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

4,710 posts (4,712 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,710 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

My favorite morsel of information from this whole thing is in the story about the guy who was falsely arrested, beaten in his cell and charged with destruction of property.

He sued the police department for what they did to him. On the stand, the officer who wrote up the report had the following exchange:

Quote:

“After Mr. Davis was detained, did you have any blood on you?” asked Davis’ lawyer, James Schottel.

“No, sir,” Beaird replied.

Schottel showed Beaird a copy of the “property damage” complaint.

“Is that your signature as complainant?” the lawyer asked.

“It is, sir,” the cop said.

“And what do you allege that Mr. Davis did unlawfully in this one?” the lawyer asked.

“Transferred blood to my uniform while Davis was resisting,” the cop said.

“And didn’t I ask you earlier in this deposition if Mr. Davis got blood on your uniform?”

“You did, sir.”

“And didn’t you respond no?”

“Correct. I did.”

Afterwards, the St Louis prosecutor in charge of the 4 counts of damage of government property only dropped 2 of the charges. He is also currently unopposed in his re-election campaign this November.


If Fox News gets a black guy to come on a show and declare racism is over... do we believe him?


Okay, here's a point by point rebuttal.

1) Attribute bumps

The character doesn't really change. My strength is now 18 instead of 16. If I'm the "muscle" of the group, it's not like the roleplaying options are changing or people are all of a sudden going to perceive me differently. I'm still going to be essentially the exact same character, just attack/damage improve a little.

Unless you roll amazingly well, the majority of stat bumps are going to your classes primary stats. A wizard is going to increase their intelligence most of the time until they hit 20. They might bump Con or Dex if they feel they really need a boost to survival, but again, there's not an amazing depth of choice that really molds a character or represents how they change over time.

2) Backgrounds

As far as I'm aware, this has nothing to do with advancement. The choice is made at creation and is set in stone at that point. There are no choices of advancement or character development.

I actually think this is a missed opportunity. I like inspiration and tying it into options from the background, but pushing it further and continue to influence future choices would have been cool. Not just "what happened in the past influences the future" but actual new choices involving the background. Like if I choose criminal, maybe later one I could choose "reformed" or "crime lord". Knowing that I have this choice coming up at a future date would force choices in the roleplaying that feed back into making this choice later on.

3) Feats

First off, you have to give up your ability score advancement. You can still get a 1 point boost in some cases, but this is a lot to give up. Usually the feats broaden options, but are relatively low in actual power, they're closer to a very mild form of multi-classing really. I looked them over and none of them really seemed that interesting. The ones that at first blush seemed like they might often gave me several things I already had access to. If I'm a warrior type, the warrior related feats don't add much. Proficiency in things I'm already proficient in for example.

They're of limited value and felt more like edge cases. And they're only a few available during an entire 20-level career.

I like the combat rules.
I like the character creation rules.
The skills seem okay.
I'm not impressed with character advancement.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

You get to choose how to spend you attributes at 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level.

If your using backgrounds and inspiration; how you play your character is a mechanically significant feature.

If your using feats, those attribute increase slots suddenly individualise your character even more.

You can disagree with me if you want. You're welcome to your opinion.

My opinion, is that I do not find the limited choices available to be satisfying. You can tell me why YOU don't find that to be true, but I have read the game and am playing it currently. My opinion on the game is also valid and is true to my own experience with it.

I like character creation. I like how the rules create interactions between the players and the game world. My one complaint is that character development is lacking. I'm fully aware of what you've outlined and I still feel this way.


Pan wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

My one complaint right now is that for some of the classes, once you finish making the character at level 1, there are little to no meaningful choices to be made.

I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

Which is a major call back to 2E.

I'm torn on the idea really, at the time, I loved all the kits and stuff to help me avoid the 'cookie cutter fighter'... All the stats looked the same...

Still, Pathfinder/3.5 went too far the other way, bogging you down with a hundred different choices and too many that simply didn't work together... I'm not really sure which is 'better.'

I do know that when the only thing that differentiated one fighter from the next was personality and backstory... I stayed incharacter a lot more. Now days I seem too involved in the math to remember to use an accent half the time.

I agree, it's hitting that right balance.

It's one of the things I like about 13th Age. The Barbarian is still the simplest class, but the way classes are designed there is still a choice that I get to make every level to help shape the character.

In 13th Age you get a feat every level (they also compressed the classes to just 10 levels). There are a few general feats, but the vast majority are class specific and basically augment the abilities you already have. Feats are basically a way for you to specialize in one of the things your class does.

I could be wrong about this but I am guessing for the core product some classes are going to have very few choices. However, as 5E gets some legs the classes will open up a bit with more subclass...

I suspect that will happen too, but I'm not really interested in that model of buying books any more. If it's stuff that's available free on the web, it won't bother me, but really I want the core book to be the game I want to play, not a potential for a game that could be interesting with future products.

I do like the base rules and how things operate. My knock right now is the structure of classes. I don't necessarily need a plethora of options, but rather just the opportunity to make choices.

Character creation is good IMO. I'm very happy with it so far. Just looking down the road, I wish I had more control.


2Cellos - Thunderstruck

And for the gobbo
2Cellos - Smooth Criminal


phantom1592 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

My one complaint right now is that for some of the classes, once you finish making the character at level 1, there are little to no meaningful choices to be made.

I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

Which is a major call back to 2E.

I'm torn on the idea really, at the time, I loved all the kits and stuff to help me avoid the 'cookie cutter fighter'... All the stats looked the same...

Still, Pathfinder/3.5 went too far the other way, bogging you down with a hundred different choices and too many that simply didn't work together... I'm not really sure which is 'better.'

I do know that when the only thing that differentiated one fighter from the next was personality and backstory... I stayed incharacter a lot more. Now days I seem too involved in the math to remember to use an accent half the time.

I agree, it's hitting that right balance.

It's one of the things I like about 13th Age. The Barbarian is still the simplest class, but the way classes are designed there is still a choice that I get to make every level to help shape the character.

In 13th Age you get a feat every level (they also compressed the classes to just 10 levels). There are a few general feats, but the vast majority are class specific and basically augment the abilities you already have. Feats are basically a way for you to specialize in one of the things your class does.


My one complaint right now is that for some of the classes, once you finish making the character at level 1, there are little to no meaningful choices to be made.

I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Detect Magic wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:

Nope not touching the thing less to do with the rules and more to do with certain individuas involved with the project

Link

Wasn't their sole contribution that they playtested the system and consulted with the designers regarding game mechanics? If that's the case, what's the problem? They're not writing for the campaign settings or anything... as far as I know.

For some people it doesn't matter the degree of their involvement, but rather that they were involved and when confronted with those individuals history, the people in charge of D&D reaffirmed their commitment to those individuals.

You can disagree with Kevin Mack's choice. His choice is his choice, just like your choice is yours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Home care workers unionize in Minnesota.

There are still some legal challenges to the vote, no idea if they represent a significant challenge or not. It's hard and valuable work though, that is often paid at, or barely above, minimum wage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The other method I've seen which isn't too complicated...

Mana pools are relatively low. Like Intelligence score + level (level 1 with 18 Int gets 19 spell points). Where the math comes in is that spells get cheaper to cast as you go up in levels.

1st level spells might start costing 8 points to cast, but get cheaper with every level until they only cost 1 point. 2nd level spells might start costing 9 points, but again, get cheaper very fast.

At very high levels, you can even make low level spells free. A 17th level wizard who can cast unlimited magic missiles isn't really going to throw off your encounter design.

Anyways, the math gets much simpler to manipulate to achieve your desired results by reducing the pool and focusing on spell costs instead.

It also opens the door for specialization and feats in interesting ways. An evoker might cast evocation spells at 1 less. For a feat might reduce the cost of a specific spell significantly.


Suichimo wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Stats cap at 22 with best magic items.
Barbarians can actually hit 24 in Str and Con. I'm not sure HOW they'll do it, since the ability comes at 20, but they can.

The bonus strength from Rage essentially doesn't count towards the ability cap.


Lorefinder

It's an adaptation of the Pathfinder system (which you're familiar with) but changes the skills into a more investigative game, where the GM gets to leave bread crumbs for the players to follow and connect.

If you want to ditch PF all together, you could just use Trail of Cthulhu, which is designed for investigative games and is just the GUMSHOE system.


JohnLocke wrote:

"He also negotiated a rest in peace agreement with 100,000 to 200,000 Chechen civilians."

Yes, let's compare body counts between Russia and the USA since, let's say, Putin came to power. I'm sure the US will come out looking like innocent pacifists, right? Body counts are so important - it's how Americans know they won in Vietnam, for example! And we'll not even mention the death toll in Iraq or Afghanistan cuz, you know, those were such clean, bloodless victories for the american military machine!

I get it, you aren't interested in talking TO people, you only want to talk AT them. I know this, because you aren't actually reading what I write. You're only reading what you WANT me to have written.

Have fun.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


He also negotiated a rest in peace agreement with 100,000 to 200,000 Chechen civilians.

Even maximum numbers from biased as hell Wiki are less

What's more,the Dark One secured Chechen Republic as PEACEFUL province.
Who cares about tens of thousands when now,ten years later,one and a half million can live in peace and enjoying russian welfare?

There are a lot of estimates to look at.

200,000 is definitely on the high side and probably not correct, but 100,000 is quite reasonable estimate and it's probably higher than that.

Of course, Chechnya only has a population of 1.2 million. 100,000 dead is nearly 10% of the population which is quite significant for an armed conflict.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Some have criticized Russia, claiming they have regional aims beyond their own borders. To that, to the west, I say: f+*+ you. Yes, f#$+ you for daring to have the gall to criticize Russia for having a foreign policy that protects them in their own region of the globe. F$+@ you for not once raising questions regarding Washington's global aims - policies and actions designed to keep a very few rich and everyone else broken, divided, exploited. Russia could have rolled over the Ukrainian border a dozen times already, declared a no-fly zone, annihilated the already-weak Ukrainian and neo-nazi forces attacking the ethnic Russian populations - that they haven't is a sign that Putin is more statesman than warmonger. I understand that this is hard for Americans who like to kick ass and kill sand-ni@@ers and commies to get.
See, I'm with you on pointing out the evil things that the US does around the world. But don't pretend that Putin is some how "saving" people. That just makes you sound naive at best.
Meh. Who cares how you think it makes me sound. Putin has acted as peacemaker far more often than a certain President promising change has done. He negotiated an agreement with Syria regarding their chemical arms last year that totally deflated Obama's desire to strike at them. He's helped Iran get back to the bargaining table re: their peaceful nuclear energy program, stymieing America's desire for war. He's resisted the temptation to use military force in Ukraine. He's no angel, but the m%*@$&@&%&&! is a statesman and a strategist.

He provoked the Ukraine situation. He's gladly taking Crimea into his control. Someone looking for peace would have diffused the situation and said "no".

He's prolonged the Syrian situation by supporting the Assad regime.

I hear Chechnya had some problems a few years ago.

I hear Georgia has had some problems too.

Putin is an imperialist. I'm sorry you can't see that. He is not your communist savior.


JohnLocke wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Some have criticized Russia, claiming they have regional aims beyond their own borders. To that, to the west, I say: f+*+ you. Yes, f#$+ you for daring to have the gall to criticize Russia for having a foreign policy that protects them in their own region of the globe. F$+@ you for not once raising questions regarding Washington's global aims - policies and actions designed to keep a very few rich and everyone else broken, divided, exploited. Russia could have rolled over the Ukrainian border a dozen times already, declared a no-fly zone, annihilated the already-weak Ukrainian and neo-nazi forces attacking the ethnic Russian populations - that they haven't is a sign that Putin is more statesman than warmonger. I understand that this is hard for Americans who like to kick ass and kill sand-ni@@ers and commies to get.
See, I'm with you on pointing out the evil things that the US does around the world. But don't pretend that Putin is some how "saving" people. That just makes you sound naive at best.
Meh. Who cares how you think it makes me sound. Putin has acted as peacemaker far more often than a certain President promising change has done. He negotiated an agreement with Syria regarding their chemical arms last year that totally deflated Obama's desire to strike at them. He's helped Iran get back to the bargaining table re: their peaceful nuclear energy program, stymieing America's desire for war. He's resisted the temptation to use military force in Ukraine. He's no angel, but the m!%~@$#$~*!$ is a statesman and a strategist.

He also negotiated a rest in peace agreement with 100,000 to 200,000 Chechen civilians.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I have known many anarchists

And your experiences are your experiences, but you cannot take anecdotal evidence and apply it to every similar situation...

It just doesn't work that way.

Or we could just look at the arrest records, which are public record.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
See, I'm with you on pointing out the evil things that the US does around the world. But don't pretend that Putin is some how "saving" people. That just makes you sound naive at best.

I do think it's correct to say that Russia's annexation of Crimea likely has saved many Crimeans from various horrible crimes commited by the fascist junta. So in that way I do think it's correct to say that Putin has been "saving" people.

However, it should of course come with a note on how there's nothing altruistic in it - Russia saving crimeans are for completely selfish reasons.

Crimean Tartars might disagree with you.

Public gatherings of Tartars have been banned. Staff of community centers are being summoned to courts for having taught first aid to political activists. Community leaders are being kicked out of the country. There have been some disappearances, though they're small in scale so far.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:


Irontruth wrote:
and fanatical devotion to the Pope.
While russians have stupid amounts of chief weapons,this,sadly,is not one of them.Eastern Ortodoxy and all:)

Since you don't seem to be familiar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Orlando Jones take on the Ice Bucket Challenge


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
Some have criticized Russia, claiming they have regional aims beyond their own borders. To that, to the west, I say: f+*+ you. Yes, f#$+ you for daring to have the gall to criticize Russia for having a foreign policy that protects them in their own region of the globe. F$+@ you for not once raising questions regarding Washington's global aims - policies and actions designed to keep a very few rich and everyone else broken, divided, exploited. Russia could have rolled over the Ukrainian border a dozen times already, declared a no-fly zone, annihilated the already-weak Ukrainian and neo-nazi forces attacking the ethnic Russian populations - that they haven't is a sign that Putin is more statesman than warmonger. I understand that this is hard for Americans who like to kick ass and kill sand-ni@@ers and commies to get.

See, I'm with you on pointing out the evil things that the US does around the world. But don't pretend that Putin is some how "saving" people. That just makes you sound naive at best.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:


Where did I say anything about controlling a border? I was commenting on your claim that the US could not know anything about Russian military movements on the Russian-Ukraine border.

US could know only what they are allowed to know.It's not their home ground.It's not even Iraq of Afghanistan.Russians are very adept in misdirection,and their chief weapons are fear and surprise.And misdirection.

Their three chief weapons are fear, surprise and misdirection. And ruthless efficiency.

Their four chief weapons are fear, surprise, misdirection, ruthless efficiency... and fanatical devotion to the Pope.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Wrath wrote:

15 million would employ far more than 100 people when you consider most folks in the industry aren't making big money. We're not talking triple figure incomes here I'm guessing.

Cheers

As far as I understand it 15 million is sales at shops and other channels. Subtract what shop gets, subtract printing and shipment costs, taxes, and what is left is probably much lower number.

How much shops get? 10-15%? Transport? 10-15%? Taxes?

That drops it to 10 million. Are we suggesting people are getting paid $100 000 us per year in the roleplay market (100 people for combined salary of 10 mill).

However, the exact figure is irrelevant. I think Scott was trying to point out that the rpg industry is tiny in terms of people who work in it as developers. I just got all pedantic is all. Naughty of me really. Sorry all.

Cheers

This includes a correction from earlier (I was including Evil Genius sales in previous estimates), Evil Hat, had this for a break down for 2013:

Income: $744k
Expenses: $680k
Profit: $64k

Biggest expenses
Shipping: $169k
Inventory/Manufacture: $242k

Just getting a product to market takes up more than half of the revenue from selling it.

Source

Evil Hat has been on the top 5 of ICv2 a fair amount of the time since it released Dresden Files RPG back in 2011. But it only represents 5% of the market.

Paizo undoubtedly holds a larger share, not just because they usually hold the top spot, but they have more products which have substantial sales in their own right. Even still, I doubt there are more than a couple employees at Paizo who make more than $50,000 a year.

Atlas Games has had moderate success, but I think they're at 4 employees (including one of the owners). They've managed to sustain themselves for 20 years, but they're not getting wealthy off this. It's all used cars and public schools.


The largest company I know of that releases sales data is Evil Hat. Right now with Fate Core they're #4 on the list of best selling products according to ICv2.

Last year Evil Hat had gross revenue around $1.4 million.

RPGs is a tiny industry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

M:tG is estimated to be around 6 million active players around the world. I would guess that that easily doubles or triples if you count inactive players.

In it's entire 40 year history, D&D has a total of 10 million, not all of which are active.

Factory sealed boxes of certain editions of M:tG can go for over $10,000.
The highest priced D&D book on ebay right now is $450.

RPG's are a really, really, really small market.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey you, we got your war - the musical interlude

Musical Interlude part 2 - before the police at least had the courtesy to not show up


I have a time machine in my room. It's a cardboard box, if you sit in for X amount of time, you travel X amount of time into the future.

For gaming purposes, there's also this:Time & Temp

Adventure awaits you in the exciting field of temporary staffing!

Time & Temp is a game of time travel and underemployment for 3 to 5 players.

Employed by Marigold Staffing and working at Browne Chronometric Engineering, Inc., you travel through the ages actualizing solutions for the anomalies and paradoxes that threaten all of existence. You are reality’s only line of defense in the war between the rigidity of causality and freewill. And your only reward is the hard earned satisfaction of a job well done (plus $11.50 an hour and a modest health package including comprehensive immunizations for history’s most prolific diseases).

Join now and help make anachronism a thing of the past!


LazarX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Crellan wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:

I agree such things are beneficial and it's great when publishers provide them.

However, make no mistake - the additional cost and effort required on the publisher's part is far from negligible!

We are talking about simply taking art they already posses electronically and make a second version available for download. If the charged a reasonable amount (maybe 10-20% of the .pdf price) then they would certainly make a profit.
The OP has decided that, for him, this is a condition of Paizo making profit on the primary product.
The sheer economic reality is that Paizo can't afford to lose control of it's artwork just to please one customer.

There's actually not a lot of factual evidence to back up that claim.

There is a lot of evidence though that expanding your customer base to fulfill as many of their needs as you can is good for business.

VTT use is expanding. The companies who cater to the needs of VTT users are going to see better sales to those people. The companies that don't meet their needs are going to see reduced sales. Ease of use is just one need (adventure quality, art quality, product predictability are all valuable aspects to the customer also), but it's still a need.

The OP didn't say he's going to stop playing Pathfinder. He's saying he's going to go with adventure publishers who fulfill his primary need of ease of use.

Adventure prep can be time consuming. Spending 1-2 hours per session just getting the graphics right can be a big chunk of time, particularly for a GM with a job, spouse and kids. For most GM's, that time would be better spent reading the adventure, learning it well and making modifications necessary for their group... to the adventure. Not the image file for the map.

Other companies are already making money off providing easy to use products for VTT gamers. Paizo is free to ignore this aspect of the market. I'm sure that right now it's actually a pretty small slice of the overall pie.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The other aspect of mechanics is that you can and should separate yourself from the character. It's okay to admit that you are making decisions for the character. The trick is to switch modes, between making a decision for you and the game and something the character would decide on their own.

Some mechanics don't represent conscious decisions by the character, but rather manipulation of odds to represent statistics within the game.

Let's say I'm a Fighter and have an ability which lets me automatically declare a critical once per day. Why don't I declare all my hits crits? Well, because my character isn't actually choosing to make this one a crit. Sure, he really wants it, but within the fiction it's more of a lucky coincidence. He really wanted a crit and he happened to get it.

Outside the fiction, I am making the decision to spend the resource because it's in my character's interest. A critical based Fighter is probably going to score crits. We also all remember those special moments where a crit was needed and happened at the right time. This would just be an ability recognizes that probability and inherently bakes it in as an option to choose to manipulate the odds.


David knott 242 wrote:
I think one issue is that, while many martial tricks might better be represented as "per encounter" than either "at will" or "X times per day", a certain other game company made extensive use of the "per encounter" mechanic in non-OGC material -- which means that Paizo would have to tread carefully to avoid violating the OGL. It can be and has been done, but it is tricky.

It can be done and quite easily. Suing over copyright of rules is notoriously difficult and nearly impossible. As long as you aren't using art and specific names, it's fine.

13th Age uses "per battle" quite liberally.


There are more than a few games that violate rule 1. It does have consequences though and it gets into the nature of how defined a system is and what that means.

In a highly defined system, every thing is it's own discreet thing. Fireball is different from Lightning Bolt is different from Magic Jar. Each aspect gets highly defined and interactions get worked out. This allows for a broader scope of mechanical possibilities. Individual options can "break" the rules in certain ways, because it's been defined and understood how that happens and does so in a controlled manner.

In a less defined system you don't pre-determine what individual actions of magic can do, but rather define what is possible within the scope of magic. Imagine it like this...

A wizard takes proficiency in Evoking magic. He can deal damage to his enemies and create force effects. You define how much damage at what levels, maybe how large of an area as well. Then when the player casts the spells, he's free to narrate and choose how the spell manifests on the fly. There are still rolls associated, but that spell could be a one-time thing, or serve as inspiration for future castings.

I've played a few games that use a method similar to that, they define the mechanical effects of magic, give inspiration for the color, but leave the specifics to the GM and player. These are usually games with fewer definitions of actions in general (they just tell you how to attack, no specific rules for grappling/disarming/tripping/etc) allowing the GM and player to add specifics as the narration of the story demands.

Both methods are good IMO, but produce different results. One of the neat things about a defined system is that it creates restrictions and boundaries you have to work in, which often produces very creative results that are really interesting. A less defined system on the other hand gets out of the way and relies only on your creativity to create situations that are interesting, which works great when you are "on".


Like a lot of "craft" whiskey's right now, they're both distilled by MGP Ingredients. It used to be a Seagram's distillery that has changed hands several times. One of the notable things right now is that they distill various spirits and sell them to bottlers. I think something like 80%+ of the various brands that have appeared in the past 15 years are actually distilled by these guys.

Companies buy the whiskey, maybe do another year of aging, make a blend out of it, add whatever else they're going to add and then bottle and sell it.

Bulleit has a bourbon and a rye. Both are inexpensive ($20-25 range). It's fine. There aren't many whiskeys at that price that I would classify as perfect for sipping in general anyways. I think they're great for mixed drinks though.


Skeld wrote:
Pan wrote:

Actually my favorite moment is

** spoiler omitted **

I liked that part, too. Honestly, I ended up liking Drax much more than I thought I would. The only one that I didn't like was Gamora. She was just... I don't know... Boring?

** spoiler omitted **

My two observations about Gamora...

Spoiler:

1) She doesn't really go through much development. Things get revealed about her, but she doesn't change. The revelations don't really get driven home either or feel that major.

2) A lot of her dialogue deals with moving the plot forward. Basically she speaks as a way to introduce the next scene or remind the audience about what is going on.

She's a (potentially) interesting character and I think Saldana did a decent job with her, but it was flawed writing about the character IMO.


lucky7 wrote:
well, this is just nuts.

I tree what you did there.


It is interesting. I highly doubt it'll happen. Despite all the evidence that suggest freeing your IP is good for business, no one wants to relinquish control.


Fabius Maximus wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:
lately as I find drink it more as the air grows colder. But I think I will want to pick some up soon as the Fall is upon us.
That's VERY interesting to me, because I notice the opposite -- I crave bourbon a lot more during the cold months, and only really like Scotch in the summer and spring.

Speaking of Bourbon: I tried Elijah Craig a while ago and found it too sweet for my liking. It worked quite nicely in Highballs, though.

Are there any Bourbons that are not as sweet?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of bourbon (compared to scotch) is that it is sweeter. They shouldn't be syrupy, but that hint of sweetness (and compared to a scotch, a hint is a lot) should be there.

If you don't like the sweetness, try some rye whiskey instead.

Bulleit makes a decent rye for about $20-25/bottle. Nothing exceptional, but it'll give you an idea of what you're in for without costing a lot.


241 - Count Zero by William Gibson: “And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.”


MMCJawa wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Ant-man is being co-written by Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish.

Wright: Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim, The World's End
Cornish: Attack the Block

Those are some very well-written movies.

My big reservation is that Wright worked on the movie for 8 years, and just this summer suddenly left over creative differences, and is being replaced with Peyton Reed...whose filmography is...less than inspiring

Granted Winter Soldier was amazing...and the Russo Brothers had only done TV before that, so maybe I shouldn't be concerned...

Hadn't heard about that.

Will have to wait and see. Reed did do like 12 episodes of the Upright Citizen's Brigade.


If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend Attack the Block.


Ant-man is being co-written by Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish.

Wright: Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim, The World's End
Cornish: Attack the Block

Those are some very well-written movies.


Have you tried the cappuccino flavored chips? They're okay, but a little strange on their own. I think if you made a light whipped cream/marscapone dip though, it'd be a little amazing.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But yes, if they have a stupid contest and remove the sexist rule and the sexist promotion, then it's not sexist any more.
I think that's what I'm trying to express. It's not fundamentally a sexist contest, as apparently even the voters recognized, based on Kthulhu's post. It's more like a perfectly innocuous contest, but then some pinhead in the Marketing department added a sexist rule to it, and then the promotional writer turned out to be a toad-like neckbeard. It still seems like there's a lot that could be salvaged, if you eliminate just those two things. Kind of like you don't have to immediately throw away onions with brown spots; you can just cut them out and the rest is still usable.

From a marketing standpoint, you want people to forget as quickly as possible that the onion with brown spots ever existed, that way no one thinks about the brown spots.


SeeDarkly_X wrote:

As to Irontruth: You mentioned how "marketing" built up some expectation. I don't see it, and I doubtless watched the same trailers as everyone else.

I did see sub-seminal sources build hype based on erroneous and unsubstantiated claims of what to expect. But nothing direct from Marvel did.

I'm not telling you how you saw the movie. I'm telling you how I saw it. You're free to your opinion, I'm not saying you can't have it. But that means I also get to have mine.

For me, the plot twist failed and left a bad taste in my mouth. It reduced my enjoyment of the movie.


SeeDarkly_X wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I've never read any of the source material. I'm just judging the movie on its own.

The movie was really about Tony Stark and his struggle of relating himself to the suit, figuring out what it meant to him. Then they layered a convoluted plot of bait and switch on top of that that just felt pointless.

The problem is that they spent this time building up the Mandarin, both in marketing and then in the story line. To pull the rug out from that on the AUDIENCE gives similar feelings of betrayal and mistrust. For this kind of movie, to remove my feelings of trust is a bad thing. Now I stop being invested and care less for the characters on screen, because the director has shown me overtly that he's toying with me.

Toying with the audience works for a lot of films. Inception is a movie built on the concept of manipulating perception and concealing the truth from the viewer (both in the movie and out). There, it works and is even expected. IM3 is not that kind of movie and going into that kind of area is dangerous and can backfire. It certainly did with me.

I still liked the movie, but only a little bit. I wasn't that interested in going back to the theater and haven't really cared to pick it up since it's out on DVD.

Let's make a distinction between "marketing" and "op-ed news-pieces."

Because for all the advertising and official statements Marvel made... I know I saw nothing that built up or guaranteed anything other than a "mystery" or "mystique" of the Mandarin. They never showed him in an action scene. Never showed or discussed the use of rings. Always left his presence vague.

I'll give you an example... in one interview Feige said of the Mandarin, "Assuming that he’s the one responsible for what happens to Tony’s house, no other villain has been able to strike that fast and that hard at one of our heroes." Note that he didn't say "When he attacks Tony's house." He says "assuming" which leaves possibilities wide open because all we'd seen in...

You must be confusing me with other people.

I have no idea what rings you're talking about. I guess he wore a lot of jewelry, but honestly, I have no clue what their significance is.

I saw trailers that hyped a villain. I saw a movie that hyped a villain and then did a bait and switch. The left over story-line of the actual villain was very bland and I didn't really care.

You can tell me why I should care about that villain, but the truth is it's the movies responsibility to make me care and it didn't.

I'd have rather seen a 90 minute movie of Tony Stark and the kid he befriended. No sarcasm.

I am not a marvel fan boy. I really don't pay attention to all the stuff you are assuming I pay attention to. The only movie/show I have ever relied on interviews to help me understand the movie/show was The Wire.


Two of my favorite events:

Tracy Hickman's Killer Breakfast
It's a comedy show, part gaming, part show. People have a lot of fun with it.

Games on Demand
If you are into indie games at all Games On Demand is very cool. They only accept generic tickets, that means you can't pre-register for it, but it also means it is first come, first serve. I've played and GM'ed previous years and always had a really, really good time.


Solusek wrote:


And who could forget,
Postmodern Jukebox (feat. Puddles) - Royals (Lorde Cover)

I hadn't heard of Puddles before, he's amazing.


SeeDarkly_X wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Except I don't buy that because for the vast majority of the audience, the Mandarin meant nothing.

That being true, why would anyone expect the classic interpretation of the character?

It goes without saying most films do not 100% match the core material. If you acknowledge that before even going to see it, why would this one be any different? In most cases, you're better to expect changes and be surprised and appreciative of anything that connects well to canon.

I still say it's a solid film and story on its own and brilliant in its ability to build mythos for an even greater story over time.
In the end... you don't know that you WON'T eventually see a more classic version of the character face Stark on screen.
Given that in most MCU films the villain dies, I'm happier that this story has the potential to fill more than one movie and this was a good a starting point as any because now... well none of us really know what to expect, do we?

I've never read any of the source material. I'm just judging the movie on its own.

The movie was really about Tony Stark and his struggle of relating himself to the suit, figuring out what it meant to him. Then they layered a convoluted plot of bait and switch on top of that that just felt pointless.

The problem is that they spent this time building up the Mandarin, both in marketing and then in the story line. To pull the rug out from that on the AUDIENCE gives similar feelings of betrayal and mistrust. For this kind of movie, to remove my feelings of trust is a bad thing. Now I stop being invested and care less for the characters on screen, because the director has shown me overtly that he's toying with me.

Toying with the audience works for a lot of films. Inception is a movie built on the concept of manipulating perception and concealing the truth from the viewer (both in the movie and out). There, it works and is even expected. IM3 is not that kind of movie and going into that kind of area is dangerous and can backfire. It certainly did with me.

I still liked the movie, but only a little bit. I wasn't that interested in going back to the theater and haven't really cared to pick it up since it's out on DVD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

Well, not every move they make will be good. Give them a break. Their track record thus far is pretty damn amazing. Not a single bad film of the whole lot. Some, granted, not great, but none bad.

That is quite an accomplishment.

They do make a lot of good movies, which is why I trust them and spend the money to see them in the theater.

That said, it doesn't matter if a different movie is good. Each movie is judged on it's own and whether or not it delivers an entertaining experience.

I left IM3 excited on opening night, but partly that was the lingering excitement from expectations. The next day I felt let down by the movie and started to figure out why. The Mandarin plot line is one of those reasons.

1 to 50 of 4,710 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.