|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Put more clues without NPC interaction into the castle. When thinking of the big clues that push the plot forward, I never require a roll to discover. The clue is still up to player interpretation, and if they want to know something about it or gain an advantage, they need to roll. Secondary clues must be searched for and need a successful roll.
Huh, I wonder if I can work that into my barbarians a little.
We had just made characters and were having our little intro scene. We determined my barbarian and the paladin knew each other and were friends (they met in a bar fight). We're at a crossroads, in the ruins of an inn, a common resting point. Also present:
The thugs start ruffing up the pilgrims, demanding their stuff. I walk over and have the following exchange:
Me "Hey, how about we kill them and split their stuff."
We fought them briefly and scared them off. Not being one to violate dibs, I left the pilgrims alone, though they did reward me for protecting them.
While in a dungeon we had accidentally befriended some kobolds. They had been kicked out of their home by troglodytes, so we allied with the kobolds, since the trogs were the bigger problem (the kobolds had been hiding under the village for centuries without incident). While going through the caves I found some religious idols and wanting to be a great thief, I felt that stealing those idols was the equivalent of stealing their gods (he wasn't too bright).
After dispatching the trogs, we relocated the surviving kobolds (maybe 5 out of 80 left) into the village proper. My barbarian seeing himself as the champion of the village wanted to be declared mayor, so in an attempt to secure the kobold vote, he gave them their idols back. The town neither had a mayor, nor did it elect it's leaders. Since he was running unopposed and had 5 votes, he declared himself mayor. He then promptly left town, never to return.
I've actually made the mistake of running my Neutral characters as if they were Good. I usually follow that with indignant rationalization of their actions.
I had a CG barbarian who appeared to be violent, reckless, amoral and uncaring. If you paid attention in hindsight though, he was always accidentally helping people and never killed anyone who wasn't already planning on killing him. It was my interpretation of consequences>intentions. He intended to maim, slaughter and steal, but the consequences was protecting the innocent and giving back to the needy.
+2 trait bonus against charm and compulsion.
Had this on a dwarf druid in a Kingmaker campaign. I poured it on with Iron Will and later the improved version. A couple times I hit the jackpot and had to save against fey that were trying to charm/compel. I pretty much never failed a will save, maybe 2-3 times the whole adventure path.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Or we could stop treating the rules like a legal text and assume that paradoxical rules interpretations are invalid.
Or we could admit that the world "only" can have multiple meanings.
Freehold DM wrote:
What does any of this have to do with the topic?
It came from the Hedges essay. There are useful linguistic elements of how communism/socialism talks about capitalism that lay over the pornography industry quite well, since it's talking about power and it's distribution.
Plus, this is an internet forum, we wouldn't be fulfilling our purpose if we didn't go off-topic as rapidly and as far as possible.
Well, there haven't been bread queues for 80 years. We have had them, just not recently, and I doubt anyone who frequents the boards is old enough to have experienced them.
Hedges does the common thing, he takes a complex thing (human behavior and sex) and looks at it through a singular lens and arrives at only a single cause of what creates the problem. I agree with his take, but only if you then limit it to one aspect of the issue and not the whole issue. It explains some of the influences on modern sexuality and it's manifestation within porn, but it doesn't explain all of them.
For example, the issue of race in porn is super obvious and easily observed. It isn't necessarily in ALL porn, or even all porn with multiple races, but it does exist and there are thousands of examples that would back up most of his claims.
In a way, porn is useful as a way of highlighting the "bad thoughts" in society. It's already something that is inherently taboo, and often it delves into deeper taboos, or exploits them to achieve reactions. I don't point this out to say that porn is bad, rather that in some ways it can be a revealing mirror to hold up and expose the expectations and prejudices of society.
Quark Blast wrote:
You have a process you repeat regularly
1) remove context
Am I supposed to take you seriously when you literally invent meanings for other peoples posts and act like you're some sort of righteous crusader of debate?
The answer to that rhetorical question is "no" btw. Yes, I do find some of your opinions to be out there, and potentially even ridiculous. But it's really your style of interacting with people that I find almost completely lacking in substance. The reason there's no substance is that you invent things for other people to say out of thin air and then proceed on as if they were Newton's Laws.
Quark Blast wrote:
You put words into people's mouths almost as well as Peter North puts.... you get the idea.
Visual illusions rely on aspects of the brain that are entirely separate from what we use for our social understanding. We don't rely on the visual center of the brain that is tricked by illusions to make decisions in social situations. We might use the information the visual center has given us, but a different portion is where that decision is made.
I think there is some truth to the "monkey see, monkey do" theory, but it doesn't apply to movies/books/etc. Rather it applies to actual human interactions.
When people think about movies/books/etc intellectually, they seem to have a harder time separating them from real world experiences than our brain has in separating them in our own lives (sounds like an odd distinction but stay with me).
This has been shown to a degree with infants. If you put an infant in the care of someone who speaks a language, the infant starts to learn it. If you put the infant in front of a TV with someone speaking a different language, they learn very little, if any, of that language. Video education can work with older children, but it requires a bit of brain development first.
Our brain is better at recognizing these false images and sorting between real and fantasy better than we give it credit. At the same time, we are heavily influenced by those around us, so if you aren't prepared to give the brain its due credit it's very easy to come to the conclusion that movies/books/etc should influence the same as interactions with people in our daily lives.
I don't disagree with you, just pointing out my theory on how that theory develops.
No, they are equivalent. You are supporting a legalized form of discrimination, saying that businesses can choose to refuse anyone they want based on religious reasons. If you don't remember, there were lunch counter sit-ins at private businesses that refused to serve African-Americans.
Why are Muslim-Americans different? (or Jewish/Christian/Mormon/Atheist/etc) Why do these people deserve to be discriminated against?
You want to allow discrimination. You say you don't SUPPORT it, but you want to ALLOW it.
I fail to see any benefit to our society by allowing discrimination, all it does is create divides within out society, increasing rifts and distrust. These are not beneficial things for our society.
Second, I find it fundamentally violates the concept of freedom of religion (the first amendment concerns the government, I'm speaking more broadly), because it gives tools to people who want to force their religion on others. If the people of one religion have more money than another religion, they can effectively buy out that religions businesses and create a religious monopoly in a region creating pressure to bow to their religion. I find that prospect to be just as disgusting as the first portion.
You want to strip out protections for people who are discriminated against.
For example, in the 50's and 60's, you would be siding with the businesses that refused to allow blacks to eat there.
Is that really where you want to stand on this issue?
If a rules interpretation creates inane possibilities that don't make any sort of sense, then that rules interpretation is incorrect. I don't care how you justify it.
If I can stand up (move action) then it's ridiculous to assume I can't go prone (free action). If your interpretation doesn't account for this, it really has to be assumed that it's wrong.
Also, I spent 8 years in the US Navy. I've had plenty of conversations while vomiting and/or with other people who were vomiting. The conversation was slower, but it still occurred. I'd very much allow Nauseated characters to say 1-2 words per round. Examples:
The Departed (remake of Infernal Affairs)
If you haven't seen Infernal Affairs, I still recommend it. If you watch the two soon enough to remember specific scenes, you will see shot for re-shot of certain scenes. The Departed just has better actors (for an American audience at least). The ending to Infernal Affairs is better though.
I was in San Diego a couple weeks ago very briefly. It had snowed in the mountains that day and people were selling bags of snow collected from the mountains for like $100.
I used to visit SD a lot, but since I was young and in the Navy, my knowledge mostly concerned bars centered around the gas lamp district, and is 10+ years old anyways.
Recently got turned on to them. I particularly enjoy the darker sounding songs, they have a nice ominous vibe to them and might actually employ them as mood music for some games.
This song is about a mountain troll proposing marriage to a young knight, promising wealth, land and weapons to conquer his enemies. The knight turns her down, at which the troll laments that her curse will never be lifted.
Food has an unpleasant side effect when you stop taking it, as does oxygen and water.
I think unpleasant side effects when you stop taking something might be too liberal of a sole criteria to consider for "addiction" to have a useful meaning.
Your analysis of the economy fails because you are reliant on one cause to explain something that is exceptionally complex with many influences.
Your analysis completely ignores multiple facets of economics and history.
You're right, the Fed has pumped massive amounts of money into the stock market. But that is NOT the only factor, or probably even the largest factor, on why wages are stagnant. In fact, if trickle-down does work, it actually disproves your theory that that is why wages are stagnant.
Your theory is actually mutually exclusive to itself.
There's the simple concept of stealing it. Killing a lesser deity or demi-god and using that death as part of a ritual to ascend seems pretty straight forward as a concept. You'd want to build what that ritual looks like and means with your DM (what kind of components for example).
Another is tapping into some sort of arcane source of power, or the source of your bloodline as a sorcerer.
The fact that you have to debate me on it's definition implies that the definition is not as set in stone as you would like it to be. My point stands, video games that defied your definition immediately jumped to mind, making your definition counter-productive to your point.
I honestly think we'd be better off leaving video games out of the discussion entirely. I'm sure you'll disagree and pull us further into this tangent though.
Yeah, it's really the rules of Craft that don't apply. The short paragraph for "Practice a Trade" can work, but that equally applies to Profession and Perform and is basically the same rules. The longer portion of Craft, involving materials equal to 1/3 the cost of the base item is what doesn't apply.
Profession for writing the play.
Unlike some other professions, it might be that you don't get paid as regularly, so that you make several weekly checks to write a play, but get paid at the end when it's finally done (negotiated between you and the DM).
Please don't bring "video gamey" into this, because I will just give you a list of video games where you don't get to heal up between fights, or games where healing to full is a luxury.
It's not "video gamey" it's "resource management". Going into a fight at low HP is basically suicidal if the fight is remotely party level appropriate, because the CR system assumes that people will be roughly at max HP. The CR system assumes that you are using resources during and after the fight to recover. Removing resources available to the party effectively reduces the parties abilities to handle CR appropriate challenges (or at least multiple challenges in a day).
One of the things I really like about 5E and 13th Age, when you rest you get everything back at max. You don't have to do math and manage resources, the rest is a reset on your resources. The management of resources is in deciding what to use during a fight and knowing how many fights you might have to deal with.
My question for the OP: what specifically is it you don't like about the wands? Is it the healing? or the wands themselves?
If it's just the wands, and not the healing, give them an alternate way to heal that's efficient and tell your players you're removing CLW wands. For example, if channeling out of combat provides max value (say it takes 2 rounds to do a channel like that and can be interrupted), that puts the focus back on healing classes and not the wands without reducing available resources.
Cliches and tropes work for a reason. They aren't bad in and of themselves, but rather in their execution.
I run some games that are very high on their creativity strain. I often tell people as I'm teaching them to go for the obvious. Don't kill yourself trying to be uber creative, keep the flow going and do the obvious thing. What happens is that once you start the cliche creative endeavor, you spend your energy changing it and making it non-cliche, giving it individual detail.
A recent movie example would be John Wick. A very cliche and trope filled movie. I thought they did just enough twisting of those cliches and tropes though to keep the movie moderately interesting.
Players rarely ask to look at an economic analysis of a region/city. They might ask obvious questions, such as "where do they get food from?", so have answers for that, as well as any other natural resources they appear to be using.
To give the sense of isolation, you want to consider some aspects of the city that are backwards, or have evolved strangely. Think about a real world isolated location: Cuba. They spent decades without the ability to import cars, so they fixed up their old cars repeatedly, making spare parts out of whatever they could manage.
Pick a couple of basic resources that they lack and imagine how the city would be different for not having them (like wood for instance, which is an incredibly efficient crafting material). Also, consider some technological innovations, or even magical innovations of the outside world and how these guys don't have them. For every 4 things they lack, create a strange thing they made themselves, it could solve a problem in a different way, or be unrelated.
I currently co-DM a game with 8 players. We just finished our second year and currently on break (picking the campaign up again in a couple months). It's been very enjoyable.
The biggest thing is not bearing the creative burden alone. Having another person who is supposed to know all the things you know to bounce ideas off of and share things with is very nice.
We tend to not really split the party, but the few times we have it's been handy. Also when in cities and the party goes a dozen different directions we get things done twice as fast, which is nice.
Summation of article: Obama's a nerd, nerds suck.
He even provides that same summation near the end:
a sizable portion of Trek fans, and of nerds in general, that identifies with Spock’s neuroses, his hang-ups, his self-loathing, that are attracted to the cold soulless abstractions through which he views life
To top it off, it's poorly written. This editor needs an editor.
Another way to rule that is they can examine what has already been found, in an attempt to find more detail about it, but they can't discover separate things.
Ex: A player rolls perception and fails to find a secret door under a statue, because they rolled low. Someone else rolls, they could examine the statue in further detail, but would not reveal the secret door.
More on topic, "being relevant to the story" is a huge, vague space. Not everything has to be strictly central to the story. Some things are included in descriptions to help build mood/theme/context for other things. Just because a detail has been revealed doesn't mean everything about it has been revealed.
One thing I do as DM is ask players what details they remember from session to session. When players remember details, I include them as relevant, which achieves several purposes:
1) it ties the story together well
I'm not afraid to rewrite my plot mid-session to incorporate cool ideas my players have, and I don't just mean cool ideas for actions they take, but cool ideas they have for the villains to be doing. If a player says "Oh man, it'd really suck if the bad guy was planning to do....." I often incorporate some element of that into the plan now.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Internet forum discussions will always be better when you give everyone participating the chance to be informed. People are going to comment whether you inform them or not, so by not providing basic information, you get more comments that are uninformed. I don't want to get in a long debate about this, just pointing out something useful for future discussions.
We recently went back to XP. We have an old system we use, I won't get into details, but we've adopted two new rules which I like.
1) Anytime someone earns XP, everyone earns XP. If player A gets a bonus for roleplaying and entertaining the table, everyone earns the reward.
2) Whoever has the highest experience total earns XP normally. Anyone below that total earns double XP until they catch up. This has made it easier for our friends who show up less often, or can't make whole sessions, stay relevant to the party.
I'm not huge on XP, but these changes have made it better for us IMO.
There were old proposed rule changes. John Oliver complained about them. The FCC did not adopt them.
Instead, they adopted something closer to Net Neutrality.
Oliver's piece is still valid, but it was about the problem as it existed at that time. Things have since changed. The core concepts are still relevant, but details are different.