|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bladesinger wrote: 1. Are you familiar with the American Electoral Process for President of the United States? I know that candidates from the two parties must win their primaries before they can face off against the other party's primary winner. I am not so sure if all third parties also have primaries. I believe at least some of them do. Bladesinger wrote: 2. Do you know what the Electoral College is? Vaguely. I know they are the ones that actually determine the President. I am not sure how they are selected. Bladesinger wrote: 3. Do you know what the term Popular Vote is? Yes. Bladesinger wrote: 4. Have you ever voted in a Presidential election? Yes, I believe I have participated in four presidential elections. Bladesinger wrote: 5. Do you feel your vote mattered? Only if my candidate won. :) Bladesinger wrote: 6. Do you think the Electoral process is a fair one? When I was younger I did. I am not so sure any more. I have read up on some other methods and I think there may be better ideas out there. Right now, I am intrigued by the run off election ideas (Like what Egypt is using as an example). I think it could help, although not eliminate, problems with third party candidates 'harming' one of the two primary parties. Do they really need to win back all the Pathfinder fans? Or do they just need to win over more people than are currently buying the supplements WotC is putting out now? I think they are trying to be everything to everyone which is doomed to failure. However, even as a D&D hater, I am curious to see what they do. If you keep doing what you are doing, you will continue getting what you are getting. LazarX wrote: What you're talking about is called "Reskinning" and it's the kind of thing that sticks in my craw. …and you are certainly entitled to your preference. LazarX wrote: A scythe is simply NOT a greatsword, the greatsword works the way it does because it has the FORM and mass distribution which is nowhere near that of a scythe. …and armor does not make you more difficult to hit. It absorbs kinetic energy. So you already accept abstracting real world physics. You do not like it and that is fine, but the concept is not far off in left field. Some games do make all weapons do the same damage. I like that players do not take up a lot of time pouring over the rules looking for that perfect implement of destruction and just pick something that works well for their concept. Play's cancellation 'right thing to do,' Dewhurst says I was not aware of this when it went down, back in March 2010. Was this a matter of Free Speech or does the State have a right to tell universities what they can and can not do with State funds? If they do have that right, should they use it in this manner? I am rather conflicted. Something tells me Dewhurst would not have made a peep if the play had mocked Islam, Judaism or any other religion for that matter. So I can not help but think this smells a bit of suppression. Are there any Hindus on the board? I have not done much research on Hinduism and what little I have done has only confused me. I have at least two co-workers who are Hindu, but we have not had many opportunities for lengthy discussions. One we did have was rather enlightening. She said that she believed the many gods of Hinduism were simply the many aspects of the cosmos. Therefore, in her interpretation at least, Hinduism is not really polytheism. I am very curious if this belief is held by many/most Hindus. Since the Christian vs. Atheists posting has seemed to quiet down a bit for now, I would love to discuss Hinduism with real, live Hindus providing they are willing. Also, run on sentences: fun and profit or the Devil's work? Knight Magenta wrote:
Point. Kolokotroni wrote: This isnt a story problem or a mechanical problem, its a play style problem. This. Anything else starts to drift into passive aggressive territory. "Play my way or I will penalize you!" If you talk to your players and explain that this is creating a problem for you, then you can open a discussion on why they are doing it. From there, all of you can work on a solution that everyone is happy with instead of trying to kick them back into your own particular sandbox when they get 'out of line'. To the OP, I believe you would need to clarify with your player what exactly the character believes. Gods exist. I refuse to worship any of them.
magnuskn wrote: The guy already is talking about doing 100 points per swing against undead opponents as soon as level 12 rolls around. magnuskn wrote: The dude playing him already has a victim complex, because his character died once already ( and it happened two other times in the last AP )… magnuskn wrote: I seldomly use those tactics ( especially because I'll have to suffer through the player whinging about it for years ), but I'd rather save the campaign than indulge one players wish for being overpowered. You killed his character three times and are surprised he wants to build a more powerful character? What did you expect him to do? Have you talked to him about expectations? I think you are being somewhat unfair to accuse him of being 'whiny'. I would be frustrated too. As Doug Obrien suggested, I would discuss this with your players first. Without their buy-in, any effort you make is likely doomed to fail. We all game for our own reasons. I believe an important point for you to communicate is that in order for your enjoyment, you want them to roleplay more. If they choose to ignore your desires they risk the campaign collapsing and/or loosing a GM. This should not be used as a strong-arm tactic ("Do it my way or else."). Simply as a means of everyone agreeing to find some common ground. Samnell wrote: Can I turn this one around a little bit? Say a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound? This question always frustrated me. Of course it makes a sound. But now…some 25 years later…I am coming at this from a different perspective. I do not imagine the universe changes whether I believe in it or not. What I am considering, is that the universe exists for me only as I perceive it. Let us say for the sake of argument that the universe does exists. If I am unable to perceive it in any way, does it matter to me whether or not it exists? I will be honest that I did not understand everything in the article you linked. I think the general gist is that physics continue to function exactly the same way whether we understand them or believe them. But our understanding of them is based on our perception. If you have no measurement for length, how do you explain length? It still exists. It still functions exactly the same. But how do you perceive it? Andrew Tuttle wrote: I think I see it too. So you may be right, CourtFool. :D I think this is a trap. :) You claim to see it to, which should lead 'credence' to its existence. However, only because I perceive that you agree with me. My universe still depends upon my own perception. Hill Giant wrote: Both exist and both are equally important. This is an aspect I am growing an appreciation for: moderation. I have a tendency to flip-flop between extremes. I try to make things black and white, but they are not. Thanks, HG. Hero System has a variety of maneuvers available to everyone with additional maneuvers accessed through Martial Arts. In addition, something many miss at first glance is the Powers allow you to build your own maneuvers similar to D&D 4e. I built an entire Martial Art style for using an umbrella using the Powers. I just wanted to share… Everything is mind-made. I have nothing further to say on the quote at the moment because my own reasoning has found no means of disproving it and I am still considering the implications. The universe may well exists outside of our perception, but there is no way for us to know that beyond the use of our own perception. And our perception is slave to our mind. Therefore, it seems to me that the universe is indeed mind-made. I think, therefore the universe exists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
