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

6,046 posts (6,048 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,046 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Cuchulainn wrote:
When former players commentating on the game are saying, "I don't know what a catch is anymore," and when retired referees (sitting in the booth with said commentators) say, "that was a catch, the call will be overturned," and it isn't, there is a big problem with the catch rule.

While watching that happen, as soon as Mike Carey said it should be overturned, I knew the call would stand. It's the Mike Carey Rule, he's always wrong.


I disagree. I've had players who are fine as long as they stay away from these types of characters, but once they stray into these common tropes, the trope takes over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like a session 0. I'm also in favor of having a face-to-face meeting when possible. Emails are great and very useful, but sometimes unexpected things happen at session 0 with everyone in the room.

We're currently playing a short game of In the Shadow of the Demon Lord. The party consists of 1 dwarf, 1 shapeshifter and 4 clockworks. We were batting around group ideas when someone brought up how fun a previous campaign was when we were all dwarves. I said that I enjoyed it, but we'd kind of done that before and I'd like to do it differently. So we decided on being the dwarf's collection/creations of clockworks. We also carved out a spot for someone to be the "special snowflake", which is where the shapeshifter comes from.

I doubt that would have happened had we done this over email.

On the flip side, I think email works great if the DM has a strong vision and the players are all interested in it. There's less to negotiate and compromise on and the emails become more about disseminating the information effectively and efficiently. I did a game that unfortunately floundered due to scheduling issues (Jiggy was in it), where I basically wrote an AP guide in less than 24 hours and sent it to the players. We only played twice, though I'd like to go back and try again, but I felt like it had at least a decent starting direction and most of the players understood the premise of the campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, assuming the investigator lives in a smart house....


Hire a hitman on the internet, posing as the spouse. One person is dead, the other person goes to prison. NEW RESIDENTS PLEASE!


You could use/alter passages from the Bible pretty easily. Matthew chapters 8 and 9 have multiple instances of people being healed, which would cover Cure Wounds and Restoration. For example:

Just then a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years came up behind Pelor and touched the edge of his cloak. She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.”

Pelor turned and saw her. “Take heart, daughter,” he said, “the Light has healed you.” And the woman was healed at that moment.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The real use lies in conveying that you aren't exaggerating, even if you're using a metaphor.

"They literally kicked me out of the club." <-- This statement doesn't literally mean you were kicked, but it does mean you aren't exaggerating when you say you were forced to leave. It adds some good emphasis onto the point of the statement. It also makes it clear you aren't joking.

That's the ideal and clearest use of the informal "literally".

Derail

Spoiler:
I'm not opposed to language evolving. In fact that is what I'm arguing in favor of.

My point with bringing up "literally" is that this particular evolution did make it harder to use this word as it now requires a greater degree of context to understand what the speaker/writer is saying. The word "literally" now has two distinct and mutually exclusive meanings. This change came about by popular consensus, but has created additional difficulty when using the word. Therefore, a poll about the definition of the word is not exactly the best way to create clarity surrounding that word.

"Roleplaying" in the context of this thread doesn't have mutually exclusive meanings, but rather one meaning is contained within the other, but excludes aspects of the broader term. There are things which are roleplaying, but at the same time aren't roleplaying. That means the word is poorly defined and is too vague in it's meaning.


As highlighted by the recent change to the word "literally" in the broader culture, just because the masses define a word a certain way does not mean that this is good for our ability to discuss things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Because its not actually general understood?

Because any replacement term is also not going to be generally understood.

It also really raises the question of "What does roleplaying mean?" even further if you just define it as "playing a roleplaying game".
Self referential definition: See Self referential definition.

Is there anything that defines a roleplaying game? Other than "Anything that calls itself one".

It's not self-referential. Roleplaying is defined by how the game defines it. Roleplaying in Pathfinder is different than in Fiasco. There are similarities, but there are differences as well.

Using the football analogy:

Football = everything in the game
Offense = when your team has the ball
Defense = when your team doesn't have the ball
Passing = when the ball is being thrown
Rushing = when the ball is being carried

The primary term refers to everything, then there are smaller terms which only refer to a portion of everything. If we just replaced all these terms with "football", it would be much harder to have a conversation about the game.

Roleplaying = playing a roleplaying game
Dialogue = talking as your character
Character building = creating your character within the rules
Mechanical decision = a decision point created by the rules of the game
Persona = the behavior and attitude of your character

With terms like this, if I were to say something like: This game will require you to develop a complete persona and will be dialogue heavy. You get a pretty clear picture of what I'm talking about.

I've heard people throw around the term "roleplay heavy" quite often, and usually it's pretty much exactly the same as every other game I've ever played. So no, I don't think it's a useful term or that people use it well. I don't think people understand the term in a useful manner or use it in a way that actually conveys information well.

I agree, that there is a problem with "what is a roleplaying game?", it's a debate about many, many games of whether they qualify or not. Just because a new question arises out of a solution doesn't mean the solution is bad. There will always be new issues to deal with, so that isn't an excuse to not address the ones we're currently facing.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
So, when a term consistently has large amounts of disagreement about what falls within it's definition and what doesn't, would you consider that term well defined? Or poorly defined?

I would say it's not well defined.

But your approach doesn't really fix it. Sure, you define roleplaying as "playing a roleplaying game" and it's nice and clearly defined. No disagreement about what that means.

People are still going to want to talk about that other thing that we currently describe as "roleplay". So we'll need another term. The exact same argument now shifts to "What does that term mean?" Is it just talking in character? Is it the broader thing I'm talking about? Is it whatever Jiggy's using the term to mean?

The distinction you're drawing is not where the confusion lies, as near as I can tell. There may be confusion over exactly what a "roleplaying heavy campaign" means, but no one really thinks it's redundant.

People say things like:

PIN number
ATM machine
Halls of Valhalla

quite regularly without realizing that they're being redundant. Just because people think they aren't being redundant, doesn't mean they aren't being redundant.

I agree that people will want to talk about many aspects of the game, including how they portray their character. That isn't evidence that "roleplaying" is the best possible term that they could use.

Example: Syrio Forel (A Game of Thrones)

He's a duelist type of character, wielding a rapier, using fluid movement in his fighting style. These aspects are integral to the character as presented, in both the TV show and the book. In a game like Pathfinder, his fighting style would be defined by class features and feats. These special abilities would reinforce who he is and what kind of person he is.

To me, that sounds like good roleplaying. In fact, I bet we could find a few threads where people complain about the

...

My point is that selecting appropriate feats is part of roleplaying that character. Do you agree or disagree?


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
So, when a term consistently has large amounts of disagreement about what falls within it's definition and what doesn't, would you consider that term well defined? Or poorly defined?

I would say it's not well defined.

But your approach doesn't really fix it. Sure, you define roleplaying as "playing a roleplaying game" and it's nice and clearly defined. No disagreement about what that means.

People are still going to want to talk about that other thing that we currently describe as "roleplay". So we'll need another term. The exact same argument now shifts to "What does that term mean?" Is it just talking in character? Is it the broader thing I'm talking about? Is it whatever Jiggy's using the term to mean?

The distinction you're drawing is not where the confusion lies, as near as I can tell. There may be confusion over exactly what a "roleplaying heavy campaign" means, but no one really thinks it's redundant.

People say things like:

PIN number
ATM machine
Halls of Valhalla

quite regularly without realizing that they're being redundant. Just because people think they aren't being redundant, doesn't mean they aren't being redundant.

I agree that people will want to talk about many aspects of the game, including how they portray their character. That isn't evidence that "roleplaying" is the best possible term that they could use.

Example: Syrio Forel (A Game of Thrones)

He's a duelist type of character, wielding a rapier, using fluid movement in his fighting style. These aspects are integral to the character as presented, in both the TV show and the book. In a game like Pathfinder, his fighting style would be defined by class features and feats. These special abilities would reinforce who he is and what kind of person he is.

To me, that sounds like good roleplaying. In fact, I bet we could find a few threads where people complain about the bad roleplaying of people who just make death

...

Care to address the other half of my post?


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
So, when a term consistently has large amounts of disagreement about what falls within it's definition and what doesn't, would you consider that term well defined? Or poorly defined?

I would say it's not well defined.

But your approach doesn't really fix it. Sure, you define roleplaying as "playing a roleplaying game" and it's nice and clearly defined. No disagreement about what that means.

People are still going to want to talk about that other thing that we currently describe as "roleplay". So we'll need another term. The exact same argument now shifts to "What does that term mean?" Is it just talking in character? Is it the broader thing I'm talking about? Is it whatever Jiggy's using the term to mean?

The distinction you're drawing is not where the confusion lies, as near as I can tell. There may be confusion over exactly what a "roleplaying heavy campaign" means, but no one really thinks it's redundant.

People say things like:

PIN number
ATM machine
Halls of Valhalla

quite regularly without realizing that they're being redundant. Just because people think they aren't being redundant, doesn't mean they aren't being redundant.

I agree that people will want to talk about many aspects of the game, including how they portray their character. That isn't evidence that "roleplaying" is the best possible term that they could use.

Example: Syrio Forel (A Game of Thrones)

He's a duelist type of character, wielding a rapier, using fluid movement in his fighting style. These aspects are integral to the character as presented, in both the TV show and the book. In a game like Pathfinder, his fighting style would be defined by class features and feats. These special abilities would reinforce who he is and what kind of person he is.

To me, that sounds like good roleplaying. In fact, I bet we could find a few threads where people complain about the bad roleplaying of people who just make death machines, instead of building characters that make sense.


Christopher Dudley wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Christopher Dudley wrote:
Dire Elf wrote:
I was working on a new wizard character's familiar, and I realized that an ordinary cat has claw attack damage of 1d2-4. Seriously?! I realize there's a minimum of 1 damage, but why bother having a damage value that calculates as a negative number? Anyway, we all know that cats' claws and bite can do at least 2 damage without a critical.
That makes sense if you remember that you can alter a cat's size, and then you have to alter those numbers as well. If it was just "Damage 1" (which by PF rules should be subdual), you wouldn't really have any idea where to go from there.
Damage 1 increases to 1d2, it's on the weapon size chart.
Yes, I can see that, thank you. But a cat doesn't do 1 point of damage. It does 1d2-4. The question was why doesn't the cat say it does 1 damage when that's what the math will always work out to.

You said...

Quote:
If it was just "Damage 1" (which by PF rules should be subdual), you wouldn't really have any idea where to go from there.

I'm pointing out that we do know where to go from there. 1 damage increases to 1d2 damage. It's on the chart.


So, when a term consistently has large amounts of disagreement about what falls within it's definition and what doesn't, would you consider that term well defined? Or poorly defined?


thejeff wrote:

The trouble with that argument is that the term "roleplaying" really is the right word for what I (and I think Jiggy, with some variations) am talking about. You're "playing a role". Much like in a play or in improv. Or in roleplay therapy or similar things.

It's a good descriptive word for the thing we're talking about. You would need to either change the name of the hobby, which doesn't make sense, since the point of the hobby is to be a game where that kind of roleplay works, or you would need to come up with an equally appropriate term, which didn't carry too much excess baggage.
And I still say that's not the root of the problem. I've never seen, for example, someone shocked at the idea of "roleplay heavy" session. "It's all roleplay! That doesn't even make sense."
We can be confused about exactly what the other person meant by "roleplay", but it's not like saying "That was a very football heavy football game."
That roleplay is part, but not all of an rpg is pretty commonly accepted. Exactly where the lines are drawn is what prompts all the debate. And that debate would be the same if we called it veeblefetzing instead.

Have there been disagreements about what qualifies as roleplaying and not roleplaying in this thread?


Christopher Dudley wrote:
Dire Elf wrote:
I was working on a new wizard character's familiar, and I realized that an ordinary cat has claw attack damage of 1d2-4. Seriously?! I realize there's a minimum of 1 damage, but why bother having a damage value that calculates as a negative number? Anyway, we all know that cats' claws and bite can do at least 2 damage without a critical.
That makes sense if you remember that you can alter a cat's size, and then you have to alter those numbers as well. If it was just "Damage 1" (which by PF rules should be subdual), you wouldn't really have any idea where to go from there.

Damage 1 increases to 1d2, it's on the weapon size chart.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Why are the other parts of the game not roleplaying?

Short of a definition where any part of playing a game billed as a role-playing game is roleplaying, which is simple, but doesn't seem very useful for talking about different phases of the game and different ways of playing.

It seems silly to me to talk about adding up your damage as "roleplaying" to use a very reductive example.

Beyond that, defining roleplaying as anything done while playing a roleplaying game also means you can't meaningfully talk about roleplaying while doing anything else - other than the other definitions (bedroom games and therapy work) from which the gaming usage likely derived.
Often in other games, particularly non-RPG computer games, strategy games and the like, I will begin thinking as if I were a character making decisions there, not just me making tactical/strategic decisions, but a character with his own preferences and foibles. I think of this as roleplaying - even though it's not a roleplaying game.

As far as I am concerned the name works the other way around - A roleplaying game is a game designed for roleplaying. You can still not roleplay within that game and you can do so in a game not designed for it.

Hence my comment last page, that separating the two concepts, not just via context, but actual different words, would make the discussion more clear and fruitful.

Instead, every time someone uses the phrase "I think roleplaying is" we have to go over and over it, compare it to everyone else's definition and constantly rehash what exactly does and doesn't qualify as "roleplaying".

I would consider adding up the damage to part of roleplaying. The thing is, you don't add up damage in a vacuum. You do it as part of your character's actions.

Example: My character has sworn vengeance on someone. In order to fulfill my vendetta, I ignore helping my allies to kill my target. Since making the attack is something that is guided by the story of my character, isn't the attack roll and damage PART of roleplaying that character? Isn't following through on the mechanical rules of the game, that are triggered by my character's decisions, part of roleplaying?

I don't think a useful definition of "roleplaying" can exclude this example. I don't think you can include the motivations for an action, but exclude the process and results of that action, because the results are what will inform how I roleplay my character next.

My actions, as informed by the character's personality/backstory, will be different if the blow results in my target's death or not. The damage is necessary and important information that is tied at both ends to my roleplaying.


Why are the other parts of the game not roleplaying?


I'm sorry, I don't get your point. Is the problem with D20 systems the d20? Or is it the classes?


My default answer is that very few intelligent species appreciate necromancers. The primary reason is most people would prefer not to have their bodies reanimated and used as puppets by someone else. Certain species/cultures/individuals will break from this for their specific reasons, but that's when I know what those reasons are.

In general I consider necromancy to be a defilement of the body and/or soul. Raising something as undead is the ultimate defilement that you can do in this regards. In general, most people don't appreciate that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheNine wrote:

I played with a halfling monk who had a vow of Silence... as long as she was wearing shoes. At particularly critical moments when pantomining wasnt getting through it was always great fun to Watch ol' Jaile Squarefoot hastily removed her footware to tell us the important thing she had to tell us.... to instantly go silent again as she put her shoes back on...

I'm so stealing some variation of this.


I also like it because it requires virtually zero prep. You just need a starting situation, maybe a map. Then the players will cause horrible, horrible things to happen to themselves without you needing to do anything. You get to focus on being creative about describing those horrible things.


Perhaps better stated as:

"I prefer the roleplay involved in [game 1] compared to [game 2]"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kullen wrote:


We should burning Gygax in effigy, the racist bastard! And Tolkien! DOWN WITH TOLKIEN! DOWN WITH GYGAX! DOWN WITH D&D!

Can you quote the person who said any of this (or something similar) in this thread before your post?

If not, can you put your imaginary argument in PM's to yourself or something?


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I think the hobby needs a new term, as there are two things occupying the space of the word "roleplaying". For one, there is the game as a whole "roleplaying game". That means that the game itself is roleplaying, so engaging in the game (which is defined by that game) is roleplaying, because it's a roleplaying game.

Then people use "roleplaying" to define actions taken within the fiction as viewed from the lens of the character taking actions. This is sometimes defined more narrowly as dialogue by some people during arguments, or dialogue is used as the most compelling example.

The problem is using the same term for these two things is contradictory. If the game is a "roleplaying game" and that game requires you to choose special abilities, then the act of choosing said abilities is playing the "roleplaying game", which means you are roleplaying. The second definition of the term excludes this definition though (though the first definition is more inclusive).

So, to make the discussion more clear, we should either rename the types of games, or use a different term when discussing the portrayal of characters through actions and words.

Cause honestly, to me the answer to "what is roleplaying?" in terms of this hobby, would be "playing a roleplaying game."

I think that distinction is obvious and pretty clearly understood, inside the hobby at least.

A "roleplaying" game is a game designed for "roleplaying". Not all of the game are equally roleplaying and you can roleplay when doing other things than roleplaying games. This is confusing, but that's not unusual for English and is almost always clear from context. None of the debate in this thread (or other discussions about this, as far as I recall) is driven by confusion on this point.
It's all about what that second definition actually means.

Actually, the thread is exactly about that confusion. Look at the first two questions in the OP. Is choosing your character's abilities roleplaying? It's part of the game, which is a roleplaying game.

If a game defines itself as roleplaying, then engaging in the game is in fact roleplaying, which includes things like choosing which feat to take next.

The entire "roleplay vs rollplay" idea is a different way of framing the debate.

The debate is exceptionally common, it just isn't framed the way I've framed it. I consider my framing to be useful, as it highlights where the clunky nature of written language is getting in the way of our understanding of these concepts, though this could be improved by altering the language we use to allow us to be more precise in our terminology.

I agree with you, that generally the context within a post is understood. I think you vastly undervalue the inherent muddiness of these discussions though because of the presence of the same word in these two contexts.

If one of the two terms were changed, a significant quantity of threads on these boards alone would have their nature changed a great deal. It would also improve our ability to discuss and understand the games and behaviors within them.

Imprecise language is the enemy of clarity and understanding.


I think the hobby needs a new term, as there are two things occupying the space of the word "roleplaying". For one, there is the game as a whole "roleplaying game". That means that the game itself is roleplaying, so engaging in the game (which is defined by that game) is roleplaying, because it's a roleplaying game.

Then people use "roleplaying" to define actions taken within the fiction as viewed from the lens of the character taking actions. This is sometimes defined more narrowly as dialogue by some people during arguments, or dialogue is used as the most compelling example.

The problem is using the same term for these two things is contradictory. If the game is a "roleplaying game" and that game requires you to choose special abilities, then the act of choosing said abilities is playing the "roleplaying game", which means you are roleplaying. The second definition of the term excludes this definition though (though the first definition is more inclusive).

So, to make the discussion more clear, we should either rename the types of games, or use a different term when discussing the portrayal of characters through actions and words.

Cause honestly, to me the answer to "what is roleplaying?" in terms of this hobby, would be "playing a roleplaying game."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perma death is something that works in short-term games, but not long term ones.

You could have something interesting by having a world that resets in regular intervals, with benefits in the next interval based on standing. Imagine a game of political strife, you get points based on your standing within your faction and points based on your factions standing in the overall field.

When you die, you lose X% of your points, then you can play stock characters who can still contribute to the faction and earn you points at a reduced rate. Then you create incentives to kill high ranking members of opponent factions, with minimal gains for low ranking people.


The capability of comedy for humans and kangaroos is oddly similar.


BigDTBone wrote:
That's all reasonable, and no one faults you for making a poorly researched, off-the-cuff comment. We have all made them. What you are being criticized for is your refusal to awknowledge that it was inaccurate when called out and your continued insistence that the point was valid despite the incongruent facts.

Except the first "fact" that you, or anyone else, listed in this came well AFTER you guys jumped down my throat on this.

Try and sell me some other b#$&+~+~.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

World long jump record (which we should note are under conditions specifically designed to allow for good performance) is just under 9 meters.

Longest recorded jump of a kangaroo in the wild (ie, not optimal conditions, and also not an "athlete" or "trained" animal) was 13.5 meters.

Do you have a source for that record?

Most websites, such as...

National Geographic
Wikipedia
Discovery Channel video

all cite a distance of 8-9 meters or 30 feet.

The only spot I can find which cites your distance is a grade school history/english teacher who answered a question on Answers.com.

Now, I accept that 8-9 meters probably isn't the record jump for a red kangaroo (remember, there are other kinds of kangaroos, tree kangaroos for example are no where near as good at jumping while on the ground). The record jump probably hasn't been recorded, seeing as there are probably hundreds of thousands of kangaroos that no one ever sees.

But, seeing as I can find 3 fairly reputable sources for the 8-9 meters (or 30 feet)... is it SOOOOOOO ridiculous for me to use that number when making my comparison? Is it so ridiculous, that we have to make implications about my intelligence or ability to debate this topic? Do we really need to pull out debate rules and go on and on for over a page, because I said that 8.95 meters is similar to 9.1 meters?

Seriously, it was an off-hand comment. It wasn't meant to be taken super seriously that we needed to f#%*ing go into full research mode for this. If I had known that you guys were going to freak the f#$% out on this, I wouldn't have made the comment.

I'm willing to drop this stupid, stupid aside if you guys are. But I will continue if you insist.

Those sources seem to refer to common leaping distance. Would you say...

Please go ahead and quote the section of any of the sources I linked and highlight where it says "average".

Also, in general, would you consider it unreasonable if someone were making an offhand comment to rely on those sources? I'm not talking about a debate where this is the primary topic (cause it wasn't before someone decided to make this a bigger issue). I'm not talking about a true debate on the issue (cause it wasn't part of the thread before). I'm not talking about a scientific journal.

Just a random "hey, here's something interesting" kind of comment, in one of dozens, if not hundreds of informal threads that happen here on a daily/weekly basis.

Is it reasonable to see two sets of similar numbers on wikipedia (8.95 and 9.1) and say "hey, those look similar"?


BigDTBone wrote:

World long jump record (which we should note are under conditions specifically designed to allow for good performance) is just under 9 meters.

Longest recorded jump of a kangaroo in the wild (ie, not optimal conditions, and also not an "athlete" or "trained" animal) was 13.5 meters.

Do you have a source for that record?

Most websites, such as...

National Geographic
Wikipedia
Discovery Channel video

all cite a distance of 8-9 meters or 30 feet.

The only spot I can find which cites your distance is a grade school history/english teacher who answered a question on Answers.com.

Now, I accept that 8-9 meters probably isn't the record jump for a red kangaroo (remember, there are other kinds of kangaroos, tree kangaroos for example are no where near as good at jumping while on the ground). The record jump probably hasn't been recorded, seeing as there are probably hundreds of thousands of kangaroos that no one ever sees.

But, seeing as I can find 3 fairly reputable sources for the 8-9 meters (or 30 feet)... is it SOOOOOOO ridiculous for me to use that number when making my comparison? Is it so ridiculous, that we have to make implications about my intelligence or ability to debate this topic? Do we really need to pull out debate rules and go on and on for over a page, because I said that 8.95 meters is similar to 9.1 meters?

Seriously, it was an off-hand comment. It wasn't meant to be taken super seriously that we needed to f++$ing go into full research mode for this. If I had known that you guys were going to freak the f+~$ out on this, I wouldn't have made the comment.

I'm willing to drop this stupid, stupid aside if you guys are. But I will continue if you insist.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You seem to keep avoiding the question. Do you stand by your statement?

I'm jumping over it.

Compromise, present me with some data you'd like me to compare, and I'll tell you my opinion of it. I'm uninterested in this line of questioning and being forced to choose between the two options you've given me. If you want to actually add something to this, say with facts or figures, I am certainly willing to weigh in on that.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So are you standing by the assertion that kangaroos have similar horizontal jump distance to humans, or are you agreeing with Kirth that it was an erroneous statement? Just so we can get back to comparing the game world to the real world.

Are we measuring forwards or backwards jumps? Cause if we're measuring backwards jumps, even an overweight office worker will do better than a kangaroo.


Yup, I went back and read that before my last post too. It wasn't too hard to find since there's only one other page in the thread.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
You're focusing on the wrong part of my point.

No one disputes that size vs. jump distance doesn't model well in-game.

People do dispute that people can really jump as far as kangaroos, a claim you did make and continue to refuse to retract. So, the part people are focusing on is the part that was counterfactual, not the obvious part that they agree with.

If I say, "I am not a millionaire, and 10 x 100 = 1,000,000" -- and someone replies, "Dude, no, 10 x 100 = 1,000, not 1,000,000," then, yes, I suppose I can reply, "You're focusing on the wrong part of my point!" A better reply, however, would be, "Hmmm -- looks like I lost some decimal places. My math was wrong. However, I'm still not a millionaire, no matter how you do the math."

Or, if you meant to say, "According to the game rules, it seems a human and a kangaroo can both jump 8 meters," that's something we could look at and maybe propose more logical rules to fix. But that's not what you said.

If you want to get nitpicky, I never actually said that people can jump as far as kangaroos.


BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.
Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.

And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).

I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.

Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.

When you compare species you should compare median or mean capability, not ceiling. Also, what data do you have on the ceiling of kangaroo jumping? It seems like your data are incomplete for the purpose of your comparison.

If you want to disprove what I'm saying by using that kind of data, feel free to bring it up. What your asking for doesn't exist, so I don't see the point in bringing that up. It doesn't seem very useful.

There is no data on median or mean jumping distance for humans, dogs, horses or kangaroos. If you can dig it up from a legitimate source (and not just someone's best guess of what they've seen personally), feel free to link it. If you'd like me to provide sources on the data I've shown so far, I can, but it's all pretty easy to find with simple searches.

So you are making an argument with knowingly incomplete information but you want to be taken seriously? I'll pass.

You're focusing on the wrong part of my point. (heck, your even assigning points to me that I'm not making)

Beyond a certain point, being a larger animal does not aid in jumping ability.

This is part of the real world. As animal size grows, the ratio of body lengths covered in a jump diminish. Eventually that ratio becomes less than 1. Extremely small animals have jump/body ratios in the several hundreds, while most creatures around human size are in the low double digits at best. Once you go significantly above human-sized, that ratio gets to the mid to low single digits. Animals that would qualify as huge in game terms tend to have a ratio of less than 1.

Being aquatic seems to put the ratio higher, but again, you'll find that the largest aquatic animals can only breach (40% or more out of the water) and can't actually jump out of the water (which would be a ratio of less than 1).


BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.
Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.

And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).

I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.

Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.

When you compare species you should compare median or mean capability, not ceiling. Also, what data do you have on the ceiling of kangaroo jumping? It seems like your data are incomplete for the purpose of your comparison.

If you want to disprove what I'm saying by using that kind of data, feel free to bring it up. What your asking for doesn't exist, so I don't see the point in bringing that up. It doesn't seem very useful.

There is no data on median or mean jumping distance for humans, dogs, horses or kangaroos. If you can dig it up from a legitimate source (and not just someone's best guess of what they've seen personally), feel free to link it. If you'd like me to provide sources on the data I've shown so far, I can, but it's all pretty easy to find with simple searches.

The point isn't to prove definitively which species is better at jumping. The point is to prove that being a larger creature does not automatically provide jumping bonuses.

Cause it's still a fact: all humans who are capable of jumping can jump further than any elephant/rhino/hippopotamus.

Regardless of comparative jumping distance of kangaroos and humans, all kangaroos, which are smaller than elephants, are better at jumping than elephants. In fact, I challenge you to find a LARGER mammal that can jump further than a kangaroo?

One of the next best jumpers is SMALLER than a kangaroo, the klipspringer, which is more of a vertical jumper and can reach heights of 7 meters, but is only around 2 feet tall.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.
Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.

And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).

I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.

Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

First line of the thread:

Quote:
Ofcause ignoring magic and monsters and the like.

My point is that jumping and size actually work more realistically than people expect. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. Things like elephants, rhinos and hippos can't jump in the real world at all.

Humans and horses have nearly identical record long and high jumps, despite horses having nearly double the top speed of a human and being larger. The world record for a dog's long jump is by a belgian malinois, not a small breed, but not particularly large either, is similar to a human's as well. That's a large, medium and small creature all with the same horizontal jumping capability, not in relative terms, but in actual distance.

You realize that none of those things are true in the game, right.

In pathfinder elephants and rhinos can jump. In fact, given that a rhino has a 40 foot speed, they can jump better than average humans.

In pathfinder horses can jump farther than humans. Again, because they are faster.

You're the one that said that it was unrealistic that gaining a size category made you worse at jumping. I'm pointing out that bigger creatures aren't actually better at jumping.

Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters. They can go about 0.5 meters higher though in a high jump.


First line of the thread:

Quote:
Ofcause ignoring magic and monsters and the like.

My point is that jumping and size actually work more realistically than people expect. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. Things like elephants, rhinos and hippos can't jump in the real world at all.

Humans and horses have nearly identical record long and high jumps, despite horses having nearly double the top speed of a human and being larger. The world record for a dog's long jump is by a belgian malinois, not a small breed, but not particularly large either, is similar to a human's as well. That's a large, medium and small creature all with the same horizontal jumping capability, not in relative terms, but in actual distance.


Oh, probably too late for the OP, but if you need a liquid diet I'd suggest trying Soylent. It's a smoothie mix that's fairly complete, nutrition-wise. The base flavor I describe as "inoffensive". It doesn't really taste like anything and just kind of barely exists. You can put a little chocolate milk mix, water flavoring (like Mio), or powdered peanut butter to give it a flavor.

I like real food too much to subsist on it entirely, but it's been about 1/2 of my diet for the past 15 months and has been super convenient. I brought it with to GenCon even and saved quite a bit of money on food.

I had a filling put in last week, so it was convenient to be able to live off the soylent until the filling set completely.


Doomed Hero wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

The Jumping rules aren't changed based on size either.

A creature with a +10 racial bonus to jump doesn't actually get to jump significantly farther if it is made larger. In fact, it will usually be able to jump less well. Making things smaller makes them able to jump better though, due to increases in dexterity.

If a druid casts a Animal Growth on a kangaroo, it actually gets worse at jumping due to the size penalties from getting bigger.

This is actually somewhat realistic.

Mice can jump many, many times their own body length. Elephants can't jump at all.

In fact, when an elephant runs, it always has at least one foot on the ground, which is a sign that they aren't going that fast for their body length.

If you measure distances in increments of body length, insects are the fastest and longest jumpers in the world. Paratarsotomus macropalpis moves at about 322 times it's body length per second. If it were human size and going that fast, it would be about 1300 mph. In comparison, a cheetah can only travel at about 16 body lengths per second.

You are talking about jumping relative distances, not absolute distances, which is what the person you quoted was talking about.

The jumping rules were a bit better in 3.5 when Jump was a STR-based skill (one of the nice points of 4E was that Jump was part of Athletics, a STR-based skill).

Correct.

Also, we're talking about magic. Sizing things up or down doesn't change their physical properties in Pathfinder. It only changes their mass (which is where the very small bonuses and penalties to dex and strength come from).

Lets assume a scarlet spider can jump a fifty times the length of it's own body. If it gets sized up with a Giant Vermin spell it should still be able to perform the exact same feats that it could when it was smaller. That's sort of the point of the spell. If the magic is going to allow it to ignore the...

Thread title is about where the game rules contradict "our own world"... I'm not sure what magic has to do with the real world.


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
19 Bowie albums are now in the UK albums chart, 10 of them in the top 40. I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head who has enough good albums to make that even possible

It's an astounding feat, but there are a few artists who have surpassed Bowie. To not take away from Bowie, Starman (1973) peaked at #15, and Lazarus was #40 last week. That's a 43 year span to have top 40 hits, which is pretty amazing and puts him in good company. Leaving the names of the other artists out, since this is a thread about Bowie.

Something interesting, is that the week after his death, Bowie sold 682,000 albums, of which 174,000 were his new album. People are buying significant quantities of his back catalog, which is pretty cool.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

No advice.

I had mine out while in boot camp. I was conscious and they did all 4. Then, because I was lucky enough to be first that morning, they only gave me THAT day of rest and I had to go back to normal activities the next day. The next day I only had 1 painkiller, I took it right before breakfast, which then made me vomit.

So I guess my advice is make sure you have your wisdom teeth done before you go to boot camp. Which you did, so well done you!


Doomed Hero wrote:

The Jumping rules aren't changed based on size either.

A creature with a +10 racial bonus to jump doesn't actually get to jump significantly farther if it is made larger. In fact, it will usually be able to jump less well. Making things smaller makes them able to jump better though, due to increases in dexterity.

If a druid casts a Animal Growth on a kangaroo, it actually gets worse at jumping due to the size penalties from getting bigger.

This is actually somewhat realistic.

Mice can jump many, many times their own body length. Elephants can't jump at all.

In fact, when an elephant runs, it always has at least one foot on the ground, which is a sign that they aren't going that fast for their body length.

If you measure distances in increments of body length, insects are the fastest and longest jumpers in the world. Paratarsotomus macropalpis moves at about 322 times it's body length per second. If it were human size and going that fast, it would be about 1300 mph. In comparison, a cheetah can only travel at about 16 body lengths per second.


It's partially just an issue with all PbtA games. It's not necessarily a negative, just something to be aware of. I think the multi-year campaign gets romanticized a bit, but it's not something that's really part of the gaming experience for a lot of people.

There are so many different games/campaigns I want to do, that personally I like the idea of a game being done after a few sessions. It means that I get to move on to another game that I'm excited about and try something new. I've been running a long PF campaign on and off, and it's fun, but even that I've broken into segments and have a definite end-goal in mind.


Not a book, but an author: Charles Dickens.

Perhaps if he lived in a different era, but his "paid by the word" style really stands out sometimes. Like you come to a passage where he's clearly padding his word count and it just completely takes me out of the book. I just start seeing

"$$$$ $$ $$$$$ $$$ $$$$$$," said $$$$$ to the $$$$$$$.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I've heard it argued that Watchmen, while important for its time, really doesn't hold up anymore. I tend to agree.

I would agree somewhat with this. The execution of the book is above average, but not genre defining. It's important only because of the concepts it contained and it helped introduce them into comic books.


World Wide Wrestling

I played a session of this game this weekend. I really liked it. It's PbtA (Powered by the Apocalypse), so if you're familiar with Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, etc, you're familiar with the basic framework of the game.

The game peels back the curtain, you approach the session like you're building a TV show, though like real wrestling, unscripted things can happen, but every session starts with a plan. The Gamemaster role is called "Creative," they're in charge of booking matches (including who wins), picking some scenes before and after matches and helping to drive storylines between characters.

Each player plays a wrestler based on common archetypes. For example you can be a High Flyer, Monster, Hardcore, Technician or Jobber (or many more). This gives you some initial input on who you are and what kind of wrestler you are, as well as some custom abilities.

A match isn't about who is a better wrestler. During the match, one wrestler will have control, but both players will work together to describe the action. Control will pass back and forth, but the real question is how the match will impact your relationship with the other wrestler, and how much audience you gain during it. You're not trying to win the match, you're trying to get the audience to love/hate you as much as possible. To be top dog, you have to have the biggest audience.

I really liked it. The game has a narrative first focus, you don't pick your move, rather you describe what you do, and that dictates what move is activated. You'll learn what kinds of narration will trigger the moves you want, but this leads to exciting and memorable matches.

You don't need to be a fan of wrestling to enjoy the game. I haven't watched wrestling in nearly 30 years and I still had a blast. The game plays decent as a one-shot, but I would say that over 3-4 sessions it would really shine. You could play longer than that, but you have to start rotating through different characters; after 10-12 sessions, the continuity won't be relevant to where you started.


Chip Kelly would make a good QB coach, or possibly offensive coordinator.


My rules are for speeding up combat.

Group Initiative
One person rolls initiative for the group. Who it is varies, we either rotate, or if one person is clearly starting the fight or leading the group they get to roll.

I've found it speeds up combat and helps encourage cooperation. The bard/cleric likes to go first, so they can get their buff spells off for the group, wizards can look up their spell while someone else goes if they aren't quite ready, melee types can time their actions to benefit from flanking, etc.

We also use the rule that if you aren't paying attention, you miss your turn. So people pay attention and don't miss their turn.

Remove Tactical Grid
I don't use tape measures, I just eyeball it. It does mean some specific tactical elements are gone or greatly reduced. If I do this I usually just get rid of flanking (rogues just require an ally in combat with them for sneak attack) and similar type rules. A quick die roll determines how many monsters a wizard can squeeze into a fireball radius. This eliminates many of the tactical considerations. I don't use this a lot, but when I have, I've really liked it. I still use mini's to help me make rulings and determinations, but their positioning is more abstract than with the tactical grid.

1 to 50 of 6,046 << 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.