|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm scared of introducing my own hooks, NPCs and encounters beause I fear of introducing elements that will not fit into the logic of the main plot line. My players are quite an intelligent bunch and pick up on plot holes very easily. I tried to explain them to be a little gentle because I am a beginner as well, but I'm still a bit reluctant and this might reduce my creativity..
Take it in steps to build up your confidence. Accept you're going to make mistakes - the alternative is not trying.You can start simply with one off random encounters unrelated to the plot, for example random encounters with monsters when travelling A to B or perhaps an opportunistic pickpocket.
Don't plan on the PCs taking certain actions - they quite likely won't. Figure out what the NPCs are trying to achieve, and how, and if it turns out it wouldn't work, then they overlooked that.
By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...
I can't find any links for you, but assuming more open attitudes correlates with use of contraceptives, then a major advantage is a reduction of maternal mortality in childbirth.
Basically, the more pregnancies a woman has already had (and probably the closer they are together) the higher the risks of a fatality during pregnancy and birth.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
If you wouldn't mind, what terminology do you prefer ?
(With regards before, during and after the various - staging posts? milestones? steps?)
NPC Dave wrote:
Except babies under about a year or so. And you can't explain to them how badly you need sleep either :)
Between scenarios, I've started to keep a log, or maybe timeline of NPCs, what they're doing, how (if at all) the PCs' actions have affected them and how they'll likely react. If a nameless NPC has escaped, I'll decide whether they flee, find another line of work, bear a grudge or whatever. That way, sometimes familiar faces can appear again.
I imagine Pharasma would disapprove strongly. And she's a goddess and very powerful.
Edit: I would think Pharasmins would also run reliable orphanages and reliable adoption services. And all rather pragmatic, since Pharasma is Neutral.
My first mat was a sheet of A3 paper that I drew a grid on.
Next useful thing - index cards or NPC sheets for each creature I'll use. (NPC sheets a free download and printed off at home).
Christianity varies pretty widely in how you look at it, really. Parts of it do "Unless you lead a PERFECT life, you need God's forgiveness to get into Heaven when you die", while others dispense with that and phrase it as "you're tainted with Original Sin (tm) because a woman who did not have The Knowledge (tm) chose to eat an apple a few thousand years ago, and because of this it doesn't matter how well you live your life, you're going to Hell unless you beg forgiveness to God and he chooses to grant it". Some even try "You're either going to Heaven or to Hell, because it's in God's plan and nothing you do can change where you end up". Other variations of the same theme exist.
Probably according to strict scripture, yes. To be fair, the Christians I have met here in the UK seem a lot less strict. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses who came to the door Friday.I think I'm viewed more as a lost sheep out on the hills somewhere that's going to get eaten by wolves or something, and I'd be much happier and safer as part of the flock. Problem is, I'm not a flock animal and I'm not prepared to let the shepherd dictate my life.
Maybe it does have.
Organised religions tend to be 'the whole package'. I'm sure there are people with their own personal composite ideas (are they still called out as heretics?)
Pretty sure Christianity is 'You get one shot and you will screw up, so pray sincerely to Jesus and you'll be let off'. I don't think it compatible with reincarnation.
I don't want to get into specifics about religions as it tends to upset believers in the religions.
Because there are lots of things I can prove, and lots of things I can disprove. Just not everything.
For example, (hopefully somewhat on topic) if 5 different religions claim to be 'the one true way', at least 4 of them must be wrong.
An exaggeration, but I suppose I don't, no. Life's full of uncertainty. Much of life revolves around other people, and I can't prove anything about them at all. Over the internet and depending on the web page I can't even be certain I'm communicating with a real person.
Maths (and science) is a tool. You choose the tool appropriate to the problem. Newton's Laws of Gravity are accurate enough for plotting the ball playing table tennis and for launching satellites. Einstein's theory is a better model for very high speeds or very high gravitational fields.
But that's the easy stuff. You can propose theories and set up experiments and test things. My daughter's doing a Psychology A-level, with for example, different theories of child development, none of which explain all the case studies, so none of them are 'true'.
So, yes, there are lots of things that may or may not be true and that I can't hope to prove, and I'm fine with that.
The phrase used in English law is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
'Highly improbable therefore proved false beyond reasonable doubt'
is fine (at least in my opinion).
'Highly improbable therefore proved false' is faulty logic, and using faulty logic hurts your argument.
In what sense our you saying maths isn't always right? The hypotheses don't always match the real world terribly well, but the conclusions drawn from them tend to be tested thoroughly.
I should have stayed out of this thread. I only posted anything because I have strong views on what constitutes a proof. And I'm too tired to put together a proper response (it's 10.40pm here and it's been a long day).
Moving away from the existence of God, it matters whether things are true or whether they're true 99 times in a hundred, or 999 in a thousand, because sometimes the 1/100 or 1/1000 event happens.
Could you run the whole thing past me again? Because now I have no idea what either of us are saying. Or think we're saying. I'm now horribly confused.
Can we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.
I didn't say maths is better, nor that nothing else is 100% accurate. And you're right, it proves theorems from hypotheses, so only reflects reality as closely as the hypotheses do (so sometimes, not very). But it does underpin all our science, so definitely has its uses.
Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
Pretty far-fetched, true, evidence strongly suggesting non-existance, true, proven not to exist, false.
Do yetis exist? I don't know for sure, and neither does anybody else. Nobody has ever produced a yeti so there's no proof they do, but equally, there's no categorical proof that they don't. The regions they're believed to live are so remote that it's a possibility even if a very small one. There are (regrettably few) animals that have been believed extinct until living examples were found, like the coelacanth.
Self-medicating with harmless, well known medicine is not the same as doing drugs. It never will be. When I feel sick, have a fever, I will pop an aspirine, take a cup of hot mint tea and go to bed. But I will not take meth.
In the UK, I legally buy paracetomol+codeine tablets over the counter, for for my son's migraine headaches. They are clearly labelled addictive, and we avoid using them unless necessary. I wouldn't describe them as harmless.
So. with regards the video games, do you play them any way and tune out the accents, (does it work), or do you avoid them?
My sincerest apologies to you on behalf of the movie makers and video game makers.
James Jacobs wrote:
Sometimes, circumstances dictate :) I never planned on watching Les Miserables, but watching my daughter in the chorus of her school production was kind of compulsory :) And it was briliant (seriously - at least 2 soloists won scholarships to music colleges).
I like to keep an open mind.
I don't. We've had storm after storm after storm for weeks. My sense of humour's growing mildew. My whole brain's growing mildew.(Mustn't...rant...about...rain...Mustn't...rant...about...rain...Mus tn't...rant...about...
It's currently suspended over the UK.
James Jacobs wrote:
Have you seen Tim Burtons's Sweeney Todd (which I don't think has any choreographed dancing)?
Everyone is failing to see the point that chaos is inherently anti-lawful. Some one who's chaotic plays by their own rules and does only what benefits them, nothing else.
Them and theirs, I would think. Things that benefit their families and friends. Which would work ok for a small enough group/clan/tribe.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Could be Tamdhu, which is very nice. I'm partial to Jura as well. But I live in Britain, and don't know what's easily available in other countries.
An aside, I know, but does a flesh golem that becomes self aware gain a soul?
My father read it to me as a bedtime story. In fact he also read it to my older sister (6 years older) as a bedtime story, so I probably first heard it before I was born.
I very much enjoyed returning to it to read it to my own children. For which it is very good, partly because the chapters are quite episodic, so very readable a chapter at a time over successive nights.
Well, so far they don't seem to have escaped that risk very well.
I think they have in the UK at least. David Tennant and Christopher Eccleston have been in a lot of British TV, and you don't think "Oh, it's Dr Who" when you see them. David Tennant's doing a lot of stage work too. (Eccleston might be as well, haven't heard.)
Did the Baker St Irregulars do any more than gather information for him? (I suppose sometimes 'acquiring' items.)
I'm hoping the upcoming strategy guide will help with this:
How does sneak attack work? That belongs in the Core Rulebook. But if you're a rogue with sneak attack, how do you take advantage of it? What do you consider when deciding where to move, and whom to attack? That belongs in the Strategy Guide.
Bran Unden wrote:
Well, no, I think. At least not in the original stories: he used cocaine in between cases to stave off incredible boredom. He smoked tobacco (a 3 pipe problem) during cases.