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

Irontruth's page

5,340 posts (5,342 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think part of it is that her earlier life is very much captured in the classic photo where she has her arms up in a V after the decathlon. While not a groundbreaking photo, it's iconic of the era and representative of the event which greatly defined the next decade or two for her.

I could see the desire to try to make a daring and iconic photo to anchor this new episode in her life as well. She's lived most of her life in the public eye, so having it be a magazine cover (much like the Olympic photo) isn't a big surprise to me either. Time will tell if it succeeds or was even a good idea.

Not saying I approve or disapprove, but I at least see how she got to this decision (or my interpretation of how she got there).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
On the one hand, if doesn't fit in with the other PC's... can you really call it a PC?

With this logic a PC, played by a player, that doesn't fit in with the other PC's well wouldn't be considered a PC.

A good definition of GMPC must refrain from using quality to define what a GMPC is. The definition of GMPC must focus on what makes it different from other NPC's run by the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The other aspect of GMPC's, for me, is that they seem entirely unnecessary (except as captain yesterday just pointed out, you at the GM really want to play the game as well).

Small party? Just give them additional resources (cheap healing, cohorts, second characters)

Plot information? Have alternate sources (let players add information, give them a journal from an NPC, automatic successes for key information due to knowledge skills)

To me, the GMPC is a tool, but it's an awkward and inefficient tool IMO. Most problems that it solves can be solved in less obtrusive ways that are less likely to cause issues that are disruptive to the game. The exception being that the GM really wants to build their own character using the same rules as the players and bring it along on the adventure. Then you have to deal with the side effects of a GMPC, because it's the only way to solve that problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Sunderstone wrote:
Still wanting to purchase the core. No pdf, No sale.
You could always try out that newfangled way of presenting books they call a "hardcover". I dunno if the format will stand the test of time, but hey, I'm always open to trying crazy new technologies.

I'm with Sunderstone on this. I haven't bought a physical RPG book in 2 years. I'm (very) slowly pairing down what physical books I do have and part of that process is avoiding any new acquisitions.

I get to carry a complete library around with me for just a few gigs of memory.

I'm playing a 5E game and really like it. I would buy a PDF if they sold it, because I very purposely don't want a physical copy. Since they don't offer the product in a format that is useful for me, there's nothing I'm interested in purchasing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have you tried wrapping bacon in bacon?

I make this about once a year for the past 5 years. It's always epic.


The alternating GM's within the same game is the primary purpose I would use GMPC's for. In practice though, I would still want them to take a largely backseat during one's GM time. I would probably give my character something else to do while I was GMing and not play him at all during that time, bringing him back in right at the end of my last session, then hand off the GM-baton.

One of my core concepts with GM'ing is to "always be a fan of the PCs". That just feels awkward when I'm including myself in that.


Something more interesting than deflategate:

The US Military pays NFL teams to feature service members.

The Atlanta Falcons got a little over $1 million over the course of 4 years, for doing things like giving free tickets, featuring service members on the jumbotron and making announcements that thanked service members for their service.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I've dealt with enough bad DMPC's that several friends and I have a code word for when we're planning on turning on them and killing them.
Please tell me the use of this 'backstab the character of your fellow player who happens to be running the game' code is preceded by an actual conversation with the GM in question, explaining why you're unhappy with the GMPC and asking if he can either change his methods or remove the GMPC from the game?
That aspect of the story is not relevant to what is currently being discussed. The point is that bad DMPC's DO exist. They have occurred often enough for me that we have a code word for it. That is the relevant piece of information you should latch on to. I have no interest in you dissecting my groups interactions or passing judgement on me and my friends.

I did latch onto it. I've seen a horrible GMPC used in action, it was bad.

But until we talked to the guy he had no idea it was a problem. He attempted to change his ways for the rest of that adventure and checked with us afterwards to get our opinions. Having failed to succeed, he removed the GMPC from the group and the game got significantly better.

But what I latched onto even more was this backstab codeword. If used aggressively without such a conversation it seems like the sort of thing that would damage a group's cohesion. [I sure as hell know that I wouldn't want to keep playing with a group that ganked my character without talking to me about the reason first. Of course I don't GMPC, this is just my thoughts as a player, one who's also had good GMPC experiences.]

Yes, my last post was COMPLETELY an invitation for you to continue to pass judgement on me and my friends, even though you have virtually no context with which to do so. Seriously, you're missing SO MANY DETAILS. And I'm not sharing them. So again, I ask you to stop.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I've dealt with enough bad DMPC's that several friends and I have a code word for when we're planning on turning on them and killing them.
Please tell me the use of this 'backstab the character of your fellow player who happens to be running the game' code is preceded by an actual conversation with the GM in question, explaining why you're unhappy with the GMPC and asking if he can either change his methods or remove the GMPC from the game?

That aspect of the story is not relevant to what is currently being discussed. The point is that bad DMPC's DO exist. They have occurred often enough for me that we have a code word for it. That is the relevant piece of information you should latch on to. I have no interest in you dissecting my groups interactions or passing judgement on me and my friends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I look inside something it's usually for the XP. Or money. Or because it swallowed a friend. Who has money.


There are 2 ways of gaining facts as a PC. Experiencing them (and remembering) or succeeding on a roll of a Knowledge skill. If you've experienced a fact (and can remember it) you should be welcome to make decisions based on it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:

The best gm's run nothing but DMPCs... Every character is a well thought out well developed, thoughtfully motivated and played actor upon the player's stage with at least a hair of common sense or a sense of self preservation, or at worst, if fighting to the death, a believable thing worth dying for at stake at the relevant moments. They should not be conveniently scaled to be 'a balanced fight' for the party because that's not how life works.

Sometimes versimilitude means dealing with people as they are, not as you want them to be.

1. Your "definition" of DMPC is pointless, because it's essentially vague to the point of meaninglessness. In addition, it runs counter to the concept expressed in literally dozens of posts in this thread. DMPC is not a term of quality, but rather purpose. Not all good NPC's are DMPC's (I know this, because I've both seen and played good NPC's that would not typically be called DMPC's) and not all DMPC's are good (I know because I've had games ruined by them).

2. Talking about verisimilitude is pointless. The line of demarcation for what is believable for one person is not the same as the next. Even similar concepts of believability will become radically different from one gaming table to the next due to small differences in RAI or house rules.

I've come to the belief that verisimilitude is a shield (maybe unwittingly) to defend ones viewpoint in an attempt to make it unassailable, even when it can be provably shown that something IS realistic (as in it has happened in the real world) but people refuse to allow it in their games.

I've dealt with enough bad DMPC's that several friends and I have a code word for when we're planning on turning on them and killing them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Ok.

Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM has "emotional attachment", and then ruins the game with it.
By your quote marks, should I conclude that you consider emotional attachment to be a foreign concept, Kryzbyn?
I have emotional attachment to all of my NPCs. :3
It is sad if they get it in the neck, but such is npc life.

I read that in a vogon's voice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Per RAW nothing exists and is merely a dream that was eaten by the Tarrasque.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Wow. I almost expected one, but two people? That's unheard of, and pleasantly surprising!

So we have two posters who are generally Anti-DMPC agreeing that they perhaps can be done right...but no DMPC running DM's that have conceded that perhaps they shouldn't be running them?

Analogy

Ever notice how rarely people consider themselves to be bad drivers? Yet, everyone complains about bad drivers and we've all seen them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MannyGoblin wrote:

So Pathfinder version of Doof Wagon?

Mandolin bard with drummers in the back. Pulled by horses.

You're not thinking big enough.

He's got to be riding one of these.

@thejeff: not sure why you're bothering to argue with someone who identifies with MRA's. There's really not point. It took me a couple posts to remember that Arturius has taken some exceptionally sexist stances in previous threads.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While being arrested after shooting guns at cops white folks get treated like this.

While being stopped for a broken tail light black folks get treated like this.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'm sorry for stirring the pot with my advocating a certain terminology -- like I said, they're just terms and people are going to use them however they wish whether or not I think they're accurate.

So let's try this: leave aside the actual terms Allied NPC (let's call that "Blorch") and a GMPC (Let's call that "Sweem").

Is there a difference between Blorch and Sweem? I assert that there is. While they are mostly similar, Sweem has some characteristics that can exacerbate poor habits the GM might have, and is at much higher risk of irritating the players.

This difference exists, and it is the topic of discussion here.

It's not your fault IMO. These boards have a bad culture surrounding attempts to actually come up with a definition of something that that might facilitate discussion of said thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a player, I prefer no GMPC. If done well, I'd be fine with it, but I personally have not seen it done well.

As a GM, I have zero interest in doing it. I'd rather just give the players the resources to deal with challenges and not have to do it myself.

Currently I'm infatuated with a game called Blades in the Dark. It's a game about criminals running their organization within the underworld of a city. As a GM, I love it because it taxes me creatively, but there's virtually no mechanically fiddly bits for me to be concerned with. NPCs don't even have stats, all of my notes are entirely focused on who they are and their relation to the story. I also don't pick up dice either as GM in that game. I love it.

I still run a PF game, but I prefer to keep my stat bookkeeping to a minimum. I tend to not stat up NPC's (I keep some resources handy to grab stat blocks from) unless their stats come up in 2 different sessions. I'm definitely not running a GMPC.


1. Figure out why the cleric is attacking the city.

I would go with stealing a McGuffin. Something important and powerful that if it fell into the wrong hands... etc, etc. The value of this is it allows the cleric to win the encounter more easily. He doesn't need to destroy the city or everyone in it, that comes later. Right now he just needs this one thing and he'll leave.

2. Figure out why the cleric can't destroy the city.

Yes he can attack and do severe damage, but eventually he'll be stopped or fail for some reason. Maybe the Paladin has a group of old adventuring buddies who will come to finish the job and defend the city. Maybe the city is guarded by angels, but it takes time for them to show up. Whatever it is, it'll show up soon, but it won't be the first responder, that's the Paladin.

3. Figure out why someone else doesn't chase the cleric to end him.

This powerful bad guy just stole something important, killed dozens or hundreds of people and could still cause havoc. You need a reason why the PC's are getting involved and not whoever is powerful enough to protect the city, or some other experienced group of adventurers. Obviously the story is about the PC's, but an in game reason for why helps.


Jaelithe wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Why are you quoting my post and talking about things that have nothing to do with my post? Seriously, it's like you're TRYING to take things out of context and cherry pick things to disagree with.

I was just continuing the conversation. I wasn't trying to imply that you were wrong or challenge your post. Sorry if that was unclear. I'm doing five things at once.

I clearly rub you the wrong way. I'm not overly concerned about it, but I'm not looking to antagonize you, either.

Thanks for the clarification, I'll drop it.


BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

His suspension was announced Feb 11th, so he was tested prior to that. It also isn't his first suspension, he's a repeat offender. It wasn't even his first suspension in the last 365 days. He also wasn't the only Colt player suspended this year.

Still, my primary point... if you're going to take a moral outrage stance on the under inflated ball purely because it's cheating (regardless of it's actual effect) you better apply your moral outrage to ALL cheating, which includes PEDs.

Since you keep coming up with defenses for the PEDs, you clearly are not applying your moral outrage to ALL cheating, making your moral outrage bereft of any real substance.

Lastly, in an individual sport, such as boxing, cycling (technically there are teams, but teams aren't awarded victories, individuals are), punishing the individual by removing victories makes sense. In team sports, unless the cheating is systemic and organized by the team as a whole, it's more effective to punish individuals. If you punish the team for individual cheating, then when an individual on each team cheats, you HAVE to make the determination of which cheating was more severe. Individual punishments mean you can mete out penalties on a per case basis allowing you to hit both offenders equally hard if necessary.

If you want to make the claim that your moral outrage is without bias, you need to apply it more evenly in your comments. So far, you are not.

Extreme disagree. The number one most effective way to keep an individual from cheating is to take away the accomplishments of their peers. The social pressure to play by the rules is far stronger when your peers reputation is on the line, not just your own. People are willing to gamble on getting caught if it is just them who will be punished. People are far less likely to take that risk if they know getting caught will cause their team to be harmed.

Basically, individual punishments set up a system where cheating is the norm because if an individual...

Except individuals will still gamble on not getting caught. Remember, 97% of the players in the NFL do NOT win the championship each year. Probably 50% of them don't really even have a shot at winning. They play because they're paid to and as long as the pay checks are big, people will take big risks to get those pay checks, damn the consequences.

In addition, I'm specifically addressing game forfeiture, it's impractical in the NFL. Replaying games, or scheduling extra games just isn't practical, nor would it be desired, unless absolutely necessary. Remember, this year the AFC Championship, BOTH teams cheated (one under inflated their footballs, the other had confirmed PED users). That means either canceling the Super Bowl, or playing a second AFC Championship (with the teams that lost in the prior round of playoffs).

The Ravens have had 5 (including one this year) PED suspensions the past 5 years.

Oh, and the Broncos had 2 suspensions for PED use this year, plus one last year too.

So, in the AFC, the top 4 teams in the playoffs ALL had some form of cheating happen this year. ALL OF THEM.

I'm not saying this to excuse the cheating. I'm just pointing out that with 53 players per team (46 allowed to dress for the game) and with the stakes being so high for making it onto those teams, players are going to take risks, that includes breaking the rules. It's in their own interests to do it because they'll potentially earn millions of dollars before they're caught.

The best method really is to fine/suspend them and move on. If a problem is endemic to a team, the team gets fined and loses draft picks.

This isn't life or death. It's entertainment. While I think efforts should continue to make it as moral and ethical as possible, the consequences of moral and ethical violations are pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. Sometimes they're even trivial within the context of football.

I'm just tired of people acting like Tom Brady is some kind of heinous sinner, while a safety they've never heard of doesn't even deserve to be talked about. Either you hate cheaters, or you don't and you're just pretending to because it suits your purposes.


Jaelithe wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

So, you can tell someone to play a martial, divine, nature-focused, or scoundrel (as examples, including but not limited to). In your example, Sarah could literally interpret any of those as a ranger, but that ranger might have a different focus from her typical one.

Certainly it's reasonable for a DM to say, "These are the parameters for this campaign, within which you're free to do as you like," but said bounds must be the same for each and every player.

Now I don't think there's anything wrong with saying to someone who always plays the same character and/or personality type, "Hey, why don't you expand your horizons? I'd love to see what you'd do with a monk/cavalier/wizard/whatever, if that's something that would interest you."

But in my opinion it's wholly unacceptable to point at one player in particular and say, "Look, I'm the DM and I'm a little tired of you specifically playing a paladin/ninja/sorcerer/whatever. Those are off limits to you for this game/campaign." If the ref tried that with me, I'd likely laugh in his or her face and walk out.

I'm not there to play what someone else would think is cool for me. I'm there to play what I think is cool. In short: Gentle suggestion is perfectly fine. Anything more than a nudge is "bad form, Peter."

Having character classes assigned by your fellows could, indeed, be fun, too—if you weren't pressured into it. In my case, I'd likely say, "I'm certainly willing to try, so long as if I learn after giving it what I think is a fair chance that I'm not enjoying myself, I get a replacement character of my choice who's equally powerful and well-equipped." Otherwise, I think resentment might well set in.

Why are you quoting my post and talking about things that have nothing to do with my post? Seriously, it's like you're TRYING to take things out of context and cherry pick things to disagree with.

Literally everything you said you disagree with about this method is already addressed in the context that you didn't quote.


His suspension was announced Feb 11th, so he was tested prior to that. It also isn't his first suspension, he's a repeat offender. It wasn't even his first suspension in the last 365 days. He also wasn't the only Colt player suspended this year.

Still, my primary point... if you're going to take a moral outrage stance on the under inflated ball purely because it's cheating (regardless of it's actual effect) you better apply your moral outrage to ALL cheating, which includes PEDs.

Since you keep coming up with defenses for the PEDs, you clearly are not applying your moral outrage to ALL cheating, making your moral outrage bereft of any real substance.

Lastly, in an individual sport, such as boxing, cycling (technically there are teams, but teams aren't awarded victories, individuals are), punishing the individual by removing victories makes sense. In team sports, unless the cheating is systemic and organized by the team as a whole, it's more effective to punish individuals. If you punish the team for individual cheating, then when an individual on each team cheats, you HAVE to make the determination of which cheating was more severe. Individual punishments mean you can mete out penalties on a per case basis allowing you to hit both offenders equally hard if necessary.

If you want to make the claim that your moral outrage is without bias, you need to apply it more evenly in your comments. So far, you are not.


There's actually a lot of not-so-subtle symbolism that's pretty pro-feminist.

Spoiler:
Max fights the wives and Furiosa while chained to a servant of Immortan Joe. It isn't until he's freed from that chain that he can come to peace with the women. He's literally chained to the patriarchy.

Max literally washes blood off his face and hands with mother's milk.

The women don't just save themselves by destroying the patriarchy, they save the unwashed masses.

There are probably a few more examples I'm forgetting.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I don't allow players to tell other players what they should play. It is a bridge too far (release the firedrake upon them).

We actually do this some times, explicitly. Player A gets to tell Player B what to play (generally, Player B then gets to interpret and make it on their own). Then Player B gets to tell Player C what to play. So on and so forth, until it loops back to Player A.

It's created some interesting parties some times. The player gets veto authority and the picker is encouraged to push the player to something they haven't played, or at least not recently, definitely not whatever their last character role was.

That does sound interesting, and I have know groups where players play the same thing over and over, and some have criticised this (not my groups I dm). Still, just because Bob is tired of seeing Sarah play a ranger again I don't think he should have any power over what Sarah plays. Sarah may really enjoy playing rangers again and again, and wants to use something that works and they enjoy.

No doubt. Usually when we're doing something like this I insist on categories, not specifics. So, you can tell someone to play a martial, divine, nature-focused, or scoundrel (as examples, including but not limited to). In your example, Sarah could literally interpret any of those as a ranger, but that ranger might have a different focus from her typical one.

I prefer if the option presented is more of a theme, than a mechanical choice.


Article on Coma the Doof Warrior

They talk about how they built the rig the guitarist rode on. None of it was CGI and it was fully functional during filming.


Epic Meepo wrote:

As a new publisher with products for sale in the Paizo store, I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic.

I ended my my first two PDFs with the following statement about file-sharing:

"Thank you for reading. If you have purchased this copy of [this PDF], your support of the author's work is much appreciated. If you have instead borrowed this copy from a peer, please consider purchasing products written by the author at some later date, or recommending the author's work to other interested readers."

Only time will tell if it was a good idea to include that statement in PDFs I'm trying to sell.

Well, if it's any consolation, Game of Thrones is the most pirated show from HBO, but it also has the highest DVD sales of any of their shows.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I don't allow players to tell other players what they should play. It is a bridge too far (release the firedrake upon them).

We actually do this some times, explicitly. Player A gets to tell Player B what to play (generally, Player B then gets to interpret and make it on their own). Then Player B gets to tell Player C what to play. So on and so forth, until it loops back to Player A.

It's created some interesting parties some times. The player gets veto authority and the picker is encouraged to push the player to something they haven't played, or at least not recently, definitely not whatever their last character role was.


Vod Canockers wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
If the NFL had any sense, they would just have declared the Patriots losers of the game against the Colts, and advanced the Colts to the Superbowl. No worries about who was cheating on the team, just that the cheating occurred.

Can you prove that no one on the Colts was cheating?

PED usage is considered cheating. Odds are, someone on every team is using something at some point. I'm not saying that cheating should be tolerated, but rather that punishments should be targeted at offending individuals.

Also, what scale does the cheating have to be for the team to get the loss? Are you suggesting ANY level of cheating? For example, should the league get rid of in game penalties and just go to automatic forfeiture?

Nope can't prove a negative.

You must have missed the part that a Colt player got popped on PED's on Feb 11th of this year. So, we know they can't prove it, because there's proof that it happened.

I can post some numbers for some defensive players if you like, you see it a lot with them. Particularly linebackers who get lots of sacks. If they test positive for PED's and get suspended, often times the next year their numbers drop off dramatically. Two high profile ones that come to mind are Shawn Merriman and Von Miller. Both saw roughly a 30% drop in their sacks and their forced fumbles basically disappeared. Both players were significant pieces of their team's defense, drastically influencing games.

The Seahawks led the league in PED suspensions the past few years. They often drop those players later on, who go to other teams and perform significantly worse.

While not football, we know PED's can greatly improve performance capability, Lance Armstrong being the poster boy.

Dollars to doughnuts, with increased scrutiny on the air pressure in the Brady's footballs, his completion % stays within 3 points this season.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Never saw the original movies, might have to check this out.

From another thread, you should also check this out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was a great action movie.

A great action movie needs a serviceable plot and dialogue that doesn't make you cringe (often). I cringed at a couple lines, but overall the plot was fine and the dialogue didn't make it worse.

My biggest criticism of the movie is the score. Crazy guitar guy was awesome. The drums were simple, unimaginative, but they worked. It was the movie score that sounded like it was ripped from a bad daytime soap and cranked up to 11 that annoyed me (okay, it wasn't THAT bad, but it was bad). They tried way too hard to punch through the emotion with a few soaring notes.


Jaelithe wrote:

My ex-wife and I went to Event Horizon having evidently seen the one trailer that implied it was fairly straight sci-fi. We both despise horror, and had no idea what was coming.

We practically staggered out of the theater, exchanged haunted looks and said, as one, "That was really good. I hated it."

I'll concur. It's rare that I like horror movies as well.

Basically Event Horizon, The Shining and Evil Dead are the horror movies I like (in no particular order).

More to fantasy movies:

Princess Mononoke

It's also my favorite of the Miyazaki films to date. The themes and grittiness of the movie compared to his other ones is what keeps me hooked. While it isn't super gritty, it feels like the stakes are real for the characters. I love the presentation of the story too, with the neutral arbiter, who isn't fully neutral, being our guide throughout.


I'll just put this here.


Lyre of Building, plus spend a level raising your Perform (String Instruments) and you can get it done pretty fast. If you have a friendly bard, you'll have it done in no time.

Golems can clear rubble, plus they make good guards after the work is finished.

Planar Binding for elementals, or a Shaitan. Shaitan even have Knowledge (Engineering) so they'd be skilled labor, plus a ton of spells that deal with rocks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:


I still have no idea how the heck a multiple DM game operates when you're running a campaign with complexity that goes beyond a site based adventure. I don't mean this as a snide take down, I genuinely don't see how it operates when you have like..NPCs independantly plotting in the background, secrets to be discovered, or the like.

Maybe if you're running APs, but then you still have a player who (should have) read the books cover to cover.

I'm in a multiple-DM game right now (well technically hiatus, but coming back in a few months). Entirely homebrew, the other DM has been running the setting for a little over 10 years now. I was a player for a long time, but I had an idea for a campaign in this world, so we're running it together. Neither of us has a PC in the game though, we have 8 players in the group (though often only 5 show up) and that's plenty.

I have a buried thread somewhere about it if you're interested and can update with more details. We use a lot of google docs. I have a separate doc for each session, plus a doc for each important location (any large, plot important site that will be used for more than one session). Plus the players do a write up of each session and post it online (We use plot cards, you earn one for writing up the previous session).


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
What about multiple DMs running for the same party in a shared world? Is it acceptable to have a "GMPC" who's essentially played for the most part as an allied NPC while you're running a game, and a PC when it's someone else's turn? I've participated in many ongoing campaigns wherein this proved extremely effective.
Let me hasten to add that I LOVE this model of gaming. Being able to "swap off" with another DM and get a chance to play occasionally -- while doing the same for them -- is the best of both worlds, to me. (Not least of which because you, as temporarily-ex-DM, have no idea what things the new DM is going to add to the shared setting).

I like this method as well.

Can't remember who was telling me about it, but someone was in an Ars Magicka game where each player was also a GM, but they were responsible for different aspects of the game world. Basically each GM had their story line, and they swapped who was GM for the session based on what was going on and what they were dealing with.

Ars Magicka is also more troupe style inherently, with a lot of switching in and out of different characters.


I may try my hand at spaghetti carbonera again this weekend.


Jason S wrote:
Snorb wrote:

This is one of my favorite descriptions of alignment.

No no no. That very old description of alignment is part of the problem. It's the reason why so many people hate alignment and other hate players when they play certain alignments. I'd rather not play with alignment if that's how Pathfinder defined them. Luckily the game has improved since then.

First time I've read that passage. I've dislike alignment for a much longer period.

I hate it because it's attempting to make concrete something that is difficult to even communicate from one person to another, concepts of morality and ethics, objectivity and subjectivity in a giant morass of words that will never, ever possibly even come close to providing an inkling of an estimation of what could be described as an approximate representation of someone else's thoughts on the matter.

I think we could come up with a way of defining and conveying those definitions for this complex concept, but the time and effort necessary for it to be largely free of errors would be too great.

That's why I hate alignment.


BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
If the NFL had any sense, they would just have declared the Patriots losers of the game against the Colts, and advanced the Colts to the Superbowl. No worries about who was cheating on the team, just that the cheating occurred.

Can you prove that no one on the Colts was cheating?

PED usage is considered cheating. Odds are, someone on every team is using something at some point. I'm not saying that cheating should be tolerated, but rather that punishments should be targeted at offending individuals.

Also, what scale does the cheating have to be for the team to get the loss? Are you suggesting ANY level of cheating? For example, should the league get rid of in game penalties and just go to automatic forfeiture?

So in the face of known and documented cheating, your response us to demand that the colts prove a negative?

As for scale, let's start with equipment tampering and work our way up. Gameplay infractions happen because 22 humans are involved in executing opposed, timed, choreography. Tampering with equipment to gain an edge (even a mental one) is actually cheating and the patriots should have been charged a loss for the game.

As a side note, I think that having the teams manage neutral game equipment is a dumb plan.

You don't address the PED point. That's cheating too. Are you suggesting that all teams with a known PED user have all of their wins vacated?

BTW, the Colt's can't claim to have zero PED users, seeing as Robert Mathis incurred a 4 game suspension for his violation of the PED rules in 2014. LaRon Landry was suspended early in the year for PED violations. He was released in February 11, 2015 (after the Super Bowl) and has been suspended AGAIN in 2015 for another 10 games (meaning he was benefiting from PED's during the Colts-Pats game).

PED's are cheating, the NFL rule book says so.


BigDTBone wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
If the NFL had any sense, they would just have declared the Patriots losers of the game against the Colts, and advanced the Colts to the Superbowl. No worries about who was cheating on the team, just that the cheating occurred.
That would really have been the best way to prevent this kind of behavior in the future. If there were a real consequence to the team and fans for cheating, people wouldn't do it. As it stands, the Patriots have a history of benefitting from cheating with basically no consequence.

I suspect you're referencing Spygate. People really blow this out of proportion. To make it absolutely clear, if the Patriots had done the filming from a different location, it would have been completely legal.

I'm not sure if the rule has changed, but in 2006-2007, there were no rules against taping coaches during the game. The only rules were about locations of where cameras could be. The Patriots didn't violate the rule by filming coaches. They violated the rules because the camera was on the field.

It should also be noted that the Jets were caught doing the exact same thing the year prior during a playoff game.

There's a reason that coaches cover their mouths while calling plays. They can be, and are, filmed the whole time. Every coach does it (both covering their mouths AND filming their opponents).

In fact, teams are required by rule to share film. It's actually required that they film the game first though, otherwise it can't be shared.

Something else to consider, especially regarding the recording of the Rams practice allegations (which has been shown to be false), teams preparing for the Super Bowl are given a practice space that is completely riddled with recording devices. As an example, ESPN leaked part of a Bills practice prior to a Super Bowl against the Cowboys, because they kept their cameras rolling and broadcast the footage.

For reference, George Halas (owner/coach of the Chicago Bears) is known to have bugged locker rooms, phones and coaching booths. Yet I don't hear any one calling for all Bears titles during his tenure to be vacated.


Vod Canockers wrote:
If the NFL had any sense, they would just have declared the Patriots losers of the game against the Colts, and advanced the Colts to the Superbowl. No worries about who was cheating on the team, just that the cheating occurred.

Can you prove that no one on the Colts was cheating?

PED usage is considered cheating. Odds are, someone on every team is using something at some point. I'm not saying that cheating should be tolerated, but rather that punishments should be targeted at offending individuals.

Also, what scale does the cheating have to be for the team to get the loss? Are you suggesting ANY level of cheating? For example, should the league get rid of in game penalties and just go to automatic forfeiture?


Greg Williams admitted his role in bountygate. The NFL actually had quite a few details, dates, amounts, players, targets, etc. They also recovered e-mails from Michael Ornstein, sent to Sean Payton, that included his donation to the bounty pool.

Players from the Washington, DC team also came forward and described how Williams ran a similar program in 2004-2007 on that team. Matt Bowen, former player and now a journalist, corroborated the story and gave details.

Players from the Buffalo Bills also gave details of a similar program from Williams tenure there from 2001-2003.

Several people contradicted those stories, but the details are consistent enough that they seem pretty credible to me. Combined with e-mails and ledgers that the NFL discovered, the case in favor of it being made up seems pretty weak and relies entirely on witness accounts (while the case for the bounty's existence has both witnesses AND evidence).

I think the case against Brady isn't air-tight. It's pretty good though, those texts and phone call logs support the case well, though not perfectly. It probably happened and Brady probably knew about it. 4 games is harsh, but not ludicrous, I still think 2 would have been more appropriate.

I mean, Ray Rice only got a 2 game suspension.


7. When your GM is Lindsay Lohan.


I'm sure some people use GMPC's to great effect.

As a player and GM, I don't like them. Honestly, if I could find away to run games as a GM with zero stat blocks in front me, I'd rather do that (which I found a game on kickstarter recently that fulfills this greatly, literally no NPC stats).

If absolutely necessary, for a small game possibly, I might give the players a secondary character. I'd roleplay it when it came up, but they would run it in combat and be responsible for dividing loot between it and them. I'm much more likely to pick a game system that doesn't require this secondary character though (like 13th Age).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Friends don't let friends GM and PC.


Wrath wrote:

How about digital books using smart glass technology.

Looks like a real book. Has the same format as a real book with turning pages and such, but each page holds digital content. You can store as many books in it as a standard e reader, but get the real book reading experience. You can read a novel using it one night, then swith to university readings the next. The pages themselves change what content they hold.

Now I'm dreaming of course. But it is a nice dream.

Pranav Mistry in a talk from 2009.

It hasn't really been developed, mostly because I think the wearable device seems awkward, but this guy made some pretty cool things... over 6 years ago.

He was impatient to wait for the iPad, so he made his own tablet out of a piece of paper.


In my games, I let PC's run away any time they want. I've told them though, that when they do, something important and bad will happen, representing a campaign level setback (the severity of which is determined by how important/difficult the encounter was). To successfully run away, the players must be unanimous in their decision. Seeing as there are usually 6+ players present, that's often harder than it sounds.

Reading this thread, I may introduce an inverse rule of this. Bad guys can run away automatically (maybe 1 round of actions/attacks from the players to try to stop it), but if I do that, the PC's score some kind of campaign level advantage. Like they know enough about the villains next move to preempt it entirely if they choose.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

One of the few books I've read that included trans people was The Left Hand of Darkness.

I recommend it highly, purely because it's a good book. It also won both the Hugo and Nebula awards for the year it was published. It's also the #3 SF book of all time according to Locus magazine.

It's an incredible book, but it's not quite trans people, as I understand it. IIRC, a race that switches genders rather than individuals whose gender doesn't match their assigned gender.

Still playing with similar issues, but not directly trans.

Read it anyway.

Well, it is SF.

It does deal with the concept of transitioning, defining people by gender roles and how some people change gender roles at different periods of their life. It's not a 1 for 1 perfect realization of a transgender person's life, but rather taking some of the concepts present in that person's life and applying them to a SF story and building an entire world and culture around those concepts.

Analogies and metaphors are not perfect representations. Otherwise we would call them perfect representations, not analogies and metaphors.

The book also appears on both lists that you linked.


Rynjin wrote:


I just have very little faith in the inherent goodness of mankind.

They why are you willing to trust the cops with increased power and authority to f$*! with you?

1 to 50 of 5,340 << 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.