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

DrDeth's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,724 posts. 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 956 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Randarak wrote:
I don't like kitsune. I just don't. Nothing you can say or do will change my mind about this.
I'm right there with ya. And Tengu.

Now you're just ravin' dude, and are gonna have to eat crow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Riuk wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I've never been a fan of Psoinics or stuff like it, however I am genuinely interested in Occult Adventures and will most likely get it as soon as it's out :-)
see I don't know why people don't like psionics its awesome!!! mind powers!!! I know the some of it feels overpowered but its easy to make any class feel overpowered

I know I am going to be shunned when I say this, but I was so scarred by the Munchkin horror that was AD&D Psionics, I still cant get myself to want to play it. I know recent versions are much better balanced, but it's like a snake phobia, I have a terrible and unfair knee jerk reaction.

Please try to forgive an Old Grognard for this and don't shun me too much. ;-)

But if you played that version you'd understand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I can't make it more then 5 minutes into the Matrix before I have to shut it off.
Can't really shun you for that. I've seen it precisely once, when it first came out on VHS. I wasn't impressed.
I loved all three, but I'm willing to admit that they were only slightly above average as sci-fi movies go. That being said, I'm a philosophy buff and the underlying ideas that the movies are based on elevated them for me.

Matrix I was a great special effects action film, as long as you didnt stop to think about the silly concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bill, Brain Collector wrote:
If it hurts your brain let massage them for you... So deliciously tender...

such a tiny snak........

;-)

Did you just use improper grammar and a misspelled word to infer that someone else was dumb? Even as a joke, the subtext of that is pretty humorous.

Based on your previous posts I've seen, Doc, I'm going with intentional, and for that I must say bravo. *golf clap* Well played satire.

Foghorn Leghorn: "It was a joke, son, a joke."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill, Brain Collector wrote:
If it hurts your brain let massage them for you... So deliciously tender...

such a tiny snak........

;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


Monte Cook specifically called out the "Timmy Cards" as being completely intentional. Given that so many of them exist in Pathfinder, I have to assume they are following that (horrible) design paradigm.

Not really. People take that entirely out of context. Nor does Monte design for Paizo.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-d ay-ivory-tower-design

"It raises some very important points, but over the years I’m afraid I’ve come to find it deeply annoying because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point.

What Cook basically says in the essay is, “Instead of just giving people a big toolbox full of useful tools, we probably should have included more instructions on when those tools are useful and how they can be used to best effect.”

But the vast majority of people quoting the essay instead snip some variant of “we wanted to reward mastery of the game” out of context and then go ape-s%+# because D&D3 deliberately included “traps” for new players.

The methods of selective quoting vary, but they all basically look something like this:

“Toughness [is] not the best choice of feat.”

OMG! WHY WOULD THEY INCLUDE A SUCKY FEAT LIKE THAT?

There are two problems with this.

First, the full quote is actually, “Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it’s not the best choice of feat.” And then the essay goes on to further clarify its meaning: “To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It’s also handy when you know you’re playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don’t want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).”

In other words, Toughness is a special purpose tool. When used properly, it’s a useful tool. When used improperly, it’s a wasted feat slot. The designers felt like people should be smart enough to figure that out for themselves, but the point of Cook’s essay is that it probably would have been better to include more usage guidelines."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Fair enough.

Still doesn't eliminate the needless goggles

Goggles are totally needed.

Rainier Wolfcastle: "My eyez! The goggles do nauthing!....."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oddly I used to scoff at this, as my experience has shown the more optimized the less roleplaying. But then I remember a few noteworthy exceptions.

However, what I have noticed is that in games where there is more NEED to optimize, where combat is emphasized and tactics are critical- Roleplaying TENDS to fall by the wayside. Note this is a tendency only not a hard and fast rule.

I think this is because us mere mortals can only concentrate on a few things at once. And when you must move precisely there, and remember all your bonuses, and think of what you and or your foe is going to do next - it's hard to also act out in character.

This is why sometimes I remember my AD&D games fondly. Not that there weren't groups who said "the hell with RP, I wanna kill something", but that combat movement was rarely important, bonuses might be one or two and thinking like a chess master was largely irrelevant.

So yeah, you certainly can do both- many people dont do both.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy. At best it's a meme, it's one guy's opinion.

Hardly a true logical fallacy or even a informal fallacy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I don't like cure light wound wands because they trivialize healing in an unadventurous way.
I feel the same about Resurrection.

As I have posted before:Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
I find it annoying and nonsensical when players think DMs should be subject to all the same limitations they are: Rolling in front of everyone,

I have found that rolling in front of everyone works best for the DM. Then when you get a crit and kill a PC, there are no hard feelings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

.

With a complex game like Pathfinder, with so many books and options in all of them, players will find ways to circumvent encounters in ridiculously easy fashion. This is an inherent problem with the system, more so than many other games. The unfortunate reality is that as long as you play Pathfinder, players will be able to find "I win" buttons that can negate any amount of careful planning on the GM's part.

Adventurers are like those chimps. And, since I have been DMing since 1974 i can tell you this has nothing at all to do with Pathfinder, the chimps have been outsmarting the DM and doing the unexpected for 40 years.

Expect the unexpected. Go with it.

Oh, you've been playing for 40 years. Well then, I'll shut up, because clearly you know everything better than I do. [/sarcasm]

Nope. But I do know older systems, having been around when they were played and even helped write them. You likely know PF better than I do.

However, since I do know the older systems I can tell you that Pathfinder is in no way unique or unusual in players finding ways to circumvent encounters in a ridiculously easy fashion, they always have, ever since OD&D. This is nothing new just to Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


Fox is basically the worst thing ever..

Look, Rynjin & I agree!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

.

With a complex game like Pathfinder, with so many books and options in all of them, players will find ways to circumvent encounters in ridiculously easy fashion. This is an inherent problem with the system, more so than many other games. The unfortunate reality is that as long as you play Pathfinder, players will be able to find "I win" buttons that can negate any amount of careful planning on the GM's part.

There's a story about and experiment with a chimp put into a room with a nice bunch of bananas out of reach. The scientist placed two boxes and a stick in the room.

He made the experiment so that the chimps could either stack the boxes and get the fruit, os stand on one bow with the stick. He'd then let in 1 or 2 chimps and recorded on his checklist whether the chimps did:

A. Two boxes
B. Box & Stick
C. Failure.

In every case the chimps got the reward, but in no case did they go for A or B. Sometimes they jumped with the stick. Once they threw the box at the bananas. With two chimps they often got on each others back.

Adventurers are like those chimps. And, since I have been DMing since 1974 i can tell you this has nothing at all to do with Pathfinder, the chimps have been outsmarting the DM and doing the unexpected for 40 years.

Expect the unexpected. Go with it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:


Subway's bread isn't as good tasting now that they stopped adding yoga mat plastic to it. But it probably is a whole lot healthier.

The Food babe uses totally wrong science. Try reading the Science babe, who has thrashed the Food babes ridiculous wrongheaded pseudo-science ideas .

http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-s+!%-1694902226
"This is Hari's business. She takes innocuous ingredients and makes you afraid of them by pulling them out of context (Michelle Francl, in a review of Hari's book for Slate, expertly demonstrates the shallowness of this gimmick). This is how Hari demonized the harmless yet hard-to-pronounce azodicarbonamide, or as she deemed it, the "yoga mat chemical," which is yes, found in yoga mats and also in bread, specifically Subway sandwich bread, a discovery Hari bombastically trumpeted on her website. However, as the science-minded among us understand, a substance can be used for more than one thing perfectly safely, and it doesn't mean that your bread is made of a yoga mat if it happens to contain azodicarbonamide, which is FDA-approved as a dough-softening agent. It simply means your bread is composed of chemicals, much like everything else you eat.

Hari's rule? "If a third grader can't pronounce it, don't eat it."

My rule? Don't base your diet on the pronunciation skills of an eight-year-old."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:


Plus, no prosciutto (crudo or cotto), no prosciuttini, no sopressata, no capocollo, and their salame di Sant'Olcese (genoa) is under spiced, their provolone dolce is tasteless, no provolone piccante at all, no pepper shooters or cherries, no pepper spread...

I want to eat at that sub shop. Add in balsamic or good red wine vinegar and olive oil, and you have made me a very happy Evil Overlord.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

Some people use the phrase "minmax" to refer to high optimization builds with minimal weaknesses, capable of contributing in all or almost all circumstances.

Other people, such as DrDeth, use the word "minmax" to refer to extremely unoptimized builds with crippling overspecialization.

Actually that's not at all how I Define the term. It means you MAXimize your Strengths while MINimizing everything else not critical to those Strengths.

I have seen no one defining the term how you do the first line:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinMaxing
"The art, much beloved of munchkins, of optimizing a character's abilities during creation by maximizing the most important skills and attributes, while minimizing the cost. This is done by strategic decrease of stats believed to be less important in game (called "Dump Stats"), exploiting hideously overpowered but legal combinations of the Game System, obtaining the best toys and magic weapons accessible to a character, or by stacking flaws and handicaps until your character's Backstory looks like a Joss Whedon character's resume."

http://www.giantbomb.com/min-maxing/3015-128/
"Min-maxing is the character-building strategy of maximizing a specific desirable ability, skill, or other power of a character and minimizing everything else, seen as undesirable. The result is a character who is excessively powerful in one particular way, but exceedingly weak in others.

Min-maxing has a history of controversy among players and game designers. Game designers may dislike min-maxing because it discourages variety in play through extreme specialization. It can also 'break' the difficulty balance of a game--making parts of a game too easy or too hard--since games are usually tuned with the goal of providing a reasonable (and thus enjoyable) level of challenge throughout for all normal character builds. A min-maxed character build can often puncture the intended equilibrium of difficulty by being unreasonably good at one thing and unreasonable bad at many others.

Furthermore, if the one thing that a min-maxed character is good at is overall more useful (e.g. combat) than other character abilities (e.g. talking or environmental exploration), the player is likely to rely heavily on that one thing they're good at to solve all situations in the game (e.g. killing everyone instead of talking to them). Game designers often attempt to limit the success of min-maxing by including challenges in their games that cannot all be met by any one specialized character build or by incorporating limits into the rules of character building to prevent overspecialization (e.g. point costs to raise an attribute increase the higher the attribute is, or a character's highest level skill cannot be increased more than 5 levels above their lowest, etc.).

Game designers may also dislike min-maxing by players if it means the player sees their character in starkly mechanical terms rather than as a fictional person. As a result, a min-maxing player may be less likely to roleplay their character or to engage with the game's story or other characters in a way reasonable for an imagined inhabitant of the game world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_video_game_terms
Min-Maxing
The practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones.[33] This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields. This is easier to accomplish in games where attributes are generated from a certain number of points rather than in ones where they are randomly generated.[34]

In fact, note that I dont even say Min/maxing is bad. Certainly some degree of it is normal, and even to be desired.

But like anything else it can be taken to extremes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Romaq wrote:

I

I started "D&D" (then went to Pathfinder) wanting to play a spell-
casting ferret. I still want to play my spell-casting ferret, and have
not yet done so.

Here's what I'd so. You, the ferret- would be the spellcaster. The human would be your familiar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I like red vinegar on my french fries.

Try malt vinegar.

kyrt-ryder try Balsamic on a sub someday. Yum!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Soilent wrote:

I sincerely believe that every player has the right to min/max.

Just like every GM has the responsibility to punish those who do so.

Why do you feel like it is the responsibility of the GM to punish a player?

If the player is specializing in being a one trick pony then merely making a decent variety of encounters will make the downsides of being a one trick pony obvious. You don't need to go out of your way to screw over the player. You just need to not constantly cater to them.

Here's the real problem- the Min-Maxer often punishes his fellow players, and that's where the real issue lies. You love doing damage so you dump wis to 7, which mean you fail your will save, are dominated and have to/ get to kill the party. For some players, that's actually fun- they love showing that their PC is so powerful he can take out the rest of the party. It is NOT fun for the rest of the players, some of whom may be rather attached to their character and have put days of work into them, backstory, etc. Of course the Min/max tank is one of those like Soilentc mention- not even bothering with a name. Being killed by a fellow party member who wanted to do a little more DPR is annoying.

Most often it's some guy who wants to do combat and only combat. His PC has no social skills- heck, with a 7 INT no skills at all... forcing the other players to design PC's to make up for his deficiencies.

And maybe he is a decent roleplayer- who then RP's his 7 CHA to get the party INTO as many fights as possible- since that's all he wants to do anyway.

In reality, such a PC would simply be kicked out of a group. But since D&D is a game, we let him play.

So it's not Mix/maxing that's the problem- it's that a lot of jerk players use min/maxing to be bigger jerks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Why is requiring training such a horribly bad sign? I don't like it myself but I don't see the horror here...

It's another way for the control-phreak DM to control the PC's in every little way.

For example- let's say you level during a quest. Well, you know the quest is super difficult, and the fate of the world hangs on it- so getting better will help you succeed. But then the DM has a time requirement on the quest so that you cant take the time to level.

Or the training costs so much you are stuck at one level for much longer than you should be.

Adventuring *IS* training.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
I too begin playing in the 1970s (1976 to be exact), but alas I am only in my fifth decade, and I too bow to DrDeath's seniority.

You and knightnday both started in the 70's so you get Grognard cred.

(Gives secret handshake).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Based on how long everyone else has been playing, it feels like I'm the youngest person on these boards. ^_^

Get off my lawn!

I have entered my sixth decade, been playing since 1974 or so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Certainly there is a difference in degree. But both are limitations to a character concept. Anytime you have set character building rules you have limited a character concept. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

It doesn't reduce the number of concepts they can play. You can play your concept. You just can't play it with all 18's off the start.

You can play your concept. You just can't play it with a gun off the start.

:-p
The rules say you start with a gun. The rules don't say you start with 18 in each stat. If you honestly cannot see the difference between these two things, I will further elaborate.

The rules say the DM can allow or disallow any classes or tech level for his campaigns.

The rules say the DM gets to set the point buy.

In both cases you will have limitations on a character concept. And that's perfectly Ok- every game has limitations on character creation.

But the issue is when people say "Well, *MY* limitations on character creation are perfectly OK and reasonable, but others are stifling to the Player's creative concept."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

It doesn't reduce the number of concepts they can play. You can play your concept. You just can't play it with all 18's off the start.

You can play your concept. You just can't play it with a gun off the start.

:-p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
The Minis Maniac wrote:
I HATE card games. Hate them all and have developed a phobia of any TCG.
Unless the game is caller "poker" and is played for this stuff called "money" I agree totally. ;-)

If you're ever in central PA, stop by one of our regular games.

I could use the cash. :D

Cracks fingers.

Sure. Hehhehheh.

Algren's "three rules of life": "Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


You are entitled to play any concept you want. You just aren't entitled to start as it. =P
Fine, Then you can play as a gunslinger but you cant have a gun until you find one in a crashed spaceship. I plan on the party finding one around level 12.
Gunslinger starts with one as per the rules. This is not the same as wanting more stats then the rules provide.

The rules allow you to set any number you like for character point buy, too. I want 102 points. Why cant I have 102 points? You are harshing my concept, dude! ;-)

There is really no difference between :

No guns are made in this world, due to the tech being middle medieval. There may be a chance to find one later, a relic of a different civilization.

vs

You can only start with a 20 point build.

Each is a game set up the DM has decided. Each will reduce some choices a player has to start.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I never saw The Avengers (or the recent sequel). If Spider-Man had been in it, I would have been sufficiently motivated (yes, I'm aware he was never an Avenger).

But he is ! An Avenger, I mean... in the comics books... you know, the real thing !

It's Marvel dude. Somewhere in some alternate universe, everyone is a Avenger. (and has changed gender)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Minis Maniac wrote:
I HATE card games. Hate them all and have developed a phobia of any TCG.

Unless the game is caller "poker" and is played for this stuff called "money" I agree totally. ;-)

Especially if it's a "trading card game" which are cash cows.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate fantasy names with gratuitous apostrophes.

"B'ob". "C'athy the D'ark Mistr'ess"

etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:

Oh, right ... I think I have found some that may actually get me shunned at last (well, more than I am already).

Despite my strong affection for grim, dark and grimdark,

I ... can't ... stand ... musicals! May the person who invented the idea rot forever in a dark, dank, stinking pit of misery and horror! But I love the opera. I think it's the difference in music styles. "Tosca" makes me weep with the beauty of the music, whereas "Phantom of the Opera" makes me want to pick up something heavy and hit people with it. Repeatedly.

There ... now shun me, dammit! What does it take to get some decent shunning around here?

I can shun you for two things here (in an otherwise excellent post): I am sooooo darn tired of dark and gritty. It's been overdone.

Next- a GOOD musical is a thing of wonder. They are rare, and you have to go back a bit: The Music Man. Hello Dolly. Wizard of Oz- 1939. Guys & Dolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
@ Toz: I find that class features can help immensely with inspiring a character.
It was my confession to be shunned for.

Shun him, SHUN HIM!!!

;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Along the lines of my puzzlement at the popularity of the Tengu, I don't get what's so special about Kitsune.

Combines kitties and foxes and Japanese. Appealing to no less than three groups.

Not to mention they are fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Everyone can play their table how they want to, but at my table, player's will always be allowed to play the character they want to.
Have you no limitations at all? No books? No classes? No spells, No feats, no tech? No settings? Wealth? Do you not set Point buy? Do you allow rolling if they dont want point buy? If so, do you not set the die rolling parameters?
I don't mean to be snarky (well, not that snarky), but weren't you going outside every single existing parameter of the rules when you invented the Thief class back in 1974? I don't understand why a person who invented new material that early in the game's use would be a proponent of limitation rather than experimentation.

Yep. We went HWAAAAY outside the box then. But two things- the figurative* box was very small with flimsy sides in the OD&D boxed set, and we still had some parameters. I am a big believer of letting the players play what they want- including a flying housecat and a Hoka. But if I have 4d6 drop one, I am not gonna let someone have straight 18's that he didnt roll. Someone wants to play a dragon in a low level game? Sure, but you're gonna be a very small and young one, not a elder wyrm.

But your snark here is not out of line in any way. You are absolutely correct, we certainly were out of the box guys back in the Manual of Aurania days- the very first 3PP supplement ever.

So yeah- a DM should try and work with the players to fit in any concept- but it's a two way street- the players need to work with the DM to fit their concepts in, also.

* so was the literal one, come to think of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I don't get what's so friggin' special about the Tengu.
They're nothing to crow about, true. Always ravin' on.
Stop that. Stop that now.

Caw!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
I kinda want to see a concrete answer on "Does having more Acrobatics ranks make me worse at Acrobatics?" just so we can hopefuly cease all these arguments with people who are like "Lol if you roll a 25 on your Acrobatics check to jump over a 10 foot pit you have to go the WHOLE WAY".

There's no use arguing with that sort, they keep on even after the FAQ! ;-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I don't get what's so friggin' special about the Tengu.

They're nothing to crow about, true. Always ravin' on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, if the players (whom I prefer to create their characters without consulting each other at all, the better to actually play what they wish to play) create five paladins and a ninja, then it's my job as a DM to create adventures that would appeal to five paladins and a ninja. That doesn't mean there won't be challenges that require a hired gun, whether literal or metaphorical, but ... I can't stand the artificiality of crafting a balanced party. It just sets off my bullsh!t detector, since I abhor most meta-gaming with the fury of a thousand suns.

Yesbut when they all do interlocking backgrounds, so that they have a good reason to be together, it is a joy to behold. I'll happily let them consult on balancing the party if they do that.

We had one where everyone was either related to, worked with, or was sleeping with someone else, sometimes interlocking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

That is bad player behavior, but I've seen Railroad GMs handle it well.

"That's not the campaign you agreed to play. That character goes off and does that stuff, but I'm not running it. Sit out today's session and make a character that's part of this campaign."

In general, I don't like splitting the party. Emphasis on the "in general". Twice the work for the DM, half the fun for the players.

So if one guy is doing it for no reason, I run the main group for a bit, turn to the solo guy and say "You encounter nothing". Repeat until he gives up. Remember, the DM sets encounters, not the players.

Also, more groups of players need to occasionally say OOC "Naw, sorry, we dont want that character as part of the party." IC: "Hey Bo'b the Backstabber, thanks but not thanks, we can get along without you."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:


I've never had a prepared adventure survive contact with the PCs. Its why I just get APs to mine ideas.

Field Marshall Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke: "The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle.

Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
A person who cannot feel fear has very little reason to understand some very basic moral concepts such as "thou shalt not force people to walk slowly into machine-gun fire from prepared, enfilading positions" (I'm looking at you, Field Marshall Haig and General Rawlinson), and at least in some cases (or should it be Somme cases, considering the example above) it would make such a person incapable of understanding the concept of fear in others, which could lead to downright psychopathic behaviour, which is a personality disorder where the subject is incapable of understanding the validity of other people's emotions.

Why should Haig have felt fear? After all, *HE* wasnt the one that was gonna be machinegunned down. He could sit there, fat and safe and senile in his cozy office miles from the front lines, and play tinsoldiers with other men's lives.

One of the bravest things I ever saw portrayed was Black Adder's "over the top" finale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
But what is it when *I* quote Mark Seifter saying "this is how Acrobatics DCs are supposed to work" ? That is a argument from authority and a correct use of it.
That's not a fallacy then.

It's still a argument from authority. So, not all arguments from authority are wrong. Generally, just saying "your argument is invalid as it's a fallacy' is bad arguing. Show why it's a bad argument. If it's bad, then no need to appeal to a "fallacy". This is why most of the posts which say "STORMWIND FALLACY!" are incorrect- in that not only is it not a "fallacy' but generally it's being mis-applied.

For example- using a post by James Jacobs as your cite. Well, he's said over and over he's not 'the rules guy" so if it's about hard RAW, then it's not as good as if it's about the world of Golarion in general, and if it about how he personally plays, then it's solid. So, if I cite JJ about the rules, your response could be "well, he has said he's not the rules guy, so it's not official", and that would be a great counter argument*. But saying "Ha ha, I caught you in a LOGICAL FALLACY, your argument is thus invalid" is both wrong and being a jerk.

* altho I could then argue back it at least shows either RAI or how he plays it, which does give some weight, even if not "official".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

New confessions: I despise the overuse of the word "fallacy" on the boards and the Internet in general.

So true, look most "logical fallacies' are not. They are not fallacies in logic at all. They are informal fallacies. Mostly, using a informal fallacy is perfectly OK outside your high school debating team.

For example, take the ad hominem 'fallacy". Not acceptable in a formal debate, but sometimes/often OK IRL, as wiki sez:"When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]"

Similar things can be said about "Argument from authority" which can not be used in formal debates but is a normal thing to use IRL. Once, for example the Design team makes a ruling on rules, it's pretty much over, and citing them is technically a "Argument from authority" , but that's by no means a 'fallacy".

Generally, when on a message board, in this informal setting, the poster who attempts to rebut another poster by pointing out the "logical fallacy" is just being a jerk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


Will mithral win again next week, bigger and better than ever? Will it actually be taking 10 again? Should we make a FAQ about whether you can take 10 to craft things out of mithral and watch it get 1000 clicks in 1 day? Find out on the next exciting FAQ Friday!

Time for Simulacrum!

Or Scry & Fry.

;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:
knightnday wrote:
his is sounding less like a GMPC problem and more about trust and the GM. If the GM is going to mess with you, they don't need a character in the party to do it. And if you cannot trust the GM to play fair, then IMO you need a different GM or game.

Okay you guys can't have it both ways. First I'm an idiot for trusting my GM, now I'm an idiot for not trusting my GM? If the proponents can't even figure out how it should be, doesn't that at least lend a little weight that maybe it's just a bad idea all together?

Well, here's what I think we're talking about. Most DMPC's are a full fledged party member, who gets a share of the loot, acts like a party member and what not.

Now once in a while, you get a 'richard" player who runs a PC who betrays the party. This is rather unfair since the genre has the "Unspoken rule" :

"D&D is a Game, and the object is to have fun.
In order to have fun, you must Play the game.
Thus, instead of vetting the new players character for a period, or even worse saying "Hey no thanks newguy, we already have a solid team here, no reason to add another": you allow the new guy to play, sometimes with no backstory, sometimes with a 10 minute intro. That's just the nature of the game- everyone wants to have fun, so you get the new guy into the party ASAP."

But once in a while the new guy turns out to be a traitor (and I am not talking the "change of pace" all-evil campaign, where such is expected). If a player pulls this more than once, he will be shunned.

We had this happen to a friend of the DM who used to summer with him, so intro-ed a new PC just for a few summer games. He betrayed us in the first summer. So, the next year, we did do some vetting, but still were betrayed. the next time we simply refused to play with him. There was some mighty sulking and the DM tried for hours to cajole us into letting him play, but we pointed out the last two times. "Well, just because I was a traitor twice doesnt mean I'll be one this time!". Yeah, and if you werent the DM's buddy you wouldnt have gotten that second chance, either bub.

Now, let us say the DM shows up with a GMPC. *NOT* a NPC, but a full fledged party member, who gets a share of the loot, acts like a party member and what not. One who is expected to join the group without any vetting.

Then that GMPC betrays the group.

See, that's unfair, just like the "guest player" who does the same thing. When the PC is introduced to the rest of the group as a fellow PC, the rule is to just let him join. There's no clues, no chance to vet him, no hint he may not be as it seems. That's simply taking advantage of the "Unspoken rule".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

Rule #7

Role Playing Animal Companions

You may role play your animal companion's behavior, or you may ask me to do it, however, be warned, if you ask me to do it, I will certainly place straws lodged in my upper lip and pretend your animal companion is a walrus

"Straws lodged in your upper lip "? Oh, if only my DM placed the pencils only in his upper lip....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
My curiosity about this thread is the trend of some number of players who seem to be uncommunicative gits...

Hey, I resent that! I am a very communicative git.

;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
My curiosity about this thread is the trend of some number of players who seem to be uncommunicative gits...

Hey, I resent that! I am a very communicative git.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After a bit it devolved into a dull monotone chant.

1 to 50 of 956 << 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.