|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It's funny. I enjoy the the variety you get from microbreweries (oops, dating myself, they're called craft brews now) but a good amount of the time it seems like there's been no quality control whatsoever, and they're just trying to market a disastrous recipe as the latest thing for hipsters. Of course, there's no accounting for taste, my own included.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That was a typo, actually. I meant to write "fined at all" (as in found guilty), but dropped the D, so I guess it's all my fault if the thread gets entirely incomprehensible. :P
Y'know, thinking about ridiculing nazis, I just went and read an article about stage production of The Producers in Germany. Given that they replaced the swastikas on the posters with pretzels, but kept them in the performance, now I wondering if Williamson would have been fined at all if he had been speaking privately rather than doing an interview for public broadcast.
The thing is, I don't think anyone who's posted in this thread is advocating the instatement of such laws here in the US, just recognizing that 1) the law exists in Germany, and 2) First Amendment rights in the US are more nuanced than "I can say whatever I want and nuts to all the legal consequences."
My real issue with this thread is RD's title: The Holocaust is a fact of history, not an accepted truth, and Williamson isn't ignorant about anything, he's speaking with an agenda.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Jeez, Doodles, you almost make it sound like you're in favor of voting. :P
Hey, no worries; I'm proud of a lot of the immature dumb s**t I did, too. :P
Edit: Or rather, whether or not it makes him proud, he'll certainly use it for political hay.
This is a real question Sis, not snark. What sort of suffering do you find appropriate?
I'm speaking as WASP-ey as WASP can be US citizen who's needed a trip the hospital after getting in a fist fight with neo-nazis at a party in my own home. Make of that what you will.
Aesop's fable? Why the frick would I bother to include a moral? :P More seriously, how is it a planet of hats if it's not all tulips all the time everywhere?
My issue with using real Europe for how well it hangs together is that at a certain point it limits your story options with all the history. This is a particularly a problem with with level based games like D&D and PF; at a high enough level the only way you can reconcile that sort of influence with the historical record is to pull a "I guess everyone's been calling me Charlemagne the whole time, or something?"
Doug, do you think that a first generation millionaire (who could very well be someone who inherited $990,000 after taxes and owned $11,000 of their own beforehand) is even in the top 10%?
That's an honest question, but I've got to say that at this point someone with a million dollars in assets is not riding around in their lear jet and eating lobster every night for dinner. I wouldn't be surprised if they're within the middle class tax bracket, tbh.
Orf, can I ask if you feel you should only use those reference books in a historical setting? I'm asking cause Ars Magica isn't the pseudo-medieval not-europe of Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms, it's Europe. Like, Europe Europe.
Personally, even though my home brew D&D setting is ostensibly somewhere on a planet in the Traveller universe (or Star Wars sometimes, there was a d20 system for that), I have no compunctions whatsoever about using history such as the Dutch tulip bubble of 1637 for world building fodder, because having the continent's strongest economy fail because of over valued flowers is just awesome.
Not to mention, labor as in repaving roads so everyone can drive on them, or "labor" as in signing an endorsement deal because you're a media figure. 'Cause one of those actually holds our society together in a functional way, and the other is something we all ignore if we can't fast forward our DVR through it, and guess which one earns the big bucks?
Those are good points, Three. When I said I was curious about sample size and what not, my (badly phrased) point was that if the 16% of the population come from populations indigenous to environments with venomous animals like the ones pictured in the article, then yes, it's an evolutionary advantage as surely as lactose tolerance is in the northern european gene pool. If, on the other hand, it's a completely random distribution across the entire world's population, it's probably just some weird quirk that doesn't do enough harm to get bred out of the gene pool, like Krensky talked about.
I don't think there's anything wrong with drawing inspiration from real world sources. Orientalism salad sounds very, very tasty!
I guess at a certain point I do start to wonder if dedicated asian themed supplements do more harm than good. In the case of AD&D, I never felt that the selection of classes in the 1e player's handbook couldn't be used for an asian themed campaign, so having a supplement called Oriental Adventures felt like some sort of misguided attempt at segregation masquerading as open mindedness. On the other hand, I'm pretty impressed by Spears of the Dawn, so maybe I'm just a big fat hypocrite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
As I've mentioned elsewhere on these boards, I went through several years of playing Traveller, when I remade my D&D campaign setting under the that system. Since then the three major human ethnicities in my world have been have been much closer Solomani, Vilani and Zhodani than anything historical. Point being, you're right about the maps, but there's no requirement to copy real world cultures, either.
Well, given the commonality of poisonous snakes on every fricken single continent, getting spooked by a snake slithering towards you is actually fairly appropriate, evolutionarily speaking.
The question is, are patterns terrifying like poisonous snakes? I don't think so. I think patterns look like a tiled floor and a pile of wood to burn inside it all winter long.
I'm curious about how Cole (oops, the article's author actually, only the first sentence of that paragraph is a quote) describes feeling revulsion at such patterns as a evolutionary advantage, while only 16% of the population feels that revulsion. Doesn't that mean that 84% of us have ancestors who managed to survive to add to the gene pool without evolving said phobia? I'm curious about sample size and whatnot.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I think I read about that in an episode of KoDT. :P
I don't disagree with any of your post, jeff, and I certainly can't talk about the specifics of DM's esperience, but if a PC of good alignment decides to kill noncombatants out of expediency, the GM's description of feeling guilty may well be the hint that there should have been a more diplomatic approach, rather than a political correctness fueled guilt trip.
Don't get me wrong, around the gaming table, if it's a choice between subtlety and player comprehension, player comprehension should win every time.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I recall a dm wanted to be politically correct once after we had finished a quest. So, kobolds had been attacking caravans, eating people, damaging trade in the region. After we exterminated almost all of them, the dm started trying to play up the we should feel guilty about killing them. It was very weird, but a mark of political correctness and notions of victimhood encroaching on a game with typical quests that were older than the pc ideas. Don't kill the murdering kobolds, their young and wives might feel bad and then you should feel bad now that they are victims. Urgh.
To be fair, PCs were ignoring that sort of moral dilemma for years before political correctness really got going. I mean, Moldvay Basic has a picture of three PCs arguing about the fate of a captive goblin right next to the alignment section.
Well, but, if they didn't have a regular season cycle to measure the moon cycles against, what sets the common standard of how many times the moon circles the planet. Look, GRRM hasn't even said, maybe the planet's not spherical at all, maybe it's got more of a Pratchett shape to it.
Happy to see the return of Ser Dontos.
James Jacobs wrote:
How 'bout we split the difference and call it Touched by an Illegitimate, Sadistic . . . y'know what, never mind.
I can't say that old school D&D taught me how tough any given monster was. (Well, not without countless hours spent pouring over the Monster Manual.) It did teach me (like, within three sessions) that attacking every single monster you meet and expecting survive because you're the protagonist and they're the monster is unrealistic.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
But they have comets! Something as regularly occurring as a comet suggests a whole bunch stuff in a nerd's brain, astronomically speaking.
More seriously (but not that seriously, cause, y'know, magic) if the seasonal variation were tied to the axial tilt, long summers would be as bad as long winters. Westeros has just been through an 8 year summer, and everyone has spent the whole time growing food to store for the winter because the middle 4 years weren't made up of the sun beating down on drought stricken fields for 24 hours a day.
Did they ever even name Ice in the TV series? I'm not sure they did, but I loved the way the intro left no doubt whatsoever as to what was going on there.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what kind of an orbit the planet must have, to have variable seasons on a year-to-year basis. Realistically, there would have to be a binary star system involved, and some kind of weird figure-8 thing going on, but the books don't mention two suns, and even in such a system the progression would be predictable, not random. So the real answer has to be "it's magic," because physics doesn't really allow it.
For a while there I was trying to come up with an answer involving tidal locking, axial tilt and no little orbital wobble, but even an astrophysics neophyte such as myself is fairly sure any planet like that would have torn itself up into an asteroid belt millennia before the Andals had a chance to invade Westeros, never mind Aegon the conquerer. So yeah, "it's magic" works.
Anyhow, I enjoyed last night's episode. Wedding bells next week, fun-fun.
Everyone's younger in the books. I don't have then in front of me atm, but I think the first book is set 13 years after the war. As I remember, Ned Stark's in his thirties in the books, and, nothing against seeing him the role, Sean Bean is most assuredly not at this point.
(How do people who live on a planet without regular seasons even invent the concept of a year? You'd have to ask GRRM himself.)
The thing that made Superman a superhero was all the times he got shot by criminals, right in the chest, and the bullets bounced off!! Popeye was doing that junk years beforehand, and coming back with the pithy line, "Whattya these're button holes?"
I guess I'm saying that super-powers work at a certain level of absurdity that can only really exist in the funny papers.
Okay, sure, so long as you've read Thimble Theatre, I think we're probably on the same page. I just think it's really tough to think of a definition of superhero that doesn't include Popeye, and he predates Superman. Then again, if you want to call Popeye the first superanti-hero, I'm fine with that. :)
I retract my earlier statement, now I think it's going to be called Bastard Sword of Not Getting Your Panties in a Twist. Seriously dude, they've got a techno-magic sword slated for publication, and I doubt the item description will say "...this looks nothing like an energy sword, just to bother Tels..."
When you say earliest Popeye strips, are you talking about when the strip was called Popeye ('cause the character was so popular that Segar renamed it), or have you read it from the beginning, back when it was just about the lives and loves of the Oyl family under the title Thimble Theatre? Thimble Theatre struggled along for years and years, but once Segar introduced Popeye, the world demanded that he rename the comic and license it for cartoons, like, immediately.
Anyhow, my point was that everyone (critics) ignores Popeye in the genealogy of superheroes just the way they (critics again) ignore the Oz books in the development of the fantasy genre.
James Jacobs wrote:
JJ, you've stolen my heart by mentioning Moon in the same sentence as Avatar. Yes, I'm a very cheap date, with low standards. :)
Aw man, I thought we were talking about about novelizations of the HBO series!
But seriously, I'm not sure it's possible to overstate the importance of the Oz books. It's similar to the way everyone calls Superman the first superhero, and completely discounts Popeye, who's been doing super powered stuff in a newspaper strip (without eating spinach, most of the time) for around a decade before Superman was published.
I did have a bit of a WTF moment when I realized that Paladins and Rangers both had access to Fighting Styles, which I'd thought of as a Fighter class feature. Sometimes it feels as if Fighters are consigned to a "Paladin/Ranger minus options" role whichever edition we're in. Personally I'm with damage on a miss and all the rest, I just want them to be unique to fighters.
I guess that depends how much WotC tries to link play style to the mechanics of 5E. Publishing a simple and versatile set of core rules with supplements to suit various play styles seems like a pretty viable solution, but I've also got to admit that I've never found my groups play style dictated by which edition we were playing.
Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:
Don't worry, JJ has also said there are going to be stats for the technic league captain's green glowing bubble sword, it's just that it's totally not a lightsaber. Like, at all. I think it's going to be called Bastard Sword of Non Copyright Infringement.
Okay, but Next wasn't promised to deliver all play styles in the world ever. The designers said they wanted to create an edition of D&D that would allow groups to play in a similar style of any previous edition of D&D.
Look, you've mentioned Savage Worlds, and I think you'd enjoy GURPs from what you said here; it certainly sounds like you prefer systems which allow much more customization than D&D does, which is fine. Anyone playing RPGs should find a system that suits their preferences, rather than play one that doesn't.
But the title of this thread asks how a new edition could be designed to allow for all play styles, not a system. Given that it's also in the 4E (and beyond) section, we're pretty obviously talking about D&D, with all the mechanics that brings to mind, instead of why we prefer our ideal systems.
Hitomi, I'm not saying you can't enjoy a classless system (although, if GURPS uses classes, that system has changed a lot since I last played it) but there are certain expectations built into the D&D brand, and anyone who has is even slightly familiar with D&D (as in, played for less than 6 months 30 years ago) is going to think of classes when they think of D&D. Hell, given the popularity of the B/X edition, they might be a bit confused about the differences between classes and races, but they'll remember classes.
I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy RPGs with classless character creation, but continually posting about on a thread about D&D 5E's appeal to fans of various previous editions is about as pertinent to the topic as if I started yammering on about how much I enjoyed playing Classic Traveller, so 5E should be a space opera setting with tech levels, and anyone who wants a standard D&D game can just play on a low tech world; simpler for everyone and objectively better!
Edit: Six and a half hours go by, and I get ninja by Jeremy in the last five minutes; there's no justice.