|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Then... the key is that someone gets the right to define the other's "offended card" as "given in bad faith". The one with the most popular support gets to determine that, as in all purely subjective situations. And the one with that support gets to decide in every instance whether to allow a discussion to continue. Right?
I'm not sure what you're saying.
The whole thing is a balancing act. Everbody gets offended sometimes. Articulating this should not be met with distrust first hand (which would take the argument in bad faith), especially if the offended party explains why they feel that way - which is a good idea, but not always possible, depending in which the state the person is. The "key" is not to look for the fault in others, but rather to consider what you did before you start accusing someone else of wrongdoing, openly or not.
There may be times when someone uses being offended to "win" the discussion (which is a silly concept altogether, but not entirely avoidable, I guess), not or only vaguely explaining why they were offended. In that case, I would still try to give them the benefit of the doubt and rephrase my argument once. If the other side still insists on dying on that particular hill, withdrawing is the best option, because there is nothing to be gained anymore. They may think they have won, but you didn't concede anything, and "winning" is meaningless in this case, anyway.
OTOH, I'm bad at following my own advice and as a result, I rarely get into arguments on these boards - or anywhere - anymore.
I don't agree with you on the sexual harrassment issue, but that is not the subject of this thread.
If you think someone is playing the "offended card", you might try to rephrase your previous statement. If the same happens again, you disengage because the discussion is over. However, if someone is really offended by what you said, you don't get to decide whether that is justified or not. People have different thresholds of what they find acceptable.
The matter here, I believe, is whether one takes an argument in good faith or not. Thinking another person is playing the above mentioned card could be just taking the person's argument in bad faith.
I also think everybody should remember the wise words of Raylan Givens (apologies for the swearing): "If you run into an a~@*+$$ in the morning, you ran into an a@#%!~+. If you run into a+@!+$@s all day, you're the a%~+#+%."
Advice re Twinings: only drink their product if you live in the UK or maybe Ireland. The company's export teas are dreck. (If you are in Ireland, there are much better teas available, notably by Lyons and Bewley's.)
I also would stay away from anything called "Irish Breakfast" in the beginning. That stuff usually is pretty strong.
I would recommend starting with a Darjeeling. It's the mildest sort of black tea. If you don't like the grassy taste, move on to Ceylon. And don't go for the cheap stuff.
If somebody wants to try the original Berzerk, I suggest to start with the second episode. The first one has next to nothing to do with the rest of the series and you might expect something very different after watching it.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
That may all be true. However, nothing in D&D or Dreamscarred's Pathfinder psionics deals with electronics (although you could say that since brains run on electricity, they are biological machines).
There also is a significant overlap between D&D/Dreamscarred psionics and Paizo's psychic spellcasting in overall methods as well as in powers.
People are upset because they took a thoroughly Japanese story set in Japan told through Japanese characters and mainly cast non-Japanese actors without even bothering to change the characters' names. They could have adapted the Laughing Man story by setting it in an alternate universe. There even is precedent within Ghost in the Shell lore, as the series and movies only share characters and themes.
There is also the question that if the filmakers can't even be arsed to remain faithful to the original in casting, how can they faithfully adapt the rest of the material in its complexity to a live-action version?
Nothing against Johansson; she's good, as are a lot of the other actors. But this white-washing nonsense has to stop. I'm getting tired of always seeing the same type of face on the screen. Rinko Kikuchi would have been a better choice for the role of Major Kusanagi, for example.
As for financial success: I couldn't care less. The franchise is not doomed; Arise just came out last year. It wasn't as good as Stand Alone Complex, but good enough.
Same here, although I treat the 'I' as a 'J'.
I repeatedly found that the general public's sense of enjoyment and mine differ wildly.
Fargo is probably the best series on TV right now. Everything about it is top-notch and season 2 is probably even better than season 1.
Rectify is superb, but really depressing. Thankfully the seasons are relatively short.
In the same vein is The Leftovers, a Damon Lindelof show about how 2% of Earth's population just vanishes into thin air. It deals with the effects on the eponymous people that were left. Christopher Ecclestone, Liv Tyler and Justin Theroux are part of the cast (the latter is suprisingly not bad).
The Americans is about two Soviet sleeper agents in the 80s. Excellent writing and great performances all around.
I agree with Imbicatus that James Spader is the best thing about The Blacklist. The rest of the show is a big pile of hot garbage, however.
I have had a similar idea. Basically, Golarion's multiverse exists long before the D&D multiverse. At some time in the future, something happens and The Boneyard - already connected to the various planes via portals - becomes the Lady of Pain's prison (the Lady of Pain being Pharasma, obviously).
Since elves are aliens, I removed their magical flavour and replaced it with Dreamscarred Press's psionics. Elves generally mistrust arcane magic; for them, it is tied to the aboleth and other powerful creatures, who all seem to have their hidden agendas. Elves suspect that arcanists traded in - willingly or unknowingly - something for their power and that they are the puppets of powerful beings.
Dwarves are heavy users of arcane magic, since survival in the depths would have been impossible without it. They mostly use elemental and rune magic. They are a very solemn people whose members rarely show emotions. They use facial tattoos to show allegiance to their family or clan and even to their friends, if they trust them enough.
I've replaced the Ulfen people with goliaths from Races of Stone to get rid of the viking equivalent. Goliaths originally were a slave race; hybrids of human and giant stock bred by Thassilon that got their freedom after the meteor shattered that civilisation. Their culture is built upon competition and using everything to gain an advantage over others, including murder. No one cares if you are successful. The Linnorm Kings still exist, because killing a creature like that is such an enormous feat of strength and wits, it is the only thing other goliaths respect in a ruler without trying to remove him instantly.
I'm concerned that the writer doesn't appear to have a strong background with D&D or RPGs. Any word on anyone from WOTC who's involved in story approval? does WOTC even have any creative approval this time around?
That is actually a good thing. The writer only needs to know the setting and tell a good story using it.
I will take a look at the series, but I'm rather pessimistic. I remember reading the first Shannara trilogy, then letting them collect dust in some forgotten corner of my room, until I threw them away years later. (For comparison's sake, I still have my old David Eddings paperbacks, in case the fancy strikes me to read them again, and those are pretty bad.)
Simon Legrande wrote:
New Zealand again? That's just silly, although I suppose it's probably cheaper than filming in the US.
It is, because New Zealand has a lot of different landscapes relatively close together.
I tried stevia and got the same result as with artificial sweeteners: both negate the tea's aroma too much and leave a dry feeling in my mouth. I put honey in my tea, depending on the sort, which adds to the flavour, in my opinion (oddly enough, I can enjoy coffee without any sweetener).
Tea bags are weird. You can find good tea in bags, especially when you're on the British Isles, but it's pretty rare in continental Europe. The tea in most of them leaves a dry feeling in my throat.
I prefer loose tea and it has to be strong. Assam and Ceylon mostly, although my store offers a strong Kenian sort and a delicious Java OP Superior. My everyday tea is "Ostfriesentee" (East Frisian Tea), which is a very strong blend of a minimum of 10 different sorts.
I also like flavoured sorts of the non-fruit variety (except for orange flavour); my favourite being Earl Grey.
As for brands, Lipton and Tetley's are obviously crap and I feel that Twinnings is only acceptable when you can get the non-export stuff. Bünting produces quite a few decent to very good teas, as do Lyons and Bewleys.
I'm going to leave the rest of the discussion fall by the wayside. It's going in circles and - quite frankly - you don't make much sense to me.
Quark Blast wrote:
I did. And no, you haven't named a single setting that does it right in your opinion (barring aliases; I didn't check those).
I'm rather curious, though. Maybe you can come up with an answer. If not, I've no choice but to go with my assumption.
Quark Blast wrote:
Sorry, but that is not helpful. All you say that Eberron does it wrong, again, instead of saying which setting did it right.
Take Breland, for example. In your scenario, they would put together a force strong enough to bring the landshark down. For other scenarios, there are the Dark Lanterns, for example. The kingdoms are not helpless. If something turned up that they couldn't handle, you just run with it and have the PCs sort it out.
Vol could maybe use that plan (I highly doubt it, though), but why would she? Her goal is not to conquer a random kingdom, but to take revenge against Aerenal, which is much more difficult. Apart from that, her goals are nebulous. As are those of the Lords of Dust and especially those of the Daelkyr, because they are so alien. The only exception is the Dreaming Dark, who are trying to make the current Quori age last forever, but that doesn't have appeared on the slate of the Khorvaire nations yet.
The Big Bads do not wait around. They are planning and moving pieces into position. Don't forget, they have massive amounts of time to do that. But the moment they start speeding things up, it gets noticed and the checks and balances start being active, the PCs among them.
What your PCs do does matter, if you - as a GM - make their actions relevant. And if you think real life is boring, it is because you are not in the middle of things. The PCs in Eberron are supposed to be.
As for house ruling: Do you play Golarion, the Realms or any setting as is? Really? I couldn't do that. I have adapted Golarion to my needs and would continue to do so, depending on the region my game is set in, because some things just grate on me. That is the point of a kitchen sink setting: you take what you need and change the rest.
Re point 2: I know that problem as a GM. Many times, information is scattered through the book and you have to look up details because you didn't expect the players to ask certain questions. The only way to avoid this is to memorize the whole book. The amount of information in those books can get quite staggering, too (although I don't know how it is in Legacy of Fire).
captain yesterday wrote:
if you want people only to say nice things you need to start a thread for it, maybe title it "Eberron, how do I love thee, let me count the ways" but jumping on everyone here that doesnt like it as much as you isn't constructive at all
Quark Blast's post was pretty vitriolic, throwing words around like "atrocity". My postings here are tame in comparison.
And no, I have nothing against criticism that is founded somehow. However, you and Quark Blast admitted that you basically have not done much reading on the subject and have also stated things that are objectively wrong (probably as a result of ignorance). That is not constructive.
I believe that tactic is called the "Thach Weave" or a variant thereof. It was developed by one John Thach during WWII, because the US Navy Wildcats were inferior to the Japanese Zeros. As the Japanese pilots rarely used group tactics, it proved a pretty effective defensive tactic.
Just four quick things: 1. Pun-Pun wasn't created using the Psion class. He can use the Psion class.
2. The problem was not that class, but that he can somehow force a Sarrukh to grant him one of its abilities. Sarrukh are high-level creatures from a FR splatbook, which makes him a corner case.
3. The whole thing is an experiment in extra odorous cheese and and not meant to be played.
4. You have no idea about 3.5 psionics if you use Pun-Pun as an example for its alleged brokeness.
If you want a discussion about this, PM me or use one of the psionics threads on the board, please.
That's a long period to cover and I'm no expert, just an interested amateur, so take what I write with a grain of salt.
Basically, duels were much more prevalent during WW I, because of the ideal of gentlemanly combat and also because bombing tactics were just emerging. The fighter planes were really suited to these tactics, because those bi- or tri-plane fighters could turn on a dime.
After the Great War, the powers believed the future would lie in inassailable bomber formations and neglected developing fighter technology and tactics further. The Spanish Civil War kind of reinforced that impression, with the Legion Condor's bombing campaign being so successful. But the German Luftwaffe already was investing in new fighters and accompanying tactics. The Messerschmidt BF 109 was one of the first so-called energy fighters, I believe.
Energy fighting means that the pilot would try to gain altitude as rapidly as possible (meaning the planes had to have a good climb speed), because altitude equaled energy you could convert into speed used for diving down on an enemy plane, taking a shot and then using the speed gained in the dive to quickly gain altitude again, before the enemy had time to react. This was referred to by US pilots (I guess) as "Boom & Zoom", as opposed to "Turn & Burn". As this was more an ambush tactic, there barely was dueling anymore. Fighter wings would swoop down on the enemy and zoom away, then turn back and do the same again until they ran out of ammo or fuel.
The US AAF and Navy perfected this tactic and ordered their fighters to be uniquely suited for it. Late US planes would not have a great climb speed, but in the pacific theatre, the distances were so long that that didn't matter. The machines were very heavy, which meant they could outdive anything the Japanese Armed Forces (mostly using turnfighters, like the RAF) could throw at them.
Strategic bombing would be used much more heavily in WW II, so fighter escorts were standard. Again, the best plane for that role was the P-51. Its range was so great that it could range in front of bomber formation to sweep the sky clear of German interceptors, which by then were much more heavily armed than their US counterparts, but lacked the flight characteristics to keep up with them.
Don't trust Dogfights (the show) too much. It has the reputation of being historically inaccurate.
A Split-S is a simple change in direction. You do an aileron roll while in level flight so you fly inverted. Then you pull on the elevators until you have reversed direction. It's called Split-S because from the side, the plane's flight path looks like the bottom half of the letter S.
It was a pretty effective way of dodging incoming fire, but there are much more complex maneuvers.
'The Train Job' wasn't Firefly's pilot. It's the second episode. I agree that it would be a bad pilot. The real, feature length pilot is called 'Serenity' (like the movie) and sets up the characters nicely.
The problem with Rebels is that the second episode was as bad as the first one.
Jaysus, go watch Firefly already! Cue FreeholdDM showing up in a puff of sulfurous smoke and tell you the opposite.
Reynolds is not neutral. The man has serious issues with authority, so I'd peg him has chaotic neutral.
I agree that most ciders are too sweet. I'm partial to Bulmers (Magners outside of Ireland; don't drink the English swill). I think it's more intensely flavoured than Strongbow while having a nice balance between sweetness and tartness.
We don't get any US ciders in old Europe, sadly. I heard some good stuff about them. As for pear cider: I liked Koppaberg's. Their apple cider tastes very artificial, though.
Crysis is a prime example. When made, it wasn't possible to run it on ultra on any gaming rig at the time.
Crysis is also known as the world's most expensive tech demo (at that time).
I don't understand the desire to always have to play games at maximum settings. If the game is good, graphics are only a nice accessory. If the game sucks, even the greatest graphics in the world will not save it.