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

Irontruth's page

5,419 posts (5,421 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Be a fan of the player's characters.

Think of it like a TV drama that you watch. You enjoy it when your favorite character experiences success. When that same character experiences defeat, you feel sad for them, but it also means when they overcome that obstacle, it feels that much better.

Your job is to put obstacles in their path. Not so that they can't succeed, but rather just enough obstacles so that success feels rewarding and that it was earned.

Keep the action moving.

Imagine a locked door and the plot only moves forward if the PC's get beyond the door. Instead of requiring success to get through the door, the roll becomes about getting through the door without complication. If they fail, maybe the guards come along and spot them. Or maybe whatever they were seeking is already gone. Or the thieves tools break and the player takes a -2 to all rolls until he can get back to town and fix/replace them. Failing a roll doesn't HAVE to stop the action.


Caineach wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Unlike Wind, Solar is constant and dependable. You will ALWAYS have the sun,

*Looks up*

What's this "sun" you speak of? Is that one of those "Non-Western-Oregon" phenomena I've been hearing so much about?

In a lot of areas, wind is more reliable than solar. People don't realize how constant the wind is a lot of the time, especially off of ground level.

People also don't realize that wind has reached a cost efficiency nearly on par with coal (both of which are more cost efficient than natural gas).

In order of cost efficiency it goes:

Hydro 50% better than coal
Nuclear 25% better than coal
Coal
Wind 4% worse than coal
Natural Gas 20% worse than coal
Solar 80% worse than coal

For recirculating plants (roughly 80% of power plants are recirculating, regardless of fuel source) they use water as follows:

Solar: 900 g/MWh
Coal: 700 g/MWh
Nuclear: 650 g/MWh
Biopower: 550 g/MWh
Natural Gas: 200 g/MWh
Wind: 0 g/MWh

This is water drawn from a source and not returned. Many plants draw 10's of thousands more than that per MWh produced, but they return most of it to the system. In most regions power production accounts for roughly 3% of water usage.

Also, wind is only 4% less cost efficient than coal, while being roughly 15-20% more cost efficient than natural gas. It's actually become a very viable means of energy production.


Sissyl wrote:

Irontruth: Not at all. Just saying that environmentalists screaming might not be the best qualification of a true statement.

When did I say that environmentalists screaming is proof of something scientific?


When prepping a sandbox campaign I come up with the basic scenario of what's happening, who the factions are and what they want. Then I have the players make decisions of who they are and what they want. I have them figure out what is important to their characters and what they want to do. Then I know what exactly deserves my additional attention.

Have several books full of stat blocks, not just monsters, but humanoid npcs types as well. Things like bandits, knights, wandering wizards, etc.

When your creative juices are low, ask your players questions. Simple questions like:

Why do you trust (blank)?
Why doesn't (blank) trust you?
Who killed (blank)'s family?
You asked (blank) for help before, what went wrong?

Asking a leading question before the players meet an NPC helps throw in twists, adds some involvement from the players and reduces the creative load you have to bear.

Lastly, if the game starts to feel a little boring, or the players are going into an area you don't feel comfortable improvising, have ninjas attack. They don't have to be literal ninjas, but whatever bad guys are appropriate (bandits, goblins, invisible stalkers, sprites, etc). This works particularly well when getting semi-close to the end of the session. You can also follow up with some mysterious information, like a note carried by the bad guys that says the PC's are getting too close and to take them out.


Sissyl wrote:

In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties. We had massive numbers of trees just dying off, and the environmentalists of the time wasted no time connecting this to pollution, acid rain and so on. They staged protests where they blocked main throughfares in our cities, screaming "TREE MURDERERS!!!" to people driving cars, and so on.

The movement ended in time, as the people involved found other things to scream about (clubbed seals was big, and also paid for by Greenpeace). However, in the mid nineties, someone actually did a serious follow-up and found that some moron who was responsible for buying up massive numbers of plants from plant schools in Germany had forgotten to check the cold tolerance of the various plants they bought. Sweden has winters, most of the time anyway, and the trees couldn't cope.

Are you using this as some sort of proof that acid rain isn't real?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also acid rain, which was a huge problem and probably would have destroyed the environment as we know it had we not stopped that particular brand of polluting.

And the Dust Bowl.

People that claim humans can't affect the climate are ignoring history, which shows us that humans have impacted the climate multiple times in the past.


Sissyl wrote:
Solar and wind is cute, not a cure.

Solar is no where close, agreed. Wind is closer than you think.

If you remove taxes, subsidies, financing, etc... Wind energy is slightly more expensive than coal. Slightly. We're talking a 4% difference in costs over the life time of each type of generator per kilowatt produced. But we have to keep in mind that wind energy has fallen in cost drastically in the past 25 years, to roughly 1/4 of what it was in 1990.

Wind energy is cheap enough that some US utility companies are actually choosing it purely based on economics in their future expansion projects.

Right now, cost is not the prohibitive factor on wind, it's production on demand for peak usage hours. Yes the current capacity is still low, but that isn't a reason for it not to expand.

Also, solving the the major problem with wind, peak usage hours, could be done within a couple years. There's a European company right now that is in the process of bringing organic flow batteries to market by 2017.


Sissyl wrote:

Sooo... the only people who are qualified to discuss this AT ALL are those with a master's degree in environmental sciences?

I never suggested not doing anything. I was merely saying that having huge, international, unelected organizations made up from Greenpeace and WWF scum and letting them dictate the future of human energy production (spiking the steering wheel and the gas pedal stuck in the current position at 100 MPH while approaching that brick wall), plus letting them get rid of the only known effective low-emissions energy form (sawing off the brakes on the car)... just MIGHT not be the best idea in the history of human ideas.

Sissyl, here's my take.

When you talk about anti-democratic groups grasping for too much power. I'm with you, I don't like that either.

Where you lose me is when you try to use this as proof that AGW isn't happening. There's a disconnect there.

Do you think that increasing our reliance on clean energy would be a BAD thing? Do you think we NEED to pollute the world to continue existing? If you want to rail against HOW people like the IPCC and Greenpeace act and how they should not be the ones making decisions, I'm all in with you. But when you take it an extra step and make it sound like NOTHING should be done because these people exist, that's when you lose me.

That's the rub of how your posts come across. It sounds like because these people are idiots, we should do nothing.

I agree that the IPCC act like idiots, they put their foot in their collective mouths and they seem to purposely mismanage information in an attempt to get their point across. That isn't proof that AGW isn't real though. It's just proof that they're idiots and asses. Which I would agree with the latter.


Does anyone dispute that pollution is bad for people?

As a specific example, does anyone dispute that pollution has had a negative impact on health of residents of the most polluted major cities around the world?

Does anyone have an argument for why we should increase pollution levels? (not just that more pollution is okay, but a reason we should actively seek to increase it)


My favorite is that "the media" is shoving this down our throats.

I forget, in the US, which news outlet is the largest now?

Fox News is most trust news channel.

Fox News has almost double the viewers of their nearest competitor.

They don't seem to be pushing a very pro-AGW agenda.


Vakr wrote:
BigNorseWolf: the biggest issue with alternative energy sources like Wind farms is storing the energy during their peak performance which can occur *when* the powergrid do not have great demand for it, so some of that energy collected is lost. I read a brief magazine article about a proposal to store the peak energy from Wind farms in compressed air in deep underground tanks so that the energy can then be drawn on when the powergrid need it (said article was on seeking out energy storage methods that have a decent efficient ratio of storing and then releasing the energy.)

Organic batteries look the most promising long term solution.

Another company is working on flow organic flow batteries. They've recently formed the actual company and are working to release a commercially available battery in 2017 capable of 5-20 kWh of energy. The average home in the US uses about 30 kWh/day, so this could be enough to cover some evening and night time usage.

Basically imagine the propane tanks used for rural homes. Reduce the size to about 1/2 or even 1/4 and it being safe enough to install in the basement. All of the involved materials being readily available and fairly cheap. The expensive part is development and but even manufacturing isn't too bad. But it means a family could charge their battery during the day, often when power demands are minimal and many renewable energy sources are available (wind and solar) and store that energy for use in the evening and night.


Sissyl wrote:
Science does not thrive on uniformity. Science thrives in an environment where differing standpoints clash and break against one another. Consensus is not and has never been a part of the scientific method.

If 99.99999999% of mathematicians agreed that 2+2=4, would you argue that because they aren't allowing for disagreement, they clearly aren't engaging in "good math"?

No one is saying you aren't allowed to disagree. Or that a scientist who disagrees is automatically wrong.

Rather the point is that there isn't a "scientific debate" on this topic. The debate is in the political sphere. The science is in and to the best of our understanding, it is well decided. I agree with you, people should be allowed to poke holes in current climate research all they want. The problem is that the holes are either very minor, or they're entirely dependent on the humans involved.

Basically, you'll never trust a scientist backed by the IPCC, correct? Does that sound like a very scientific thing for you to do? Wouldn't the correct response be to actually look at their research and see if it's valid? But you AUTOMATICALLY discount their science because of who paid for their research.

You're doing the EXACT thing you accuse of others.


Pan wrote:

I love to GM and play. However one of my two gaming groups makes playing super annoying. They tend to play individuals who dont really trust each other and everybody is out on their own. They only work together because they have to. This makes playing a super drag but on the flip side I love to GM for them.

My second group asked me to run an AP which I was cool with. Though I really enjoy playing in this group. They are the opposite they want characters to bond and play as a team. Its much more refreshing.

So for me it depends entirely on the group.

You should check out The Mountain Witch. It's a one-shot RPG about a group of ronin hired to climb up a mountain and kill a witch. It includes trust mechanics (which includes breaking that trust). I have not played it yet personally, but I've heard great things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a universal recipient.

The clot thickens.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

As an aside, and somewhat of a joke, I COULD see that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS (and specifically JUST those who have a specific degree in climatology ONLY) agree that climate change is occurring.

Well...at least 90% of them. Of course, if you understand what the degree of climatology actually IS...then you'd probably understand what the joke of the statement is.

(and in case you don't...a definition of climatology...

The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions. )

Whether that's global warming, cooling, combination of both...well...it's hard to get a consensus on ANYTHING in science. That's not even delving into the theories of what is causing such things.

But due to the very nature of what climatology IS, I COULD admittedly agree that 97% of climatologist DO agree climate change is occurring. I'm surprised it wouldn't be higher to tell the truth!

You got your definition wrong.

Climatology is the study of climate. Climate is defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.

Climatology is not "the study of how humans change climate".

Also, the existence of climatology goes back several millenium. It's primary focus being the tracking of large scale weather patterns (weather conditions averaged over a period of time) to aid in farming. As a career focus, this was typically the job. As a scientific study, climatology was also something addressed by scientists from many fields, but typically not as a career or life's work.

It is true that it wasn't until evidence of large scale climate change that the science of climatology was really pushed into it's own discipline that became the major focus of some people's careers. For some reason you see this as evidence that climate change is fake?

I actually got the definition directly...

I get it. You think that the wording of the survey was done to be scientifically clear, but intentionally misleading to the public. Let me clarify something for you.

A majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

97% agree that the surface of the Earth is warming
84% agree that this warming is caused by humans
50% agree that the temperature will rise another 2 degrees within 50 to 100 years.

Feel free to dispute that. I have no interest in trying to wage some sort of grammatical proof with you. I couldn't care less how your textbook words a definition.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

As an aside, and somewhat of a joke, I COULD see that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS (and specifically JUST those who have a specific degree in climatology ONLY) agree that climate change is occurring.

Well...at least 90% of them. Of course, if you understand what the degree of climatology actually IS...then you'd probably understand what the joke of the statement is.

(and in case you don't...a definition of climatology...

The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions. )

Whether that's global warming, cooling, combination of both...well...it's hard to get a consensus on ANYTHING in science. That's not even delving into the theories of what is causing such things.

But due to the very nature of what climatology IS, I COULD admittedly agree that 97% of climatologist DO agree climate change is occurring. I'm surprised it wouldn't be higher to tell the truth!

You got your definition wrong.

Climatology is the study of climate. Climate is defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.

Climatology is not "the study of how humans change climate".

Also, the existence of climatology goes back several millenium. It's primary focus being the tracking of large scale weather patterns (weather conditions averaged over a period of time) to aid in farming. As a career focus, this was typically the job. As a scientific study, climatology was also something addressed by scientists from many fields, but typically not as a career or life's work.

It is true that it wasn't until evidence of large scale climate change that the science of climatology was really pushed into it's own discipline that became the major focus of some people's careers. For some reason you see this as evidence that climate change is fake?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't worry, you're not my type.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:

A lot of the data that is being used to support "global warming" is in fact, bunk. The past few years where "the average temperature increased" have been based on data points that have been cherry picked and fudged. And even then still show an "increase" that is less than the margin of error for the techniques being employed. In spite of all the main stream media hype over melting ice caps, both Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are doing better than normal. The Australians are actually looking at abandoning one of their antarctic research stations because increasing ice conditions are preventing them from resupplying it regularly.

I would invite those who are interested to look at the site iceagenow.info . If nothing else just look at all the news stories that are being spiked because they don't support the desired narrative.

I've been reading reports for the last 2 hours of how it's getting darker in Minnesota. Based on this trend, I believe the Sun will never rise again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Why am I being asked if a new mass extinction event is underway?

There are scientists whose job it is to figure this out. I'd imagine they'd be more correct than any lay person, especially as they have no reason for bias.

We have a problem today. The vast majority of science is funded either directly or indirectly by grants from governments and large corporations. This can and has introduced various biases in scientific research because people in positions of power have a vested interest in seeing that scientific theories are advanced which can be used as a justification for power grabs. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the poster child for this sort of thing. Scientists who do not toe the party line are not funded and may find that their careers are effectively over. So, IMHO, to say that scientists have no reason to be biased is arguably naive.

As an interesting thought experiment, how many of the people who would be willing to support the Pope's recent encyclical on global warming (something he has no background or training in) would also support the Pope's stand on traditional sexual morality (something which legitimately falls within his purview as a religious leader)?

But I digress. The only thing that climate does do through time is change. Given that climatological data going back hundreds of thousands of years suggests that the most likely major climatic change to occur next will be another ice age I can't give "global warming" any credence. Granted that the exact timing of the next ice age is up for grabs, the fact that the sun's output of energy is dropping through the floor suggests that it could be sooner rather than later.

You make the claim that scientists are in it for the money, or saying what they say because they're paid to. Can you prove that scientists make more money by backing the "party line" as you call it, than they would in the private sector backing whatever the company wanted them to back?

Here's a basic fact for you, the total money spent by the US government on climate change research totaled $2,400 million across all departments in 2014. Meanwhile, the major oil companies have a daily profit of $375 million. Not gross revenue, profit. Oil companies make more money in 8 days than the US government spends on climate research in an entire year. That number comes to a little over $1.3 trillion over the course of the year.

I'm no mathematician, but I suspect that $1,300 billion is larger than $2.4 billion. So, why do the 97% of the money grubbing scientists go after the much smaller pie? Please explain it to me.

Think of it like this: You want to win the lottery, which lottery do you buy a ticket for...

1) $100 prize, with 97 tickets sold
2) $1000 price with 3 tickets sold

One ticket in each drawing is guaranteed to win. If scientists were truly motivated ONLY by money, you'd think they'd go after the bigger pile of money that has less competition. In fact, if we were doing the analysis based purely on where scientists COULD make the most money, that evidence would actually point to them focusing on doing their work and working for the common good and not their own self interests.

The argument that 97% of climatologists agree only because they were paid to agree is b#@$@~*!. It only makes sense if you don't actually look at who really has the money and where the most money could be made.

Oh, it also completely ignores the fact that Republicans have held large swathes of power for the past 15 years (control of the white house for half that time and control of the house/senate for more than half, plus control of a majority of state legislatures). Why aren't the scientists toeing THEIR party line? Republicans control the purse strings for a lot of scientists. Why doesn't the % more accurate reflect that?

Oh that's right, because this argument is b+~#*$#*.

Richard Muller was employed by the Koch brothers to find evidence to deny climate change. He concluded it was real.

Quote:
Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

He said that while receiving his primary funding from people who are climate change deniers. By your logic, since he's running counter to what he was paid to say, we can trust him.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Getting those people off planet first MIGHT be the solution...

What's a "B Ark"?


Alex Martin wrote:

By the way, didn't know if anyone saw this piece from Xbox One Keynote. Todd Howard showed off a little more about the game.

-The laser musket looks like a cool weapon, but I have to wonder if its more of starter gun than something you'll be using long-term.

-If I am reading the objectives right, it looks like you are in the vicinity of Concord, MA. Is that near the starting area of the game? You're a good 20 miles from Boston, so I wonder how big an area the entire game is.

-Also, Deathclaw and power armor. When you shoot that one raider, he positively explodes!

They don't stay true to the distances. Las Vegas strip and Goodsprings are about 27 miles apart in the real world (as the crow flies), but the New Vegas map is about 4 miles wide (16 miles square).


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Baring immigrants and the children of immigrants, most western nations have negative growth rates. The problem is trying to sustain a western life style that leads to that eats up 144? X the resources that someone in the third world uses.

I think the best we can do is try to triage until either light speed comes out, or send some moss over to start terraforming mars now.

Almost the entirety of population growth in the next 40 years will be from increasing life spans and not reproduction.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I imagine in the vast majority of those cases you're mentioning O.Q. it's not that the player is unable to Minmax well and roleplay well, it's that they don't know how to roleplay well but learned to Minmax.
The fertileness of your imagination is noted. Please note, first, that "don't know how to" is not incompatible with "unable to," (and in fact, it's one of the leading causes of inability). Please note, second, that what you just said actually supports the heuristic encompassed by the Stormwind Fallacy.

How?

I'm saying that Roleplaying and Optimization aren't mutually exclusive whatsoever. The fact that a person might know one and not the other is irrelevant, learning the other will result in having both skills and once one has two skills for the same task they usually start using them together [and can be taught to do so if they do not begin to do so instinctively.]

The Stormwind Fallacy is that claims that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive are logically flawed.

So, if you say that roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, you agree with the premise of the Stormwind Fallacy.


DrDeth wrote:

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.

Are you making the claim that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive?


Tormsskull wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Pathfinder has such huge power disparities that if you just happen to pick the wrong fantasy trope to model your character off of, you're a sidekick.
Have you played other systems that you feel are really good at this? I'd be interested in reviewing them. My assumption is that you would have to sacrifice options in order to obtain a more level playing field.

That's partially the rub of the problem.

The more complex the system and more options it has, the more you get minmaxing, the more you get players finding loopholes or unexpected ability interactions.

You can still have variety of characters with simpler rules, but the burden to make them feel vastly different shifts to the player and/or GM.

If you hate, hate, hate minmaxing, Pathfinder might not be the best game for you, because the game not only allows for it, but goes to great lengths to encourage it. You can fight against this as a GM, but now you're spending extra energy to make the game into the one you want. But this isn't an either/or thing, it's a spectrum. Just because you (proverbial you, not specific) hate minmaxing doesn't mean you need to switch to Fiasco, maybe just a step or two back from Pathfinder will meet your needs.


DrDeth wrote:
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.

Let me clarify. I wasn't talking about circumventing encounters. At least not in the way you are. Circumventing encounters can be a byproduct of what I'm talking about, but it was not the topic of my post.

I didn't say my point was new to pathfinder. In fact I referenced another game in my post which isn't a roleplaying game at all. I did this to try and point out that the phenomenon is broader and more universal.

I'm not talking about unexpected decisions by players in the fiction of a game.

I'm talking about a play style of games (all games, any kind of game), where players look for ways to essentially rewrite the win conditions in order to invalidate opponents strategies. While this can happen within the fiction of a game, that isn't what I'm talking about. This isn't a comment about player characters and their actions within the game. This is about players and their choices in the real world, such as what they write down on their sheet.

I'm also an experienced DM, I know full well that players go in directions you never expect. That's normal and my favorite part of DMing actually. This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a strategic approach to the rules with the goal of finding loopholes or unforeseen connections that create unexpected "I win" buttons.

It's been happening long before Pathfinder existed. It will continue long after. My point specifically about Pathfinder is that because it is such a large and complex game and its growing steadily every year (new spells, feats and archetypes), the possibilities for such things are greater than with many other games.


Krensky wrote:
I get that Iron. I don't care about that. I get annoyed by the mentality that if you're not doing that you sick at the game and are forcing others to carry you.

My post wasn't about whether something was good/bad. I'm merely talking about something that exists, that isn't always obvious or very well understood.


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.

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.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a common... artifact? of game strategy. It happens all over, though more in tightly competitive games. I'll see if I can give it justice, but bear with me if I'm not clear.

Essentially there's a mindset/strategy that the best way to "win" is to not play the game, but rather change the objective on your opponent so that they can't win, meaning that you win by default. It comes down to bypassing the intent of the game and dictating new terms to your opponent.

Now, we could have a whole discussion about how RPGs are collaborative and you aren't playing against the DM and blah blah blah, but that's not the relative point.

Rather the issue is being presented with a challenge and instead of just utilizing the given tools to overcome it, for many people it's exceptionally rewarding to find a way to circumvent the entire problem from the start.

We could argue about whether this is appropriate attitude to bring to a game, but I think that is also irrelevant. This attitude does exist and will always exist to some extent, so just saying it should go away to make the game better isn't going to help.

Rather it should be recognized and accounted for. Analogy:

I'm dog-sitting, long term, for a friend. This dog is an escape artist and quickly gets bored in my yard, then runs off. He's done it about a dozen times in 3 months. I can wail and moan, gnash my teeth all I want, it doesn't matter. I can punish the dog. Doesn't matter. All I can do is account for this behavior and do my best to mitigate it's effects, like watching the dog and only letting him out for short periods of time. I don't have the money to build a new fence, even if I did, I wouldn't want to spend it on a fence I won't need in another 2 months.

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.


I will second Druid as being very fun in a KM campaign.

If you want to maximize your kingdom, someone with a high Charisma to act not just as party face, but also party leader (and potential king/queen) is highly recommended. For full casters, this puts Sorcerer and Oracle right at the top of the list.

Oracle of Battle is probably one of the most versatile character builds possible. A spell or two and you're ready for front line duty. You get battlefield control spells (fog cloud and wall of fire are both very useful spells). You still get a few ranged blasting spells which are not great but still decent and useful. Plus, you get Perception and all social skills as class skills. It's also nice because fights are outdoors and if a baddie really wants to avoid the fighter and go straight for you, they often can.

Of course nearly any mystery could be good though.

One thing that is a hit on Oracle/Sorcerer is that a lot of times you'll have 1 or 2 encounters per day, especially while exploring. You never run out of spells, but your larger number of spell slots doesn't come into play as often as a the wider selection of spells a wizard/cleric would have. Though you can pretty much burn through your highest level slots constantly without too much fear.

In our game, I played a druid. I relied on mobility to stay out of melee, using flying creatures and earth elemental form to stay out of reach. We had a large party (usually 6-7 players, sometimes as high as 9) and I still got attacked in melee quite often.


MannyGoblin wrote:
Shenmue 3 kickstarter funded in 1 day.

Evidently Sony is a backer, though not via kickstarter. There isn't much on details to what extent this is a Sony project vs an independent project being funded via kickstarter.


Jiggy wrote:
This whole issue all but disappears if you abandon Pathfinder's built-in use of wealth as a second XP track (whether through houserules, Unchained variants, or simply playing a different system).

And opens up to the possibilities of more abstract methods of tracking wealth. I always liked Burning Wheel's method. You had a Resources stat, so to acquire something, you rolled your Resources vs the obstacle of whatever you were getting. If you failed, you got "taxed" and your Resources was lowered, depending on what you were getting (compared to your wealth level).

If I were designing my own, I'd use a tiered system of results. The better you roll, the cheaper it is, with worse rolls offering the item at increased cost or the choice to not acquire whatever you're going for. Finding treasure would usually give cash, which would be a one time bonus to a roll. Owning things like land (which produced something, like crops or livestock) would grant permanent wealth, though that can still be reduced with purchases (things like loans eating into your yearly income).


Scott Betts wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm not sure why some people feel the need to point out that those who use a controller are somehow doing it wrong or in an inferior way.
People should use whatever they like, but the accuracy afforded by a mouse definitely trumps that afforded by a thumbstick. It's the reason that automatic aiming assistance is standard in console games and non-standard in PC games. They're tools, and some tools are better suited for some things than others.

I'm sorry if my post implied that I didn't understand the difference between the two control sets. I completely understand the difference and am well versed in them. My post had nothing to do with that difference, but is rather directed at the common behavior that people exhibit. They prefer a thing, so they like to tell people who like the other thing that they're doing it wrong.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I was really hoping we could get past ridiculous hyperbole. Guess not.

You said:

Irontruth wrote:
Roleplaying means taking on the role of your character, which includes any and all decisions you make when you put yourself in the character's shoes, which includes things like combat, selecting feats and dialogue.
That means any decision I make on behalf of a character I am in control of constitutes role playing. Which would validate my examples. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify.

For one, you've removed the context of my sentence.

Have I once mentioned video games in this thread?

If you want to talk about video games and their relationship to TTRPGs (or lack thereof), start a new thread.

I've been teaching some students about hyperbole this week. I really should send them to some of these threads...

You're right. I used a word wrong.

I concede the thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure why some people feel the need to point out that those who use a controller are somehow doing it wrong or in an inferior way.

Let people play their games how they like to play them in peace.


Tormsskull wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I was really hoping we could get past ridiculous hyperbole. Guess not.

You said:

Irontruth wrote:
Roleplaying means taking on the role of your character, which includes any and all decisions you make when you put yourself in the character's shoes, which includes things like combat, selecting feats and dialogue.
That means any decision I make on behalf of a character I am in control of constitutes role playing. Which would validate my examples. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify.

For one, you've removed the context of my sentence.

Have I once mentioned video games in this thread?

If you want to talk about video games and their relationship to TTRPGs (or lack thereof), start a new thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Roleplaying means taking on the role of your character, which includes any and all decisions you make when you put yourself in the character's shoes, which includes things like combat, selecting feats and dialogue.

Based on that definition, almost all games would be role playing games. Is Pac Man a role playing game because I'm playing the role of Pac Man and making decisions on what he does? Is Mario Brothers a role playing game because I'm playing the role of Mario and deciding which enemies to jump on, and which ones to shoot fireballs at?

If that is how you're using the term, then "role playing" loses its meaning.

I was really hoping we could get past ridiculous hyperbole. Guess not.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
I might buy it when I see it on sale on steam for $5 though.

You're going to be waiting for a long time, as it still has not even been released on Steam.

I haven't played ME3 because I don't want to download EA's store client onto my computer.


Roleplaying means taking on the role of your character, which includes any and all decisions you make when you put yourself in the character's shoes, which includes things like combat, selecting feats and dialogue.

What falls within the purview of the term roleplaying is defined by the scope and focus of the game.

This thread is mostly concerned with actions related to social situations that take place in the story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because the term is all-encompassing. It's the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. The entire game, combat, character building, dialogue, story-building, campaigns, treasure, magic, etc... it's all aspects of the game. It is Paizo's version of what a roleplaying game is and so defining the term as something less than the entirety of the game means you're leaving something out.

Roleplaying is a much fought over word, if you like I'm sure I can find multi-page threads with people vehemently disagreeing on rpg.net, forge, story-games, gitp, and of course these forums as well.

It's also something that varies from game to game. Pathfinder treats it differently than Amber, which treats it differently than Fate, which is different from Dread, which is different from Dungeon World, which is different from Fiasco, etc.

A game I love to run, called Mythender, is very intense creatively. I feel there's a lot of roleplaying going, but there isn't much dialogue (1st or 3rd). In a 4 hour session, there's about 15-30 minutes of dialogue somewhere in the middle with how I run it and a few lines spaced out in the rest of it. It has to do with the nature of the game and the story it tells and what part of the story I focus on as GM of that game. I know it's creatively intense, because after a 4 hour session I'm often in a bit of a daze as I've expended massive amounts of mental and emotional energy.

It's also challenging enough that I don't run it for people who aren't experienced roleplayers. I've tried it with people as their first experience, or who have limited experience, and even if they're creative people, the well runs dry very quickly.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
williamoak wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


Oh, I agree. Overall, while I give bonuses for good acting (because I like to reward people who are clearly invested), I give bonuses for good notions, too, even if they aren't able to "act" them out. I mean, the game gives very tangible rewards for players who understand good tactical prioritization in combat—I don't see why the roleplaying half has to be different.

Penalizing someone for not being quick on the draw is really jerky. I say this as someone who is not quick on the draw and often struggles just to know what to say.

You see, I feel that I am being punished for not being "quick on the draw" (or even having a proper deck of cards) when it comes to the right words to say. Which is why I dislike the "full-improv" (IE, without dice) style.

Anyway, cant say anything more that I haven't said a dozen times already. There is a difficulty in communication here that we cant quite cross in text I believe.

I don't see any communicative difficulties. I completely agree with you! :)

Irontruth wrote:

Gonna tone it down.

Here's my point of view...

1. Either you're being a jerk and trying to a prove a point

or

2. You don't understand this enough to actually contribute, because you're stuck debating basic concepts that everyone already agrees on.

I'm actually stuck "defending" myself from your accusations. I'd love to be done as soon as you stop positing that I either "don't understand" or am "being a jerk".

Actually, I think I am done. I think williamoak understands me, and I don't really think you exactly care what I was trying to say anymore as long as I drop it. :P

EDIT: This comes off as a bit more aggressive than I'd intended it. I just don't think there's anything to be gained from continuing to try to explain myself. I was addressing an argument that has been used and continues to be used (check out some of James Jacobs's posts on riddles, for instance). I can tell, though, that every time I...

I'm willing to move on as well, as long you stop explaining to us that RPG's require talking and imagination.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

This is the crux of my point. Do you see where the terms "talking and imagination" came into play? They are there to illustrate the point of the game, not what he is saying he doesn't want to do. I never meant to say he didn't want to do talking and imagination—just that this is what the game is about, to contrast it with a hypothetical game that is about physical fighting and push-ups.

As a mental game, D&D has different expectations from an athletic game, and so different activities are expected. That's all. No invention. No strawmen. It's purely a response to a simple quote.

Gonna tone it down.

Here's my point of view...

1. Either you're being a jerk and trying to a prove a point

or

2. You don't understand this enough to actually contribute, because you're stuck debating basic concepts that everyone already agrees on.

No one disputes that the game involves talking and imagination. We're discussing methods on how to best utilize and incorporate said talking and imagination, even if someone isn't personally skilled at talking in real life or isn't confident at sharing their imagination.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
williamoak wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:


Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.

See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game.

Correct. Because this is a game driven by talking and imagination, not by fighting and doing push-ups. If it were an athletic game, it'd be different.

Quote:
Why cant it be so for those other things?

Because if you take away talking and imagination, it's just a dice game. ;P

As my other post stated, I'm not necessarily against this overall message, but that particular point just doesn't add up for me.

There's a reason it doesn't add up. You invented it.

You'll note that instead of inventing this point, that he wants to remove talking and imagination, I asked him. He doesn't.

This conversation would go a lot smoother and be more fruitful if people stopped assigning this anti-RP stance to others. Just because someone wants to experience their RP in a different way than you, does not mean they want to remove RP.

I invented nothing except the internet, my honest ferrous friend. I used the terms "talking and imagination" as a fairly simple abstraction to illustrate a particular type of argument (hence my clarification that I don't dislike the basic premise).

The argument goes as follows: "I cannot fight with a sword in real life, therefore other real-life abilities should not be applied to this game, such as my ability to roleplay."

The intention was to illustrate the fallacy in that argument. I apologize if my simplistic language led to a miscommunication.

wraithstrike wrote:
I think you and I, and several others, have come to a good understanding. There
...

Except the fallacy is an invention on your part. I'm not sure how to make this clear to you.

I completely understand what you're trying to say. I get it.

The thing is it has nothing to do with what williamoak said. So I don't get the point of saying it. Maybe you don't understand his point? That would make sense. If you aren't understanding what he's saying, it would be perfectly logical for you to base your posts on that misunderstanding.

If you want to double down on the concept that he's trying to eliminate talking and imagination, feel free. I'm going to stop responding, because it will be clear to me that you don't actually want to discuss this with us, but rather have a discussion with the people you've invented and for us to watch you do it.


Jaelithe wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
This conversation would go a lot smoother and be more fruitful if people stopped assigning this anti-RP stance to others. Just because someone wants to experience their RP in a different way than you, does not mean they want to remove RP.

I thought this battle was more about what constitutes role-playing. While we do all seem closer on this point than we originally thought, there does seem to be some disagreement as to what qualifies as bare-bones acceptable. Perhaps I'm in error.

The above is not meant to challenge your point, with which I agree.

I think that can be a reasonable discussion. I just also think that the starting point for that discussion is not "you want to eliminate talking and imagination".

I think you and I, and several others, have come to a good understanding. There are a couple hold outs though who persist in their attempts to make this a right vs. wrong thread. They're disruptive to the conversation, but not really disruptive enough to warrant flagging (or have their posts deleted).

I just wish we (proverbial) could get past that for this thread (and probably a few others).


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
williamoak wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:


Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.

See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game.

Correct. Because this is a game driven by talking and imagination, not by fighting and doing push-ups. If it were an athletic game, it'd be different.

Quote:
Why cant it be so for those other things?

Because if you take away talking and imagination, it's just a dice game. ;P

As my other post stated, I'm not necessarily against this overall message, but that particular point just doesn't add up for me.

There's a reason it doesn't add up. You invented it.

You'll note that instead of inventing this point, that he wants to remove talking and imagination, I asked him. He doesn't.

This conversation would go a lot smoother and be more fruitful if people stopped assigning this anti-RP stance to others. Just because someone wants to experience their RP in a different way than you, does not mean they want to remove RP.


williamoak wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:


Someone with no real-life persuasion skills wanting to play a face character is a bad idea in general. Much the same as someone who wants to play a military tactics genius but doesn't have the slightest clue as to military tactics.

See, I have a real problem with that kinda attitude. None of us are good at combat, yet our characters can still be good at it through the rules of the game. Why cant it be so for those other things? Why cant we find a way to do this? It really bugs me, because SOOO much about RPGs is about being someone or something your not, and yet so many people have these invisible walls that have to intersect with people's real abilities. It's frustrating.

Just curious, and while my question is directed at you, my intention or purpose for asking you is to actually direct the information that results at other people.

Do you think that talking and imagination should be removed from the game?


Jaelithe wrote:
And we're right back to all of us not being so far apart as we thought.

This was kind of my point and that CapeCodRPGer was being attacked for a position he didn't actually hold. Not by you, but someone else.


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

Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:

1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.

I apologize if CapeCodRPGer is the only one who's supposed to answer this, but ... I thought my response relevant because we've had some miscommunication.

1. This is wholly unacceptable, not to mention freakin' boring.
2. This is entirely acceptable; it may not be preferred, depending on what style the group leans towards, but it's certainly a good way to fulfill role-playing requirements if you're not a yammering pontificator like me. [ Back me up on this, Irontruth. ;) ]

I was mostly directing it towards CapeCodRPGer. Partially because someone in the thread keeps referring to statements similar to "I diplomacy him", as if anyone in this thread is actually advocating it, which I don't really think anyone is.

Essentially I think it's being used as a hyperbolic/strawman to argue against and being assigned as a stance people are taking, except it isn't.


CapeCodRPGer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.

I've always played with a battlemat/ minis or some other represention of where everyone is in combat. So the group has a good idea of where everyone is and who they can attack, ect..

And saying it the way I said has been good enough for all the people I have played with.

So in combat you'd rather it be like "well you role to hit, but the angle that you told me you said you were swinging your sword was wrong, so you don't hit. Sorry you made the wrong gesture with your hand, so you don't cast the spell."

Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.

Something I'd like to clarify, which do you think is acceptable:

1. I use diplomacy on the guard.
2. I remind the guard of his duty to the king and how I am serving the kings interest, so he should let me through. I roll diplomacy.

1 to 50 of 5,419 << 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.