BigNorseWolf's page

Pizza hut breadsticks.

I was 10.

Last time it happened.

Tacticslion wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

One is a priest of Gozreh----->Somthing happens----> is celibate

That doesn't really follow.

I'd agree, but with the caveat that it doesn't automatically follow. I do believe there is at least one published cleric or druid of Gozreh who was celibate because of it. In which case it becomes a function of their tradition rather than a function of their deity. But as presented, yeah, that's... confusing.

I suspect that people who are actually celibate because they are supposed to be celibate is rather more common in RPGs than the real world.

I don't think so for golarion. I think there's a deity that is all for celibacy? but its NOT gozreh as far as I know. I think someone is confusing a real world priest (and a subset of real world religious leaders at that) for all preists

Quantity has a quality of its own.

And no more than two! ;)

I love the idea of Core, and I don't match either of your assumptions there.

I forgot I was on the internet. I could have phrased it "two sources of untapped players" or "two major sources of untapped players" rather than rely on the context of the conversation.

Or just added the asterix and the subtitles "take with grain of salt. Do not use if nursing pregnant or may become pregnant. If symptoms persist for more than four hours discontinue use and contact your local shaman..."

to fine the point exceedingly, your hypothetical experiences).

Nothing hypothetical about them.

This is a weird environment, these contentious threads. People seem honestly threatened by this development, to the point of policing posts for Orwellian language violations as if English were algebra and context and diction didn't exist.I don't understand it

*points up*

It has become obvious now, that given the negative feedback from this announcement, people assume this.

Its not an assumption. Its how the system is set up.

However the people that are interested in the Core Campaign are coming from the exact same player base as those that are not interested.

This is a bit less than half correct.

Core appeals to two types, those who have played everything and quit PFS. Core can bring them back on a more regular basis. But so could the two scenarios being published every month. These people are more or less outside of PFS

And then there are new players who are going to walk in without having any idea of the difference. PFS Core and PFS Classic are both drinking out of the same well here.

“If venue space is limited” is the crux of your argument here. “If venue space is limited” and the store decides to host DND Encounters alongside PFS, you might have a problem. “If venue space is limited” and you host PFS during a Magic: the Gathering tournament, you might have a problem.

Its the crux of the argument because its the reality at both local venues I've played at here.

Guesse whats been going on simultaneously with PFS at both semi local venues? :)

And if you simply assume that there will be no over-lap between groups then I have to agree with Snorter, that is sad.

I'm sure there will be SOME overlap. The system as descried vastly discourages it though. You can only go from core to classic once in one direction. Doing that is problematic for a new player, who is now simultaneously entering higher level play with fewer options (and thus probably a less powerful character) and probably a slightly different group of geeks.

I don't need to conclude zero overlap, I just need to conclude less overlap than players lost to core.

In both, I would ask for more information before trying to help. I would probably first contact your local VO and get them in on this. Then I would advise contacting other shops in the area

Here, Hold my banjo.

You are assuming multiple game stores in an area. Your guess is wrong. This is the actual situation. The only hypothetical is "if the group goes core"

The constant assumption of multiple venues and inability to comprehend and accept a simple statement of "we've got limited venues and a limited number of geeks" and to dismiss that as a mere hypothetical does little to bolster the idea that you have solutions to problems you refuse to believe exist.

I don't see how this is a vague non-solution when it is simply following the chain of command that has been a fixture of this campaign for some time now.

I'm asking what you're going to hook the chain onto.

Also, sometimes I just want to play rather than GMing… again.

Someone should be able to do that twice a month at least.

I promise you this: if a person comes to me with a concern and I say, "well, you can try X" and they say, "that won't work," and then I say, "well, how about Y" and they say, "that won't work, either" there are only so many suggestions I can make before I conclude that perhaps this person really isn't serious about finding solutions

And if your solutions simply aren't workable? There's only so many solutions relying on a larger player base and multiple venues someone can offer before I conclude that the person really doesn't understand the situation.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Commie Goblin wrote:

So Captain Caveman, when his material and sexual needs were met, lived in relatively peaceful, egalitarian, sexually promiscuous bands. And when they weren't, he behaved beastly?

The problem is that for a male human "sexual needs fulfilled" is almost an oxymoron. The number of kids a male human can have is practically limitless. There's always a drive for more with more partners, and more resources to attract more partners.

Speak for yourself. There are plenty of men whose sexual needs are fulfilled.

I'm sure there are, but evolution works on trends and numbers games. Like blackjack, good play can increase your chances in the long run even if you can't possibly win every hand.

The peasants have no bread

Let them eat cake!

No cake? What about croissants?

What about the caviar? No?

Damn peasants are just being unreasonable and don't want to eat. I'm being very patient and thoughtful dealing with this unwashed rable whats their malfunction?

I understand the concerns, I think they aren't very realistic concerns.

I don't think you're using the right reference frame to make that evaluation. People in the Core campaign are effectively not in PFS and people in PFS is not effectively in the core campaign. Grouping them together is more a matter of definition than reality.

"This will split the players." -- I don't think it will. There is no evidence to support this. All the data coming in suggests more people rejoining the OP environment.

"more people rejoining the OP environment" is meaningless to the individual player if they don't want to play with those people in the parallel campaign.

If you have 10 players locally and you go up to 20, but half of them play core you've at best gained nothing. If venue space is limited you've lost one of your weekly tables.

If you have 10 players and they go up to 15 and they go core you've lost the group.

I think halving again or doubling the number of people in PFS is an unrealistically optimistic goal but even those rosey projections don't end well for the individual.

Personally, I know of three people that had effectively retired from PFS that are now coming back to play core. Conversely, I know of no people that are quitting PFS because of this announcement.

Three people coming back out of how many players that you know?

The math working out [for pfs] is not the same as the math working out [for any individual pfs player]. More importantly, the bigger the positive impact in terms of recruitment/reenlistment the more negative the impact on gaming availability.

"I won't be able to play PFS anymore, Core will dominate my area." -- Again, I don't think this will happen. If it does, you have resources in the form of VOs you can contact that will look into it for you.

And do what exactly? Tell me to use the other venue?

There isn't always another venue to send some people to.

Have the venue alternate between core and non core? That's going to frustrate and confuse the new players.

I know it's not everyone's reality and I never claimed it was.

Your solutions rely on it being everyone's reality. -The VO can look into it- is an incredibly vague non solution to some very specific and very real possibilities.

No, but at least you can play regularly. That hasn't been an option for lots of campaign vets for a long time now.

Then DM. Sure, you don't get credit, but credit should be pretty much irrelevant to someone with a full spread of characters anyway.

In terms of the alarm spell, in general, if used by itself it is not subject to disabling as it is not a trap in of itself...just an ongoing magical effect. If it is part of a trap, then it would be circumvented by whatever DC is given for disabling said trap. How far it takes to set off...depends, some traps are set by other spells as well...

I believe that's incorrect.

Spell traps are simply spells that themselves function as traps. Creating a spell trap requires the services of a character who can cast the needed spell or spells, who is usually either the character creating the trap or an NPC spellcaster hired for that purpose.

However, when people speculate another 10 pages of the worst outcomes that could come from this announcement, and assume to know the future actions of organizers as a result, it brings a level of negativity to what is otherwise an otherwise exciting opportunity.

I don't think it helps to alleviate peoples concerns when ya'll say that everything is fine but then don't seem to understand the concern.

As an FLGS owner myself, I will be sure to accommodate whatever gaming activities my players are interested in pursuing, be it Core Campaign, PFS, D&D Encounters, or otherwise. As a VO, if there are other stores in my region that are unable or unwilling to host both venues, I will do everything in my power to ensure that those concerns are handled and that people get to participate in the kind of campaign they like. And I am certain that other VOs will do the same. It's what part of our job is--growing organized play opportunities in our region. This will be no different.

You own a gaming store. You are a venture officer. You live in an area where you have multiple stores in a region. You control the vertical, you control the horizontal. If something goes in a direction you don't like somewhere then you have other pfs options- Right down to sweeping the pokemon players off of their 6 o clock table and putting in core/non core PFS or bunnies and burrows if you're so inclined :)

I can definitely see why there's nothing for you to worry about under those conditions.

But please try realize that this is not everyone's reality. They can't guarantee access to a flat rolling surface, a fallback position and enough geeks for two campaigns. They would not be this worried if they didn't care about the campaign.

Our goal in all of this is that everyone gets to play the campaign they want.

Some of the venture officers posts imply the opposite of this. Talks about whats good for the region, good for the campaign sound like losing one current player to pick up 2 future players is an acceptable risk. If you're an organizer putting overly large keisters in seats thats a concern. If you're trying to be one of those keisters its not.

Everyone that is concerned about no longer being able to play PFS, or the power dynamics of the Core Campaign versus PFS, is really just missing the point of this announcement in my mind.

You have to realize that this is a heads you tie tails you lose situation for anyone that doesn't like PFS Core. Right now they have a venue they can reach playing the game they want. This can't improve that opportunity for them. I can't play in more than one game at a time. I can't DM more than one table at a time.

This new campaign should be received just like the ACG OP system was--something that isn't for everyone but is nice as an alternative for people that are interested. Nothing more.

The card system is a different niche. PFS core is a very, very similar niche.

One is a priest of Gozreh----->Somthing happens----> is celibate

That doesn't really follow.

Ranger animal companions are now a sideline (without boon companion)

I do have to ask the obvious question... customization aside, how optimized DO you have to be to survive Pathfinder Society games?

For me, the extra options aren't about optimization they're about variety.

I do have to ask the obvious question... customization aside, how optimized DO you have to be to survive Pathfinder Society games?

99% of the time not very. Even one or two barely optimized people (Good str. Two handed weapon) is enough to carry the group. Some scenarios can be harder though

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Thejeff wrote:

It certainly isn't proven 100% that gender differences are 100% nature or 100% nurture

You have an extra 100% in there that I did not.

Without an implied 100% I don't understand your original statement:

"Nature isn't 100% proven therefore it must be nurture isn't a reasonable goalpost."

What isn't 100% proven? That nature has some effect? Yeah, that's pretty much known.

Known yes. Not always believed though.

It certainly isn't proven 100% that gender differences are 100% nature or 100% nurture

You have an extra 100% in there that I did not.

Why just males?

Because women have an effective cap on how many children they can have. Having 10 different partners for 10 different kids is useful from a diversity standpoint (probably not as good as 8 with a really good mate though). Having 100 different partners would provide zero benefit to her reproductive success. A male with 100 different partners though...

This is a source for a lot of the differences. Men and women are both playing the evolution game but they don't play by the same rules.

I remember reading about some of this research in the Boston Globe years back. It suggests to me, although, again, I only ever took one anthropology course and then did a bunch of recreational reading on the subject, that cave women were probably just as horny.

I'm skeptical of that. Its Possible, but even if thats true women are much pickier about mates. One mate 10 times and 10 mates 1 time are a different pattern even if its the same amount of fun either way.

So Captain Caveman, when his material and sexual needs were met, lived in relatively peaceful, egalitarian, sexually promiscuous bands. And when they weren't, he behaved beastly?

The problem is that for a male human "sexual needs fulfilled" is almost an oxymoron. The number of kids a male human can have is practically limitless. There's always a drive for more with more partners, and more resources to attract more partners.

Absolutely agree with everything you say here. But it's true the other way around too: Nurture isn't 100% therefore it must be nature isn't a reasonable goalpost.

You left out "proven" there and that changes the statement a lot.

[ooc][i]Do you wanna play a pregen?

Not with red box

I would not play one here or there
I would not play one anywhere

I'd rather drink the hoover dam
I do not like them sir or ma'dam

Counters and dispels is a separate system from their effects canceling out.

ooo an elephant.

(Was up all night waiting for the blizzard, followed by a little shoveling )

How do we know what's normal for a boy and normal for a girl, ABSENT the socialization that our society gives them?

They are seeping in more of a chemical known to cause restlessness, energy and aggression (and have a biology hard wired to use said chemical)

The trend occurs across cultures.

Brainscans show that their brains are physically different

Now I'm sure someone could argue endlessly that its not known or proven , but since they won't give me 50 boys and 50 girl infants to be raised in a skinner box after what happened to the lat batch its by far the best possible conclusion. Nature isn't 100% proven therefore it must be nurture isn't a reasonable goalpost.

See, here you're assuming that if more women are becoming homemakers and schoolteachers it must obviously be because they want to. You don't think there's any social pressure that tries to force women into 'acceptable' careers?

The two are not mutually exclusive you can have both social pressure and biological pressure: in fact social pressure usually exacerbates an already existing biological trend.

Ms. Pleiades wrote:

Recently finished a session where the group's swashbuckler got invited be the third party in a threesome with a half-elf Calistrian, and a fallen paladin.

You didn't mention the gender of even one of the three.

Now I think the gender of a person is irrelevant to a lot things, perhaps most, but not when it comes to having sex with someone or a group.

It matters at least as much as Ikea instructions.

::bows to superior rules-fu::

I'm cheating. The painkillers really help with those rules :)

I would like to point out that when the quest is to kill monsters because they spill out of dungeon it is likely meaning that they were breeding and raids on surface are probably a way of dealing with overpopulation of said dungeon.

Unless those were constructs/undeads.

2 ogres in a 10 foot by 10 foot room guarding a chest. I don't think any thought went into how they got there.

Save actually for when you actually correct someone

Agincourt suggests you are wrong.

I think you missed what he's saying, because you're arguing with physics.

If the arrow comes DOWN with X amount of energy, that means that it went UP with X amount of energy (+ a bit from wind resistance) If it didn't have that much energy it couldn't get up there.

Kind of

Except that, from what I've been picking up from the sexologists, "Captain Caveman" lived in bands of relatively egalitarian sexual promiscuity.

And if it wasn't permisuous enough, they went ahead and raided the neighbors and took their women.

The "choir" of jared diamond et all are NOT relying on one crazy anthropologist for that. They've found an awful lot of cave men that have died from weapons and some more with bits of weapon still stuck in the bone.

Its in the shape of an L on her forehead...

I wonder what kind of wine goes good with crow...

You can pick it it just won't DO anything like give you a language

I'm not really going to dig through the past day or so's posts, but Comrade BeeNee's point about bonobos living in chimp paradise (and I don't really know anything about bonobos except that they use sex as a conflict-avoiding mechanism, which is about the sanest thing I've ever heard) is kind of the point for us socialists who want to stamp out material scarcity.

For women's liberation through socialist revolution!
Socialism will get everybody laid!

The problem there is that even if you create the socialist paradise, our genes are still stuck in CAPTAAAAIN CAAAAAVE MAAAAAAAN! and are going to remain there for the forseeable future.

Dazing spell

Persistent spell

Heavens oracles.

(I think there's a similar thread for strong options)

1) Half of a sub population. (since that distributiuon is like one of those fancy 2 hump camels, not a standard one.) The median for [boys] NOT being the same median as the median of the entire population of [boys and girls] is the point.

2) Well, how will we know when we get there?

It could change on its own. Some social changes just happen. Some are just self reinforcing. If you expect a secretary to be male (like before ww1) thats what you tend to get. If you expect them to be female then that's what you get.

How much has really changed in 20 years? I wonder if its leveling off.

Someone points an AK 47* at your head. Your thoughts, as you do it, is to 5 foot step so you can ready an action to dive behind the car, delay for fire, then use tree cover to run for the water.

Well, what should we do exactly to 'not ignore' that trend, if indeed it is a trend?

Depends on whats cropping up.

The most important thing I've seen with taking political correctness too far is with ADD. If you take 4th graders as a singular population the average boy scores about 2 standard deviations below the average on attentiveness even though they're normal... for a boy.

I'll assume for the sake of the argument that women are in fact on average more nurturing by nature, and ignore the possibility that men and women are equally nurturing as a result of socialization, but what exactly is that supposed to mean for our society?

That if you wind up with more women as home makers and elementary school teachers you don't try to change it?

Well, in the end you can embrace the rules and options as provided and find a way to make them work for you and your local players. Or you can take a defeatist attitude, pine against them, make excuses for every possible solution others provide, and generally be a "negative Nancy." In the end, the Choice is *yours*.

Bootstrap levitation is pap, not a solution.

It's nearly impossible to have a campaign without sexuality in it, unless no one's married, no one's in love, no one's flirty, no one mentions that anyone's attractive, and no one has kids or parents.

Highschool had a lot of campaigns like that. Players learn early on that connections are only fodder for the DM to use against you to lure you into a deathtrap!

Only if you let them be.

There are only so many places you can ask to plop down a bunch of geeks on a regular basis. Some areas don't have the same people per square mile to work from.

No offense, but in most cases these are just excuses levied by those that have determined their level of time investment is adequate and won't or (more likely) can't commit more time to the hobby.

Mild offense taken.

Not everyone has time for another part time job. (I'm not one of these people but I've heard of them). And not everyone thinks it's worth it to play a game.

Some people live out in the boonies.

But, that does not mean others cannot pick up the reins. Local areas are only as successful (or not) as their local players want to be.

And if they fail it MUST be because they didn't want it enough? No other circumstances play into it?

Perhaps, but I'm guessing the number of players who are going to experience a catastrophic disaster in their area are very few and far between.

I think its going to be enough for people to rationally worry about "will it happen to me."

Then he asks for high tier and doesn't get it most of the time but will probably get it sometime

Absoluely not. It doesn't work like that. "Hey, three of you, dust off your high level character" is something that an individual should be able to manage with bribery equal to or less than a pizza. Asking people to stop playing their characters and start over in a completely new campaign for a few months takes a LOT more pull and may not ever actually happen.

The problem is when people try to assert that -- supposedly -- women are naturally 'more nurturing' therefore women should always be the caregivers for children in a marriage.

Very much so. A trend does not necessarily apply to every individual and some people WILL argue that.

But on the other hand ignoring the trend completely can be almost as bad.

What exactly is the point?

To understand reality.

If you want to do something you have to understand what the rules are. If you try to build a social policy on an idea that isn't true then it's less likely to work.

Is the fact that we're dimorphic mean that we're on a rubbish goose chase when it comes to the idea that women shouldn't be marginalized because they're women? That they should simply shut up and go back to the kitchen?

If you want A woman CEO or A woman soldier than no. There is nothing in a biological trend that is deterministic for all 7 billion humans.

If you want to try to make everything 50 50 then you may need running shoes and a wildlife permit.

Going from one to the other is a fallacy of composition.

Note: Chimps aren't cute and cuddly. In fact get one of them angry enough, and you'll find that he just might tear your bloody arm off.

Evolution is trying to kill you :)

I always thought the reason that Humans were supposed to be special was among other things our behavior isn't solely determined by our genes.

Perhaps we're not as special as we'd like to think.

[

Balderdash. You do not have to be a Venture-Officer to organize games.

I know. "Organize" would be an overly generous description for what we do at the comic shop but we get it done :)

If there isn't enough CORE, organize more. If there isn't enough non-CORE, organize more. Simple, and I'm sure that 99% of the VOs out there would appreciate more organizers/coordinators.

Venues, table time/space and players can be a finite resource.

Besides, its always been about what is in the best interest of the region, not an individual player.

Which could be very bad for that individual player.

What if he prefers high-tier and the local organizers/players prefer low-tier.

Then he asks for high tier and doesn't get it most of the time but will probably get it sometime because high and low tiers are compatible. (Ones kind of required for the other). The Core and Classic systems are not.

OR maybe he likes the epic nature of adventure paths, but no one else wants to play them.

You can drift in an out of an adventure path.

It's just another bullet in the arsenal of organizers to try and muster up more options for players. The more options their are, the more players we can appease. Will everyone get everything they want every time? Of course not,

but there is waaay too much "the sky is falling" regarding CORE and AFAIK we haven't even had a single event occur yet.

Nah. We get almost as much the sky is falling when they announce a new class being introduced. I don't think the SKY is falling per say but I think some individuals are gonna get clonked on the head with a meteoroid.

I'm sorry, but I had to vent a bit. Relax Undone, it'll be okay. As I said in the other thread, CORE is going to be a great option for some regions. Let them use it to improve their game. If it doesn't work for you or your area, then just don't use it. Its no different than past complaints. Don't like gunslinger? Don't play one. Don't like modules? Don't play them. Don't like conventions? Don't go. Easy-peasy. There are compromises and solutions to be had so everyone can fun :-D

this is why he shouldbe panicking. Or well.. at least worried.

He is not a venture officer. He does not control a region. There is every possibility that "his region" will go with an option that "his region" wants but that he doesn't like. There is every possibility that his region is not large enough to support both PFS Core and PFS Classic.

I don't know about any of that (could bump the post where I say that sociobiology is out of my expertise)

Its not that hard. Or rather its so soft of a "science"? Discipline? that its hard to be conclusively wrong.

The fact is that we are a product of evolution.
We are a sexually dimorphic species.
Behavior is just as evolved as anything else.

Different sexes* have different optimal behaviors for spreading their genes. I don't think its a coincidence that these are the behaviors that tend to show up a lot in a lot of different societies.

AH, that's nice. my FAQ-fu is weak, and that's totally ok (i just wanted to know where that was stated). the shield thing was what's really had me scratching my head, both where the -2 to attacks (not counting TWF) is coming from, and how "You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield" doesn't get rid of penalties for being prone, TWF, power attack, or anything that's specifically called a penalty.

I don't know how it works if a VC and a DM disagree on an obscure rule. We're an autonomous collective down here.

But your VC is right. Your VC is very, very right on both accounts. One was explicitly spelled out as an FAQ , the other is closing an obvious loophole in a badly worded ability according to the clear intent of the rules. If you try to ride the bleeding edge of rules interpretation expect to get nicked on occasion.

The feat does not do nothing. If your shield is LIGHT With two weapon fighting you would have a -2 -2 on your attacks. Or -2 with your weapon and -0 with your shield. If your shield is not light it would be -4 -4 without the feat and -4 -0 with it. That's the penalty its talking about.

So step 1: Get thee to the rules forum and get your ducks in a row.

A stately maid reminding them to wipe their feet before offering them tea and cookies

a ten year old in a too big helmet claiming to be the last surviving adventurer that came through here.

A dragon with his hoard in enron stock

a goldfish in a bucket on a pedestal.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

It does. If its important i just assume they drop it while fleeing for their lives.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

It doesn't seem terribly realistic for someone to "drop" a belt while fleeing, for example. Unless your combats look very different from mine, of course. ;-)

The Fabulous Fabrizio is no longer allowed to cast charm person and have a +23 diplomacy....