Kalshane, FWIW, I loved Man of Steel -- and to me, there was little but messages of hope and heroism and overcoming great odds; I left the theater with a big grin on my face. (The one exception WAS one of the Pa Kent scenes, which seemed very contrived, but it didn't ruin the whole movie for me.) I just do NOT see the bleakness others have read into it, just as they absolutely cannot see the joy I got out of it. Sadly somehow I doubt neither camp will ever see the other's POV. I think it's very much the kind of film that individuals' mileage with it varies very widely, everybody's take home is a little bit different. Ergo, I strongly recommend seeing it for yourself -- you may find you dislike it, but you may also find yourself enjoying it, and either way, it's the kind of thing that if you want to have an opinion on it, you absolutely need to form it based on your having experienced watching the movie yourself.
Anyway, I am not concerned with the writers of Man of Steel writing a heartless Wonder Woman based on Man of Steel.
I do however expect them to screw up Wonder Woman because it's Warner Brothers, and because it's Hollywood.
I think overall the first season was strong, although for some reason, I didn't quite dig the mid-season "finale" as much as I liked prior episodes.
Spoilers and Speculation:
I was certain Slade was alive somewhere, but it was interesting to see him revealed as the mover and shaker behind the current bad guy plot. I also like that his goal isn't simply to kill Ollie, he has a more complex vendetta.
Blood seems comparatively a cardboard villain, and it feels very cliched that he is trying to woo Laurel. Also, seriously, Laurel, WTF? Mind, I liked the way Laurel was written this episode otherwise -- she was competent, she was approached by the younger crew for help, she responded usefully. She also got introduced to Sin now, which puts her a step closer to Sara. Honestly, I think many of Laurel's best moments have been with Thea and other characters who are not Ollie (or Tommy) so if they tie her more to Team Speedy, that can only be a good thing.
Speaking of, I love Team Speedy. I love the way Thea and Roy and now Sin are becoming their own little Bloodhound Gang. It is feeling very natural and while Roy in particular does some dumb stuff (Sin should be going with him at least, she can fight) it is interesting to see where they are going to go with that group -- and if or when Ollie will reveal his secret to them and they become a larger team.
I felt the way Arrow's identity was revealed to Barry was ridiculously contrived. I dig that Felicity was trying to keep Oliver being revealed to the general public, but the whole "let's get the CSI assistant to save his life" just felt really really forced. That said, once they got past that ridiculous plot awkwardness, I like how things developed with the characters involved.
They are now doing the rest of Barry's story in his own pilot. I am glad for both Arrow's sake and the sake of a chance for a Flash show -- it means Arrow gets to develop its own characters and Flash isn't clinging to Arrow's coattails.
- Theory: so, this was "Three Ghosts" and it took place during Christmas. They were not anvilicious with the reference but if you want to draw a Christmas Carol parallel... Shado would be the Ghost of Christmas Past, Slade the Ghost of Christmas Present, and Tommy the Ghost of Christmas Future. Shado reveals the fears and doubts that have held Ollie back in the past. Slade makes him face his present guilt and doubt (plus a double "present"--he is actually alive in the present). Tommy gives him hope, shows him the future can be better if he tries.
- So this particle accelerator explosion appears to spread across much of Central City. Dinah Drake Lance lives in Central City. Alex Kingston is apparently filming with the Arrow crew again. I wonder if something happens to her or at least Laurel or Quentin or even Sara checks up on her and that's how she gets involved. I hope that her presence also means the Black Canary plotline will also develop further, and moreover that she will get a real part that doesn't feel like half of it ended up on the cutting room floor (there are some good deleted scenes on the DVD of season 1) -- otherwise it will be Waste of Alex Kingston's Talents Part II.
- I am certain Merlyn did not just show up to be scared away by Moira threatening to sic Ra's al Ghul on his butt. Moira also now has a contact with the League of Assassins. This could go in all kinds of interesting directions. Right now I wonder at a team up, eventually, of Deathstroke and Merlyn.
Just some straight up suggestions to try:
Give the Hunter 6+Int skill points. This would make the skill bonuses granted by Animal Focus real bonuses rather than an ability to shore up weaknesses/turn mediocre into decent.
Give the Hunter hunter's tricks, confusingly, the class feature of the ranger skirmisher archetype. I am not sure off the top of my head at what rate, but every few levels, they get a new trick. Straight up, just add it as a class skill.
Give the hunter unique Handle Animal tricks they can teach their animal companion (compare to, for example, the tricks the ranger falconer archetype can teach his animal companion).
Give the Hunter the Improved Animal Empathy ability that the ranger Beast Master archetype has. Given how much the devs seem to want the animal companion to be the main point of the class, it doesn't make sense that the hunter doesn't have it.
The Hunter lacks both focused theme and versatility; I think the above would help and would not overpower the class, given comparatively currently both the druid and ranger are still better at what the hunter does for the most part, especially with the archetypes available to them (if I want to play someone who isn't a full caster with a strong animal companion theme, I'd rather play a ranger-beast master). Some minor skill/attribute buffs to the animal companion don't make up for it.
I also agree with the suggestions to make the hunter a spontaneous caster. It would also help it defy the "why wouldn't I just play a ranger or druid" argument which still beats the hunter most of the time.
Christina Stiles wrote:
I hope some ladies are starting to consider entering the upcoming Superstar contest!
Welp, I ain't no "lady" so I guess that counts me out. *burps, scratches self, adjusts bra*
Some women did enter last year; they identified themselves as such after the round was over. None of them made it into the top 32 (though I believe several were in the unofficial top 100). I'll be interested to see if anyone does this year.
You are in fact proof that women can both enter and win. I think that speaks volumes more than anything anyone can say in this thread.
Judy Bauer wrote:
This! Don't talk yourself out of trying because you aren't confident of your rules-foo, or are newer to gaming than others in your group, or whatever—give it a go! You'll learn so much just by wrestling with the challenge, picking apart examples, and getting constructive, impersonal feedback. As Christina says: Butt in chair! And good luck!
I don't think you meant to do this, but this manages to imply all women are new to gaming. Which is not true. It also seems to imply that women who are new gamers will talk themselves out of entering when a man who is a new gamer will not, which in turn presumes a lack of confidence defined solely by gender.
Tho, personally, for anyone new to gaming regardless of gender, I have trouble seeing how one would want to enter a contest that lands them a gig writing games, when they're still only learning gaming.
If you want to encourage new gamers to enter, a more newbie friendly contest would be in order, not something that lands you a commitment and a contract, especially as you do become pressured to perfect your rules fu VERY quickly on the commitment you have made.
This is something that's often bugged me about Superstar, even the Paizo staff talk about it like it's just some fun little contest that everyone should try, but then they turn around and remind everyone it's serious business and is in effect a job interview. There's not a prize at the end, there's a contract. A much coveted one, but something you have to be seriously sure you can commit to and once before you get involved. I wish Superstar was discussed more consistently as to what kind of gamers/writers (gender aside) were desired.
Jaimie Alexander? She plays Sif in the Thor movies--and looks pretty badass doing it. If you don't think she cuts it, you've got some crazy high standards.
If you were talking about Gal Gadot, I think you copied the wrong quote then...
Kalshane, your speculation is certainly worrisome, even if entirely speculation.
wicked cool wrote:
ESO is not made directly by Bethesda.
Let's pause a moment to make a clarification.
There is ZeniMax Media. It owns all of the things, and is run by Wonder Woman's husband.
Amongst many of the things ZeniMax Media owns, is Bethesda Softworks, a game PUBLISHER.
Bethesda Softworks in turn owns Bethesda Game Studios, a game DEVELOPER.
ZeniMax Media also owns ZeniMax Online Studios, another game DEVELOPER.
PUBLISHERS bankroll, advertise, and run QA for video games. PUBLISHERS hire DEVELOPERS to do the actual work on the software for video games. Bethesda Softworks, a PUBLISHER, often hires its own in house Bethesda Game Studios to do game development, but it also hires other developers for other projects; for example, it hired Obsidian to develop Fallout: New Vegas. However, Bethesda Softworks, being the PUBLISHER, was still in charge of things like time table, QA, and marketing.
Bethesda Softworks, a PUBLISHER, is publishing the Elder Scrolls Online. They have hired ZeniMax Online Studios, one of their parent company's many software studios, to do the development. But because Bethesda Softworks is the PUBLISHER, they are in charge of marketing the Elder Scrolls Online. That is the big thing they are focusing on right now.
Bethesda Softworks, a PUBLISHER, owns the rights to the Fallout IP. Anything advertised, marketed, etc. related to Fallout, must be marketed by Bethesda Softworks.
Hence, Bethesda, by which I mean Bethesda Softworks the software PUBLISHER, is clearly focusing on the ESO marketing rather than Fallout right now, which is its job as PUBLISHER. Even if ZeniMax Online makes announcements about ESO directly, they have to be sure their PUBLISHER, Bethesda, is okay with it first. Likewise, whoever is developing Fallout 4, if anyone is developing it at all, would have to clear it with the PUBLISHER, Bethesda Softworks.
But you want them to announce something about Fallout 4, when it is very likely premature, when you believe them to already be unreliable? Curious.
wicked cool wrote:
The thing is -- first, they've been focusing on Elder Scrolls Online, and doing a good job with its marketing. It's not a game I am personally interested in, but they are doing a good job with sharing information about it. For example, their blog has an update on ESO today.
Bethesda communicates with fans. They communicate with fans frequently. Because they are not communicating about a game they may or may not be making or at least not focusing on heavily at the moment doesn't mean they are not communicating with fans, it just means they are communicating with them about stuff which they actually have something to share about. They are just communicating the material they feel is worth sharing.
Secondly: THEY MAY HAVE NOTHING TO ANNOUNCE. The presumption that they have all this amazing information to share and are just holding back on it for the sake of their being either idiots or mean meanieheads, I'm sorry, is just ridiculous. The only thing I've heard about F4 is that if it's in development at all, it's EARLY in development, and an early development video game may look dramatically different from the final product. They'd be idiots to share anything about it at this time because anything they'd suggest, however small, would be taken as "promises" by the self-entitled douchebag portion of the fandom and then if they changed whatever it is they announced, no matter how good a reason. Or alternately, something like graphics may be in an early design form, but that will not stop people from complaining, "the graphics are terrible" or some such and denounce the game before they ever see what it's really going to be like. Announcing anything would put them in a no-win situation at the moment, and they're smart to keep their mouths shut.
The ONLY thing they shouldn't have kept their mouths shut on was making it absolutely clear that someone fraudulently pretending to be them was not actually them.
Possibly, but mostly to give him etheric beam locators.
Or the universe may simply decide it cannot be without the Doctor, and the cosmic forces of the universe themselves lets him regenerate beyond his allotted amount.
The only "drawback" is he becomes Joanna Lumley, which of course isn't a drawback at all. :)
(<pedant>Also, it was the Master who was offered a new lifecyle of regenerations in the "Five Doctors"</pedant> :) )
Also, the thing about "Handy" is he's only got one heart and likely other limited capabilities. In fact I think the whole reason he can settle down with Rose is that he's only got one life to live.
But yes, if the Doctor needs to regenerate again, the show will find a way. Not really going to worry about it until it happens.
I've begun playing a version 1 hunter in a playtest, and there's changes I don't see in the revision that I would like to see, that I think would both help the hunter in its own role AND make it stand out aside from ranger and druid:
Bonuses to handling animals, and possibly to Wild Empathy.
Druids, rangers, and now hunters have all always suffered from one issue--Handle Animal and Wild Empathy rely on Charisma.
However, Charisma is seldom a stat druids, rangers, and hunters can afford to train. They all need Wisdom for spells, Perception, and Survival, and they need fairly decent physical stats for combat and to support other skills. Hunters in particular also get abilities that boost skills, but with relatively few skill points, they also need a decent Intelligence or else their Animal Aspect skill boosts merely serve to shore up a weakness rather than become a strength. Indeed, I'd say even over Druids and Rangers, Hunters are even more MAD.
But yet, their key flavorful trait (of what little unique flavor they have) is that of being a sort of beast master. They should be with their animal companions what cavaliers are with their mounts. But they gain little in the way of boosting their ability to handle their own companion let alone others. My 5th level hunter still managed to fail a DC 10 Handle Animal check on her companion, which doesn't seem right somehow (I rolled a 1, mind, but still). And I wouldn't even bother trying to use Wild Empathy -- I wanted Dex for ranged attacks, Str so she could carry things and use a mighty bow, Int so she could have skills since it seems like "hunters" should good at stuff like, say, hunting, and Wis so she could cast spells (especially with the spell DC issue, see below). I could dump Cha or Con, and I won't die if I dump Cha, so Cha went. (Note most of these ability scores are only mildly above average, save Wis and Dex.)
The other problem I am already noticing with the version 1 hunter that also remains in version 2: because it uses a full caster's spell list, but said spell list advances at a slowed rate, its highest level spells have relatively lower DCs than they really should be for a character of their level. Even just the option to take the occasional Spell Focus as a bonus feat would help with this.
I think the revision is a step in the right direction but there's some fundamental issues that haven't yet been addressed. Right now, you're still better off choosing casting and being a druid or fighting and being a ranger, for the tradeoffs are far more reasonable. Especially since as a druid I can have an animal companion AND be less MAD and summon more animals with summon nature's ally AND full cast AND fight via my shapeshifting, which gives me far more than animal focus, even if I don't get it till later.
The hoaxer explains why he did it and how he stopped after a 'chat' with Bethesda. It also cost him almost $1,000, which seems a little extreme.
So he spent nearly $1,000 in hopes it would "force" Bethesda to leak a tidbit about a $50 game.
He seems like simultaneously a genius and an utter idiot. He's also lucky Bethesda didn't sue, or he'd be out considerably more than $990.
I've also seen people responding to Bethesda's Twitter saying tripe along the lines of "you owe us F4 information now" because of all this.
This is ridiculous. Bethesda "owes" no one anything due to the actions of a manipulative lunatic unassociated with them.
There is this ridiculous sentiment of self-entitlement amongst gamers in particular that really drives me bonkers and actually makes me feel ashamed to be a gamer (as much as I love my hobby itself). I expect to get what I pay for when I buy a game. Nothing more. I do not expect software developers to bow to my every whim just because I happened to grace them with the glorious presence of my fandom.
Would I like to hear news about Fallout 4? Sure. Do I really care that much? No. In fact, I tend to feel frustrated about some in advance information because then all it does is make me think about a game I can't play yet. I am also a firm believer in game companies not announcing anything until they're damn well ready and beyond, because nothing is worse than promising something and then not being able to deliver (software development in particular can be a rather rocky path, so you don't want to announce it until you're sure it's going to come out). Premature announcements tend to lead only to disappointments, and then, especially because of so many gamers on the Internet being self-entitled douchebags with nothing to do apparently other than whine on the Internet, leads to extra buckets of unnecessary nerdrage raining down upon the fandom.
And with that, my own nerdrage induced rant is finished.
If you are only asking people on gamer forums to take surveys, you are probably going to skew even more male than you otherwise would. While things have gotten better, many women avoid gamer forums in order to avoid abuse or ostracism.
Asking about gamer group content is a good idea.
I will also note that some of the threads I see aren't "the players aren't having fun" it's either "the players don't like my choice" or "I don't like some other player's choice." If the "choice" has to do with someone getting screwed over or someone needing a gentle lesson in tactics, that's an issue that people need to chat with the person about. If the choice is "this person is playing something I don't like but actually it has no bearing on the game except for the fact that I choose to waste my emotional energy judging them" then yeah, it the person doing the judging needs to be advised to chill.
Really, everything as always boils down to:
1. Everyone should be having fun. If one person is having fun, however, at someone else's expense, they're a douchebag and should GTFO.
2. If the non-fun issue is more to do with a difference in play styles, then it's time to chat about splitting up the group into people whose playstyles mesh.
3. If in doubt, talk to everybody in game and value the power of open communication in group far more than the advice of any random stranger on the Internet.
No, I don't think there are too many, but I really like planes-based settings and like interacting with a variety of creatures from the different aligned planes. The aligned planes represent an infinite variety of concepts of philosophies and ways of living and aspects of how we interact with nature, so having lots of creatures to flesh that all out is great.
I DO think there are ENOUGH evil outsiders at this point and really hope we don't see any more.
I wish there are more Lawful Neutral and Good creatures, and I wish there were more Chaotic Neutral creatures (beings of pure passion or madness for example).
Note with your list -- Angels are technically "any good." IIRC the ones listed in the Bestiary are both NG and LG, and any given one could potentially be CG. And actually, I'd love to see more "any x" creatures like angels (i.e., any evil, any chaotic, any neutral, any lawful).
I like Morena Baccarin, but for whatever reason, the idea of her as Wonder Woman never clicked with me. Just a gut reaction. She can be warm and she can be tough but there just wasn't the right... it... there.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Okay. That's what I get for noting something off a comment board without double checking facts.
Still if she was a fitness instructor, she probably knows how to prepare for the part.
Skinny does not automatically mean weak...
No, but "Amazonian" generally indicates "tall and muscular."
For me, it's the same thing if somebody cast a skinny, non muscular guy to play Superman. And for once I think we'd actually be hearing similar objections. In a weird, sad way, it's actually cool in a way to hear someone complaining a woman doesn't look powerful enough (rather than thin enough or gorgeous enough.
MIND I THINK SHE MAY BE FINE FOR THE PART. Let's see what happens.
(Secretly, I'm just nursing bitterness that Jaimie Alexander wasn't cast.)
My thought is... despite the design team's uncertainty, if the design team continues to say they are alternate classes and that thus you cannot multiclass with their component classes.... that means that brawler should be considered a monk for all qualifying purposes and Feral Combat Training should work. (Just like ninja and samurai can take appropriate rogue and cavalier things.) This means you also don't need explicit rules saying "x qualifies for x feat as x." Saving space.
If the classes are no longer considered alternate classes, they should be allowed to multiclass with their "component" classes (just like a magus can, if it wants to, multiclass with a wizard or fighter). But if this is the case, they need to repeatedly, clearly, and succinctly, not what, if any, abilities they qualify for as any other class.
Either way, they need to make a hard call about this one way or another or it is going to REALLY add to a lot of confusion.
If it becomes the latter, then it's just a matter of clearing up the issue of a feat existing prior to a class's existence.
For what it's worth, as a GM, I would allow a Brawler with means of getting claws to take Feral Combat Training. The intent of the feat seems to be to allow someone with flurry of blows, an ability which normally prohibits use of natural weapons, to use natural weapons with that ability. Reword the feat "anyone with the flurry of blows class ability" and it's fixed (just like many feats which reference class abilities just reference, say, "anyone with a companion" or "anyone with channel energy" rather than say "any cleric with channel energy").
Alex Martin wrote:
It's a little off-putting that Bethesda waited about three weeks to officially deny it wasn't real either. Their excuse being "we didn't want to do anything until people started taking it seriously" could have been better done.
That's the part that really puzzles me. How hard is it to say, "No, that isn't us?" And leave it at that?
we avoid responding to rumors and speculation, but did wanted to respond once people took it more seriously.
This wasn't "rumors and speculation." This was SOMEONE PRETENDING TO BE BETHESDA/ZENIMAX -- down to faking their ownership of the website, let alone using their IP. That is potentially a legal issue. The "people" who should have been taking it seriously before anyone else was them. I am not angry about the hoax, but I find I am rather irked at Bethesda being so stupid, especially when they're so lawsuit happy about other things, including far more innocent fan works.
In other news, part of me wants to know if the Tunnel Snakes are still going to announce something on December 11. ;)
Weird question: male gamers role-playing female characters...how do you handle speaking "in character?"
Not a male gamer myself, but most of the guys I know who play their characters may soften their voices or something, but they do not try to speak in falsetto or otherwise try to fully imitate a female voice. (In a World of Darkness game, we did have one guy do a frighteningly good Valley Girl imitation, however. :) )
Likewise if I play a male character I don't bother to try to drop my voice as low as it can go, but I may speak in my "chest voice" (lower part of my vocal register) more.
The point is to hint at a character and his or her personality (more than sex or gender per se), not to be a parody.
Like Orthos, I tend to "do character voices" -- my dwarf fighter speaks on a lower part of my register and cusses more; my elven sorceress goes into my head voice and uses more posh vocabulary; occasionally I might do an accent. But I try not to get carried away with it or make it sound more like a joke than just giving the audible impression "I am saying this in character." It's all my voice, just different ends of my range.
I think the "be in character, but don't go to ridiculous extremes" would be advice I'd give to anyone, whether they're emulating another gender or there is something else different about their character to themselves.
Fallout 4 will be the only reason why I would pick up a next get console anytime soon.
Yeah, and for me, Fallout4 is one of few reasons I hope my PC has high end enough hardware for new games (pretty sure it will). Otherwise I've started playing a lot of indie stuff that tends not to require lots of hardware.
(But personally I'd rather eat glass than play it on console. Just me, my personal preference, which is a not a judgement upon your personal preference.)
Kthlulhu, see my reply to KSF. I just meant that he acknowledges he is the 13th incarnation, I didn't mean he literally said "I am 13." I have to remember people tend to prefer "RAW" rather than "RAI" on this boards and word things more carefully.
Capaldi didn't speak in the special, that was the Time Lord general's subordinate (confirmed by the subtitles).
Depending on who does the subtitles, they aren't always accurate.
Regardless of who spoke, that was him, and he is identified as the 13th incarnation (regardless of whether he is called the 12th Doctor or not). That's all I was getting at.
Can we all stop nitpicking now? I feel like we are arguing whether something is either green, or a combination of blue and yellow. I am sorry I ever brought it up, I was only trying to note that the Valeyard if he theoretically shows up at all, there is a possibility he would around Smith's regeneration.
Whether they call him 12 or 13 in the series remains to be seen (and by "call him" I mean references like the references referred to above, like SmithDoc noting himself as his 11th incarnation). I am sure they will do whatever they feel makes the most sense.
No, that was Peter Capaldi's official first appearance as the Doctor. When the line comes across the screen, the screen is showing an extreme close up of his face.
Besides, why would they have a line about 13 Doctors unless all 13 were actually there?
And I just realized I spoiled that if anyone hadn't seen it yet. Hopefully they're reading this thread if they have, but sorry...
Right, in that sentence, I was talking about the karma loss for theft.
What you are talking about I covered under
And yes, they need more deaths to earn you bad karma.
There WERE people you could kill to earn bad karma, but nowhere near enough of them.
Still, you'd have to steal an AWFUL lot (like most owned items in the game) and do nothing good (including kill fiends and feral ghouls) to earn Scourge of Humanity by just being a thief.
I am not arguing with you however that New Vegas's karma system was messed up. Fortunately, that's what mods are for.
I think the reason it earns you good karma is it puts a once-sentient creature, now mindless and tormented by its existence, out of its misery.
But yes, since generally the only motivation you immediately have for killing it is that it's the only choice you really have to keep it from eating you, you really should not get a karma gain. Maybe a general reputation gain, but not a karma gain.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
This is awesome news, thanks. :) And I am sure no matter what, something is always going to seem bad for someone, but if there's something of a rotation, at least it varies whom it is most inconvenient for. ;)
The only one I can think involved a friendly argument between two players, which ended by a pair of very vulgar hand gestures by one player waved at the other player.
The GM commented thusly, "Dude, you just got double middle-fingered by a Quaker."
I think you kind of had to be there, but it did make the whole table laugh.
Based on "Day of the Doctor" the Peter Capaldi Doctor referred to himself as 13. Even if he ends up being called "12" (the "War Doctor" not counting amongst the main ones), he is the 13th (known) form of the Doctor. (Personally, one of the big reasons I really wish they had not introduced the "War Doctor" because it makes referring to who is whom really unncessarily confusing. It was a good story, mind, but I could do without the Doctor's already convoluted history being that much more overly complicated.)
In "The Ultimate Foe" (thanks Vic) the Master describes the Valeyard, as an entity from "somewhere between [the Doctor's] 12th and Final" incarnation.
One possibility is his existence may indeed be accounted for in the Christmas special, since that's when SmithDoc will regenerate, and the Valeyard will be "somewhere between" him and CapalDoc. Or of course, it could be completely ignored.
One could take it to mean that he is a "potential" Doctor -- someone the Doctor COULD become if his timeline went in a certain direction -- after all, time can be rather wibbly wobbly and can thus alter. But his existence was not set in stone -- he is only one possible outcome of many timelines. And indeed, as you note, the events of the Time War could erase this possibility entirely.
Alternately, the Time War might be the whole reason for the Valeyard's existence... why better to try to undo the Doctor and reset his regeneration cycle out of an attempt to thwart the Time War -- you could argue that the first salvo of the Time War was when McCoyDoc blitzed Skaro with the Hand of Omega, so then it makes sense to stop him from coming to be by transferring regeneration away from ColinDoc.
Finally, it is the MASTER who explains the Valeyard's origins, and it is entirely possible he was seriously making some BS up and trying to screw with the Doctor's head, and the Valeyard was just some third rate barrister who genuinely thought the universe would be a better place without the Doctor.
It could be that the Valeyard is the same sort of thing as the Watcher, which was the between regenerations avatar that ultimately saved the Fourth Doctor's life by triggering his regeneration. (The Cubicle 7 RPG used that explanation as to the Valeyard's origin. in the Time Traveler's Companion.)
That's also possible, I agree.
Honestly, I'm okay with the Valeyard never being explained. He exists in a realm of maybes and possibilities and doesn't need to be. At the same time, if they do touch upon his existence and can manage to do so without being too heavy handed with past continuity reference (needs to be something new/young viewers can follow along with), that would be awesome.
Wasn't there already a fallout FPS (or 3rd person shooter) called fallout brotherhood of steel (or somthing to that effect) a while back that failed pretty hard?
It used the same engine as Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, and thus was action/adventure 3rd person, not a shooter.
I don't know why this was threadsurrected, but I'm glad it was. I know I already played, but I want to play again!
1d100 ⇒ 23 Lizardfolk (again?)
You know, I am not happy with getting two of the same races as the first time. I'm going to switch one out:
Odds, I switch out lizardfolk, evens, I switch out Strix. 1d20 ⇒ 2
And they shall be replaced by... 1d100 ⇒ 23
Y'all should see my pbp luck.
1d100 ⇒ 66
The strix shall be replaced by Girtablilu (centauroids with a scorpion-like lower half + claws) .
So I have lizard people, bee people, scorpion people, spawn of outsiders, and an aberrant sort of creature of my own design.
This will take some time. I'm thinking maybe some place twisted by lower planar energies. I think there will also be a big desert.
I am also going to break more rules and take some creative license to say my hagspawn/changelings are both male and female, because frankly it wouldn't make sense for them to be a dominant race on the planet, if there's only males spawned from races that procreate via male/female unions. I guess they could continue on as hags showed up to mate with their offspring, and then they continued to have only male children but that just doesn't ring true with me, and I'd rather the hags be in the past of the world rather than the present.
And of course WASTELAND 2 is going to be a FALLOUT game in all but name anyway.
Technically, all of the Fallout games are Wasteland in all but name, not the other way around. :) Wasteland came first, and the only reason we got Fallout instead of Wasteland 2 decades ago was because Interplay no longer had the rights to the IP (in order to make Wasteland 2 now, inXile had to make a deal with the IP's owners, Electronic Arts). Note that many of the same creators worked on both games. Fallout came about entirely because they still wanted to follow up their post apocalyptic game, but they had to shift focus and added the retro-future setting to make it stand apart from Wasteland, but Fallout through Fallout: New Vegas has had numerous references to Wasteland whereever they could squeeze them in without violating IP, from content (the Brotherhood of Steel is overtly based upon the Guardians in their Citadel) to random phrases and creatures, like the drools/ghouls and references to things exploding like a blood sausage, for example). Or, heck, the fact that the southwest in Fallout is in fact CALLED "the Wasteland." Fallout owes its entire existence to Wasteland.
And in short, Wasteland 2 will be a Wasteland game in its deserving name only.
Fortunately the backstory/setting for both games are different enough they can certainly exist side by side.
As to the FPS thing... I suppose Fallout could go that route, but I'd hope if they did, they'd still keep the RP focus. I'd have to stop playing of course as first person games make me hideously nauseous, so I hope they don't (I have to play the Bethesda engine games entirely in 3rd person, or I get very ill).
Well, if the feedback they get is from the people who come to the con, of course they are going to say they it is convenient for people.
Maybe they could survey the community or something. It may WELL work best for most people, but it would be interesting to see the results.
Marc Radle wrote:
Perhaps they get a really good deal renting the space from the hotel that weekend or something?I believe this is partly the case as well. The Hotel convenience store manager told me that it is typically a very slow weekend, and he'd given most of his employees the day/weekend off before finding out about the Con.
It's a slow weekend, because it's a bad weekend for many people to have a convention...
But yes, it means available and cheap.
By next year do you mean this coming con in 2014 or in 2015 as well?
I'd forgotten about Origins. Not really considering local cons as there are many and they vary widely.
If it had been announced, why didn't they have it widely and visibly noted on the Website until now? That would help a lot of people.
Marc Radle wrote:
I am sure a good deal of it has to do with when space is available and how much it costs. There may also be a matter of that since they tend to close on national holidays, it means they don't keep the office open on July 4, they can use that time for the con (but OTOH, they're screwing themselves out of a day off).
There's a reason many conference planners will book space years in advance (there's a literary sci-fi/fantasy con here whose runners I am certain book the hotel a good five years ahead of time).
On the other hand, before it was 4th of July weekend it WAS early/mid June, so they seem to have been able to get affordable space at a more convenient time (for attendees) in the past. June is a great time as most other gaming/sci fi cons are in July, August, and September so they get clear of conflicts.
The Red Mage wrote:
Yeah. Building one for a playtest, I suddenly realized the class had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hunting -- at least no more than the druid or ranger do (and the ranger is better at it because of favored enemy).
I THINK it's supposed to be more like a Green Man/Wild Man/Forest Hermit sort of archetype (as in character archetype, a literary term, not the game mechanic). I'd probably be able to come up with a better name for it if it, by its mechanics, actually had some more definable flavor other than more-different-ranger.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Isn't the whole "unexpected consequences" part why we're playtesting and seeing what happens when we do various things with the new classes in the game?
Given the "Are you my mummy" joke in Dead Money, they really should do that with someone trapped in a hazmat suit.
IIRC, the karma loss for theft is the same in New Vegas as it is in Fallout 3. And it's not much of a loss in either case. (And in either game, yes, it is annoying when you accidentally pick up an "owned" rusty tin can and somebody attacks you for it.)
The problem with the karma system in New Vegas is it's too easy to earn good karma. The particular issue I personally had is that you often earn good karma for killing Fiends -- but the way the fiend AI works, you basically have to kill them or be killed, if you can't run away. And at some point if you want to resolve certain quest/storylines you have to get into Fiend territory, and thus kill them. And then you end up being "forced" into goodness. This is what happened when I tried to play a neutral character. She wasn't the murderous type, but she would certainly lie, cheat, and steal. Then she went into Fiend territory to do some bounty hunting, purely and entirely for selfish profit, inexplicably left an angel. I didn't want to just randomly kill people to drop her karma (I don't find the random murder style of play in Fallout entertaining, personally), and just stealing/lying/etc. alone wasn't enough to drop her karma back down to where I wanted it. I think you earned good karma for killing feral ghouls for some reason too.
And yes, they need more deaths to earn you bad karma. Personally I don't think there are any kills that should earn you good karma, save maybe very extreme cases (killing Cook Cook, for example). And most unprovoked attacks should earn you bad.
At least the Devs were aware this didn't work out the way they meant. That's why they added the perks in the DLC that let you reset your karma. There are also of course many mods that adjust this (including I think JE Sawyer's).
Why always 4th of July weekend??
I really want to go to this con. I really want to come to this con and give Paizo lots of money.
I cannot do that on 4th of July weekend. Ever, most likely. I already have to choose between family obligations (including a birthday) and a major conference for my religious community (which has been held on that weekend for decades, so they are unlikely to change).
(Besides, have you ever actually TRAVELED on 4th of July weekend? My personal experience is that it's as bad as Thanksgiving.)
Sheesh, don't you have families you do things with on major national holidays?</rant>
I know Paizo does not plan these things for me personally. I know my ability to attend PaizoCon or not affects absolutely no one but me and absolutely nobody on the world but me does or should give a flying f*## about whether I can attend PaizoCon or not. But it's just really disappointing for me that the first time I ever heard about Paizo con -- it was in June, and I just couldn't make it that year, but then I was sure to keep my weekends free in June... and ever since they have moved it to 4th of July, thus putting it on the only weekend in the entire summer I am most likely unable to go.
Wait, tantrum's not done yet.
*goes and slams doors and breaks things and throws self on ground and pounds floor* WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Mythic Indigo wrote:
I highly recommend this script, or something similar. I would have been gone a long time ago if I did not have this option.
I don't fudge dice.
I have however contrived ways for PCs to get out of a bad roll when I realized the consequences were something I didn't account for. This is largely if the PCs themselves come up with a creative solution.
For example: was designing a dungeon. Needed CR something trap. Only one with stats I could find was destruction trap. Was too lazy/tired/concentrating on other things to come up with another, so put in the trap. Figured high level rogue player who seems to never roll below 15 would handle it fine anyway so it would be at most a moderate challenge.
Rogue player who usually doesn't roll below a 15 on the die manages to fail both Disable Device check and flops 1 on saving throw. Only then I realize that he's about to be completely disintegrated in a part of the game where that is not only a much larger F-you to him or the party than I needed, it would screw up my own plotting. I wasn't going to undo it, but...
Cleric player jumps in. "If I manage to touch him before he completely disintegrates, can I breath of life to restore him?"[/b] Note cleric is high level Cleric of Death god, so generally has some pull in that arena.
I told cleric to make very hard Reflex save. Cleric makes it. I decide somehow she grabs onto him before the spell takes full effect. I fudged no rolls, but I certainly fudged the meaning of the word "instantaneous."
Played it that he starts to feel himself be pulled apart, then cleric pulls him back. I still played a scene with the rogue player that he actually did meet his maker, that the powers that be agreed to lend the power to the cleric to save him from something he shouldn't have survived, so he's very aware of what was at stake---and in turn helps him be more dedicated to helping resolve events in the game.
I could have just said "you are a pile of dust" and sucked it up for all of us, but I think it turned out okay--especially as, frankly, I just should not have put a destruction trap there.
This kind of thing seldom happens. I think players should accept consequences and high stakes, but at the same time if it's just really unfun and sucky for everyone involved (as opposed to exciting or holy crap I died but it was heroic and awesome) and people are willing to take risks or rolls to try and work for a different outcome, yes, I'll make up something on the fly to give them a second chance.
I don't change actual rolls though. Generally, with my die roll luck, the temptation to pretend they are LOWER is nonexistent. ;)