it works," and the DM immediately saying, "yeah, your right. I don't even need to look it up, brain fart, my bad," will qualify as being a bad rules lawyer.

I think that's a patently terrible place to start from.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I didn't use big words... Maybe try actually reading it instead of deciding what I'm going to say ahead of time and then trying to make the words fit that conception?

Quote:
Quote:


also, I'm still waiting for you to back up your ad hominem attack against me. I assume you gave up because you know you were both way out of line and way out in left field, so I will accept your apology in lieu of your defense.
I made no attack against you. I made a comment and you got defensive.

Apology accepted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Am I The Only One? wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:


Still, pornography has been shown to have some influence in causing a few issues. Younger viewers often have their expectations of sexuality influenced by pornography (Is my body suppose to be look like that? Is that the most pleasurable way to have sex? What the hell is this 'foreplay' real women are expecting me to do? Am I suppose to do what those women in the videos do?)

I would like to see some real evidence of that from a legitimate study. My understanding is that this is little more than anecdotal, Oprah-style pseudo psychology. I have never seen a genuine medical study that correlated a real connection between porn and body image, and I wouldn't expect to see one.

Kids generally get their body image problems from peers, from the locker room, from parents, etc. Those are REAL influences that act upon a person's psyche day after day after day, representing data from people who actually matter to us. There's no comparison. As for being clumsy at sex... how many of us were the Greatest of Lovers right out the gate on our first dates? Why blame that on porn? That's just part of growing up.

I have seen a legitimate study from Johns Hopkins, no less, that correlated a possible decline - yes, DECLINE - in reported violent sexual offenses in areas where porn was more readily available.

As with all things that are fun, I think porn needs to be taken in moderation. As the father of a friend once said when we were randy teens, "you don't want to skin the derby."

Pub Med search literally took less than one second.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Vycamros Chandler wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?
It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.
Wouldn't the GM changing his mind or seeing your side be you winning the argument?

If that is the definition you wish to use then literally just saying, "I'm not sure that's how it works," and the DM immediately saying, "yeah, your right. I don't even need to look it up, brain fart, my bad," will qualify as being a bad rules lawyer.

I think that's a patently terrible place to start from.

also, I'm still waiting for you to back up your ad hominem attack against me. I assume you gave up because you know you were both way out of line and way out in left field, so I will accept your apology in lieu of your defense.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I think I see where our disagreement lies; I don't see being a good player as a requirement of being a good rules lawyer.

I think it is completely seperate discussion about how to read the table and decide if dropping your topic is apropos (good player) and persuing a rules discussion that has a serious impact on game regularity (good rules lawyer).

If you are separating that out, I suppose, but I've never thought of 'good' rules lawyering simply being competent with the ruleset, as that is rather inherent with the term.

Since the term assumes someone who is competent with the rules who will bring them up when they aren't followed, I consider the 'good' and 'bad' to depend on how they bring those rules up.

Darkheyr, you haven't answered my question. Let's say I'm the dick DM. Your character dies because I rule that you failed your save. You bring up the rule. I say no. Where do you go from that point?

I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I said it was unfair. But explain to me how you get your way in this scenario, in a manner that doesn't cost the other players their game?

I'm not saying that being knowledgeable about the rules makes you a good rules lawyer. I'm saying that argueing rules that can impact the greater game and not argueing one-off issues makes you a good rules lawyer. I have an additional point that, in general, being proficient with the rules makes you better at making that distinction.

None of that has anything to do with tact, or with being able to read a room.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:

'Common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided' is obviously something people can disagree on.

There is a rulebook. If I play Pathfinder, I expect those rules to be followed. If those rules are changed, I expect the GM to tell me. And I expect him to tell me before I bring myself into a situation entirely based on the expectation that rules work a certain way. Preferably even before I start playing in that game if it's a significant change.

Besides, I tend to play with friends, not strangers. So what I expect to gain from not shutting up is making it clear to said friend who happens to be the GM right now that he is acting like an idiot.

Luckily, those situations rarely happen among even minimally reasonable friends.

'Rule Zero' does not give a GM free reign to be an idiot.

Yeah, almost none of this applies to the situation other than as a nice roast red herring.

I expect the GM to know the rules too, and to inform people of changed rules (or at least change them in a consistent manner). But that's irrelevant.

What was said is that a good rules lawyer speaks up, then drops the matter after the GM made their ruling. And you agreed with the poster who said (paraphrased) hell no, GMs have to play by the rules too.

So you are supporting the idea that a good rules lawyer continues to argue after the GM has made up their mind.

And you and Dtbone are both wrong about that. That's not a good rules lawyer.

Again, being a good rules lawyer has nothing to do with whether or not you are playing with a good GM.

I think I see where our disagreement lies; I don't see being a good player as a requirement of being a good rules lawyer.

I think it is completely seperate discussion about how to read the table and decide if dropping your topic is apropos (good player) and persuing a rules discussion that has a serious impact on game regularity (good rules lawyer).


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her." If you are stopping the game for a significant amount of time for an issue that only you care about, you are a bad rules lawyer.
Who said that?
You, for one.

I don't see where I ever said anything about doing anything because "the DM is only one person."

Could you show me what you are talking about?

Here and here. You may now proceed to "rules lawyer" your way out of it.

Perhaps you could quote specifically where I said, "because the GM is only one person?"

Barring that, perhaps you could quote a specific passage that you feel exemplifies that thought process?

I don't see it in the linked posts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

Sometimes DM's have access to information about what's going on that players don't. Sometimes this means that things the players think should work don't, and they don't know why.

This is where a bad rules lawyer will cause problems.

This is where cultivating trust in yourself as a DM will go a long way. If you are open and willing to accept criticism, and willing to hear rules questions; then one day when you say, "I understand your point, this is what happens," then people won't challenge it.

I know this to be true from personal experience on both sides of the screen.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her." If you are stopping the game for a significant amount of time for an issue that only you care about, you are a bad rules lawyer.
Who said that?
You, for one.

I don't see where I ever said anything about doing anything because "the DM is only one person."

Could you show me what you are talking about?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her." If you are stopping the game for a significant amount of time for an issue that only you care about, you are a bad rules lawyer.

Who said that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
If a player is in a game for years with the same character, from 1st to 13th level (or whatever), it is completely unreasonable to expect the player to shut up or quit if a bad call that killed his character can't be resolved in 10 minutes or less.

If it killed your beloved character beyond all hope of resurrections, fine. Argue your case, get out your phone, look it up on the forums, demonstrate why you're right and the GM is wrong.

Any other circumstances, let it go. Nobody died.

The GM has to make rulings constantly. Some of these rulings will be wrong. If you argue every time, it means you're having an argument instead of a game.

Again, this goes back to "irrelevant minutiae," vs "complex rules interaction with wide-reaching game impacts." If you find yourself in column A then you will probably be annoyed with the discussion, if you find yourself in column B you will probably be happy to have a resolution you can count on.

If you are a GM and you consistently find yourself in column A, you should probably look into a less rules-heavy system than Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)

We're not talking about 'speaking up'. This is specifically in regards to having spoken up, having the GM make a decision, and then refusing to allow that decision to stand because 'it's not in the rules'.

What do you truly expect to gain from such a scenario? Unless you simply possess the social capital to browbeat the DM into submission, once the DM has made the call, that's the ruling. Arguing over a character death for an hour of game time simply robs the other players of what is their session time too. So even if the DM was completely wrong (say, he said that you have to beat the DC to make your save instead of match or beat it.), once you've spoken up, demonstrated the rule, and were told no, what do you want? Is it fair? No. The DM is making the wrong call. But once you've said/shown that and been denied, what more do you expect? You think that bickering and complaining will succeed where logic and reason failed?

Either you continue to play under the unfair call and its consequences, or you find a different way to spend your free time.

The application of rule zero should not be a crutch for poor rules mastery. If your rules knowledge is so poor that you consistently find yourself declaring a rule 0 change to players who bring up stuff like "you only have to match the DC not beat it," then you should take a long and hard look in the mirror and ask if you really should be running a game at all, because that is the behavior of a very bad GM.

Aside from that, I would hope I would be playing in a game with someone who isn't so bull-headed that I have to brow-beat them for an hour before they can accept that they made a mistake. I would hope I'm playing with someone with enough self-respect and healthy enough ego that being wrong won't send him into a rage fit. I would hope that I'm playing with someone who is not so insecure in life that someone questioning a call of his will result in him doubling-down. Basically, I would hope I'm not playing with a complete tool.

1 to 50 of 3,321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.