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

Grey Lensman's page

2,106 posts (2,115 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I've started watching [I]Blade of the Immortal[I] on HuluPlus last night. Looks good so far.

Wrath wrote:

Honestly, all speculation aside, I can't see me personally buying more than the three core books for a long while.

I have something like 6 or 7 Paizo campaigns I can run, with little effort from me in converting to 5th ed rules. That's the joy of the rule set in fact. It has enough going for it that similar systems from the past mesh perfectly.

My players will likely buy more options books though. If it gives more variability for them throughout the different campaigns they play, it's likely to sell.

Books that detail the campaign setting will also sell. By this I mean ones that both players and GMs can read to get a feel for world and make it more immersive. We're all avid readers and interesting worlds or creatures or cultures often inspires our gaming.

However, those books are likely to be a one per table deal. We share our resources pretty heavily.

I'm not sure how unique my group is in this regard. If it's pretty wide spread though, the getting new players in is a better deal. When we were new we bought everything. Now we're a little more jaded, and experienced enough to just convert what we've already got.

My gaming group normally only has one copy of most campaign world supplements. We have two of the most heavily used ones, if they have a lot of 'crunch' in the books, especially if multiple players are constantly dipping into it (the 2E FR pantheon bok, since in 2E we tended towards 'god squad' style parties, and the 3E FR main book).

Technotrooper wrote:
Because D&D 5e seems to be focusing on promoting feelings of nostalgia, I would not be surprised if they bring back iconic settings (even as one-offs or licensing deals) and adventures. I believe they are at least considering a strategy like this.

My semi-educated guess (or maybe even less than that) is a two-fold strategy. Nostalgia to pull the old players back, and being simple enough to lure in new ones at the same time. If they do feel that 'splitting the customer base' was one of their mistakes from the TSR days, then we won't see many campaign settings. I'd expect the FR, with maybe one or two more at most, and those aren't likely to be high-fantasy type settings (so Greyhawk and Dragonlance would most likely be out. It sucks for fans of those settings, but IMO those three feel a lot like variations of a theme) but would more likely be something with a completely different feel. Eberron is the top candidate out of what's left. It's reasonably popular, and far enough away from the theme and feel of the other big three to be much less likely to split the customer base.

Digitalelf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I don't think the splitting customer base was the core of TSR's problems.
So, Lisa Stevens lied about her findings? Told us half-truths? Do you think she is trying to push some agenda? If so, to what end? TSR is dead and gone, and Paizo is making her lots of money...

I think he just believes her conclusion was mistaken?

Everything I heard about TSR during those days tells me that 'splitting the customer base' was just one of their many mistakes. Someone who went over what passed for their books says it was the biggest one, and I am inclined to believe that myself since she really has nothing to gain by lying, and as she is currently involved in running a successful company I'd say she is also competent at the job (making me think she is less likely to make a mistake than me, even if I had the benefit of seeing the books).

That's up the individual GM. I think that is the point of many of the mysteries in the campaign.

So that means Zuko must have ended up with Mai. His name has a 'K' sound in it and hers ends in that long 'A'. They never did say if she came back after leaving during the comics. But now we can figure it out.

My main group isn't going to switch - nobody wants to invest in the cost of the books. Another group that bounces from game to game will, but the GM has a large disposable income and a short attention span. So how long it will last is anybody's guess.

LazarX wrote:
I'm going to be one of the few ex-Trekkies to put in a mention for Star Trek:The Animated Series. While it was disowned by Roddenberry, and the animation quality is not something that even Filmation should be proud of, It had better storylines than much of the original series, and introduced some rather neat alien crewmembers.

One of the great things about animation is you don't need a makeup budget. Freaky-looking aliens often cost the exact same amount as normal looking humans and never have the actors complain about sitting in the chair for hours.

Blayde MacRonan wrote:
Le Chevalier D'Eon... awesome series. It has that right mix of history and fantasy that just makes it so good.

It is. My only problem with it is that Lea is pretty much of a 'corpse sue'. It seems like EVERYBODY of any real importance they meet thinks she was perfect and was in love with her.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Scythia wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
As a carryover the original monks in D&D and Ad&D 1st (prior to Oriental Adventures) all belonged to a single hierarchical order of monks and as monks leveled they gained rank in that order until becoming the head of the order.

But I just joined the college a week ago, are you sure I should be the new Archmage? I don't even have over 30 in any magic skills.

I'm glad they got rid of the challenge for rank (by level) aspects of the classes that had them. It got silly thinking that every PC was ultimately destined to be head (class name).

What happened if you had two monks in the group?

Mortal Kombat?

They had to start rival sects, one becoming the North Star, the other Southern Cross.

You don't need to explain to someone who is already dead. :P

Sissyl wrote:
They prefer nobody seeing a movie they spend millions on to "encouraging torrenting"? They certainly should rethink their status as a movie making company. Seriously.

IIRC Sony's music label arm had put malware on the CD's to 'prevent piracy' or some crap like that.

The only problem I have with it is the use of the overdone 'cram both names together' crap. I hated it when the tabloids coined 'Bennifer' and like it even less now that any public couple (real or fictional) gets a similar moniker. Blegh.

Chris Mortika wrote:

As long as you mean "Voltron the 5 lions" as opposed to "Voltron the fifteen-car pile-up" I agree.

I admit to being a fan of the Star Trek animated series, and of SeaLab 2020.

I feel like I am alone in my feelings about those shows. I thought the lions, while looking cooler, were piloted by 4 (quickly 5 when Sven was written out) very flat characters who never grew in any meaningful way. And the villains they had were even more one-dimensional. Plus the lame -try-everything-even-though-the-only-thing-that-ever-works-is-the-sword- is something that destroyed my suspension of disbelief even as a kid (I got a soft spot for the vehicle pileup solely due to seeing something other than blazing sword take out the monster of the week in the first episode I saw).

Umbranus wrote:

Often players want to rebuild characters they know from media. Whether that is good or bad is another topic I do not want to elaborate on in this thread.

What I AM after is this: If you aim to create a pathfinder pc that resembles a certain media character, why is it so important that every fluff you have in mind is backed up by facts?

Example: Someone wants to play a Guts (whoever that is) style PC wielding a sword with an oversized blade.
In PF blades and hilts always have the same size. There are no large weapons with a medium sized hilt. So you can either wield a medium sized sword and fluff the blade as bigger or you can wield a large sword* and fluff its hilt as medium. Now, why is it so important for people that the blade size is reflected by the crunch, the rules? Even if it would be much easier to just fluff it? The PC would "be" the character who's flavor you want.

*large two-handed swords can't be wielded by medium sized PCs.

If it is the flavor you are after, why is it important to create new rules? Why not use the existing rules and still play your fluff?

Example 2: Someone wants to play a strong dual wielding Samurai. How important is it that this pc really has the samurai class written on his sheet? From a rules perspective he could well play a slayer, getting TWF from a ranger combat style. If he behaves and dresses like a samurai why would it be any worse, fluff wise, than a pc with samurai written on the sheet? Again, why look at the rules when you are aiming for a certain fluff?

I have two answers to this.

One: Crunch isn't required, but it helps

Two: Trying to exactly duplicate a character from other media is nearly impossible

A character from a long running television show, novel series, or comic book is going to have had loads of development, and will be able to do things that a class based system won't allow them to do without serious multi-classing (or often even with it). Almost no writers follow the character making rules from Pathfinder or any other RPG, even in books [b]based on[/I] a specific RPG (although they will follow the rules more closely).

Misroi wrote:
It's as good a guess as any with the information we have available. Not everyone with powers is going to be Inhuman, though. I think Scorch from S1 is a good example of "gifted, not Inhuman." He didn't know how he got his powers. I really feel like if you went into an abandoned temple and briefly gained a stone cocoon after a crystal farted on you, then you'd be prone to remembering it. It's possible that Wanda and Pietro will fall in that category.

Also a good point. I mentioned the Inhumans in the manner I did to bring up the point that it is an explanation which shouldn't be discounted out of hand. But, as you rightly point out, it shouldn't be accepted to the exclusion of all other possibilities either. Anyways, we will have definite answers eventually, as the comics will not let a storyline like that sit for too long (I think it's part of the next relaunch of Remender's title) and Avengers II is due out next Summer.

They should screen it at the White House to send a message (even if the movie isn't any good) and invite all the world leaders to it.

Where are Dingo and his petitions when you need them?

Greylurker wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
You acknowledge that you are a Brony?
for many years, yes.
Well done. To admit that means you are no coward!

I've watched it in Japanese with english subtitles.

Japanese Derpy is damn cute

(Ponies, they will consume every thread)

if possible it's even BETTER....
Wait, does that mean you are watching something dubbed, then subtitled back?

messes with your head doesn't it.

So much for dubbing means it must have been ruined. Direct from the horse's mouth.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Hama wrote:
Well, I believe that Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are Inhumans in MCU

Uh...the evidence we have suggests they're lab experiments made by Strucker.

He did speculate as to why they survived with powers while others died in the experiments, but that hardly screams 'Inhumans' to me.

I'd say there is a chance. It isn't certain, but given the ties Quicksilver has to the inhumans in the comics (being married to one of the royal family and having a kid with her) I can't discount the possibility either.

Princess Bride
Blazing Saddles
History of the World, Part I
..Screw it, nearly anything by the master we call Mel Brooks
Hang 'Em High
Captain America (especially the early scenes before he becomes Cap)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's ANY purposes Iron. Asset seizure laws are pretty close to the top of the list for things that have gone horribly wrong in this country.

Freehold DM wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
You acknowledge that you are a Brony?
for many years, yes.
Well done. To admit that means you are no coward!

I've watched it in Japanese with english subtitles.

Japanese Derpy is damn cute

(Ponies, they will consume every thread)

if possible it's even BETTER....

Wait, does that mean you are watching something dubbed, then subtitled back?

Marvel always seems to follow a simple rule. Steve Rogers is never allowed to be on the wrong side.

Aaron Bitman wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

Because I defended the JJ Trek as a Trek fan, and it spiraled from there.

It's a more interesting conversation than lightsaber nerdrage at any rate. :)

Maybe someone should start a Star Trek thread.

Heh. I am amused by people bringing science into a discussion about Star Wars, personally. In a world where ghosts talk, certain people can do the impossible by waving their hands, space fighters maneuver like they are in the atmosphere, a sword is better than a gun, and dozens of other such things, what sets people off is a crossguard on a sword made out of light?

Hama wrote:

I am one of those rare people who LOVED Enterprise.

It must burn haters that it's still considered canon in the JJ-reboot.
TOS I tried to watch too old and couldn't stomach the crappy effects, although I watched the best episodes, like the one where Kirk kissed Uhura.

I thought Enterprise was dismissed as canon by itself, declaring that the whole thing was a holonovel. That series managed to anger the hardcore fans so much that unrelated science fiction got killed over it. (Threats of outright refusal to watch anything featuring those producers - sight unseen - by a large number of Trek fans)

But you picked an important TOS episode to highlight, Network TV's first interracial kiss IIRC. And the story behind that one is pretty funny. NBC was going to force them to film with and without the kiss and decide at airtime (meaning with 100% certainty without). Therefore, Shatner purposely messed up every single without the kiss attempt.

Kthulhu wrote:
Gee, they deal with the worst scum of humanity on a day-to-day basis. I can't understand why some of them become cynical.

While the end result is perfectly understandable, the potential fallout for everyone else is something that needs to be addressed as well. The mere perception reduces trust between the populace and the police department, which in turn isolates them more from the public, in a perpetual motion generator of suck that reaches out and costs people their lives, freedom, or (least of the three) property too often.

Angstspawn wrote:

Even considering that it was a terrible mistake, why not firing the officer from police forces?

If it's possible to fire a firewoman posing topless it should be possible to consider shooting dead unarmed people as an inappropriate (or excessive) behavior too, no?

Easier said than done when the union (and despite the blows they have taken in the private sector, govt unions are still powerful) will circle the wagons as well. When the person is 'cleared of any wrongdoing' by a police run investigation, and a grand jury fails to indict, there isn't the justification needed to fire someone from a government job. Although the case in NYC may be able to have that outcome, seeing as how the guy used a hold banned by department procedures.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Hal Jordan or nothing.
I always liked Jordan best, but I think that DC will want to distance themselves as much as possible from the fiasco that was Green Lantern (although I liked the movie, especially Sinestro, and Reynolds was good as Jordan)

For me it is Kyle Rayner (who won me over by not having a clue to the fact that he couldn't affect yellow, so therefore he could: since retconed) and the 'from the Golden Age' version of Alan Scott.

I think the real problem with the GL movie was that the tried to do too much for one film, leaving too much to exposition rather than showing it in the actual movie. If they had stuck to Hector Hammond and Hal's training it would have been much, much better.

Digitalelf wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
All GM's considered an eventual TPK to be the goal, success was measured in how long it took before that point was reached. I don't miss it at all.
Never played or ran it that way...

I never played under you. All posts I make can be considered my own anecdotal experiences rather than generalizations of everything, everywhere. I guess sarcasm isn't the only thing lost across messageboards.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I think it's the set of D&D boxed sets, each tied to ever increasing level ranges: Beginner - Expert - Companion(?) - Master(?) - Immortal.

That would explain it. I have never played any of the box sets past basic. Back in those days, none of us ever even made it to level 2. All GM's considered an eventual TPK to be the goal, success was measured in how long it took before that point was reached. I don't miss it at all.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I never played BECMI, I'd always just assumed it was the same as AD&D. What are the differences, do you think?

I don't even know WHAT it is, since I have never seen the full name once on these boards, just the acronym.

Hama wrote:
Idris Elba as John Stewart would be awesome.

I prefer this option.

My gaming group has a retiree (who has barely progressed past 2nd) and a stroke victim (who lost his math skills as a result). If 5th ever releases digital tools there is a very high chance my group could switch. Although without them the chances are much, muh lower.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
I wonder what would happen if Freehold met Whedon :D

And didn't recognize him? And really hit it off? Only to discover who it was after?

It's all in the execution. Star Wars wasn't original either, just very well done.

Something isn't bad just because Whedon is involved, nor is it automatically awesome.

Lucas already lowered it pretty far, we are just accepting where he left it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

After the double bladed lightsaber the claymore lightsaber is small potatoes as far as the 'how do you weild it?' questions are concerned.

After the double bladed lightsaber, the claymore doesn't really seem bad.

IIRC, the old movie version isn't the comic version either. Doom did not get powers from the same accident that created the Fantastic Four (nor does he really have any - it's the suit, the brains, and the sorcery he learned). He's pretty much a self-made monster.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While a stupid idea, it did give me one laugh from the DOOM tumblr (reblogged from a guy I follow)

'DOOM cannot deny that he leaked this nude photo of the hated Susan Richards'

It's just the couch.

The rest of it is gonna be a train wreck, methinks.

One of her comic Images shows her room. A wall of Ollie pictures (think Mr. Memania from Perfect Blue) and one poster of Black Canary. The eyes are X'd out and 'Die Tramp Die!' has been scrawled across the top.


Crazy lovestruck fan who believes GA to be her one true love. Stalk and kills a few of his villains and starts trying to learn the bow herself in order to impress him.

thejeff wrote:

As you say, Asimov was pretty savvy. All his stuff is still in copyright. So it doesn't apply to Foundation.

It could apply to other works published around the same time, but it doesn't to the Foundation series.

Nor Lensman, I believe. Though that could make an awesome series if done well. You might have to file some of the 50's sexism off, which might be trickier than it sounds.

So many liberties were taken with the Lensman anime that the Smith estate has refused all adaptations since.

bugleyman wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Yes, and I still have that option, only it is going to take a separate distribution contract, and I haven't made up my mind about that yet, and the fact the hard copy editions were a disaster (turns out I am a terrible writer, go figure).
Pretty much every successful author ever has been rejected time and again, both by publishers and in the market. Just because you haven't found success yet doesn't mean you won't.

J.K. Rowling couldn't get a publisher to give her the time of day until the last one handed the manuscript to his kid.

Terquem wrote:

God I so agree with you

and then maybe we can get rid of all those wasteful renditions of oil based pigments on stretched sails. Man is that getting old.

Seriously. Economics. That's your argument, economics?

I published two novels. My publisher pays me $2.35 for each physical copy sold. You know what they pay me for each digital copy they sell...I'll give you one guess.

I don't know about you personally, but I game with a published author myself. He makes more per digital sale than per hardcopy sale, despite the digital stuff costing the consumer less.

Hama wrote:
And spit in the faces of the entire collective trust of minds who contributed to the EU for almost as long as he was alive. Yay.

Considering that Lucas himself contradicted much of the EU when he did the prequels there is already precedence.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remember, Aang's avatar state was kind of bloodthirsty too, at least in comparison to Aang himself. While in the state, he was about to force Ozai to 'pay the ultimate price' for his actions and had to force himself out of it in order to try something a little less lethal.

Hama wrote:
Well, the title could have been dumber I guess...

Well, when you stop and think about it, 'The Empire Strikes Back' was a pretty lame title as well. We only think it is awesome because it is difficult to separate the lame title from the incredible movie associated with it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

It's usually best to wait about 24 hours after an episode airs to be posting about it on here outside of a spoiler tag.

That said, I'm pretty sure I initially included ***Spoilers*** in the thread name, so it's not exactly out there or something. It would be a very different story if it had been posted in the "Let's talk about Anime" thread though.

We do have several people who stream television and won't always get to watch on the network air date. Granted, that doesn't apply to a show that is only available online, but it is still a good rule of thumb.

I was referring to the line, not the rules behind it which made the line itself completely false. I can't remember exactly where the line 'alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket' is from, but it stuck with most of the people I game with. Thankfully I never played under a GM who used the 'you can't level until alignment is resolved' garbage, er, I mean rule.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm glad I don't include alignment for PCs anymore.

My group only worries about it for paladins and alignment based effects (which don't normally show up often, other than the occasional holy-type effect). We try to stick to the 'alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket' line from waaaayyyy back in AD&D. It might get mentioned if the character is doing really evil things (especially when the party often deals with a knightly order whose point of contact with us is a paladin) or when someone tries to claim they fit in one place on the law/chaos axis but the rest of us can't hear the claims without derisive laughter.

1 to 50 of 2,106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.