|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Wind is a storage solution that never pays for the start up cost before the structures that provide are past their lifecycle.
Wind energy costs almost exactly the same as coal. Are you claiming that coal is economically unviable as energy source? Because if wind isn't profitable, neither is coal.
edit: wait, I'm sorry I forgot you just make stuff up and claim it's true.
Lord Snow wrote:
The cost issue doesn't solve the water usage for solar, which I think is going to be one of the biggest deterrents. The best regions for using solar also tend to be dry regions where water is rapidly becoming scarcer.
Also the thin, cheap solar panels require tellurium, which is a rare earth metal, being roughly 3 times rarer than gold on the planet. Sustainable solutions should be less reliant on rare materials.
Even if Swanson's law does hold true, solar won't be cheaper than coal for another 15 years.
Be a fan of the player's characters.
Think of it like a TV drama that you watch. You enjoy it when your favorite character experiences success. When that same character experiences defeat, you feel sad for them, but it also means when they overcome that obstacle, it feels that much better.
Your job is to put obstacles in their path. Not so that they can't succeed, but rather just enough obstacles so that success feels rewarding and that it was earned.
Keep the action moving.
Imagine a locked door and the plot only moves forward if the PC's get beyond the door. Instead of requiring success to get through the door, the roll becomes about getting through the door without complication. If they fail, maybe the guards come along and spot them. Or maybe whatever they were seeking is already gone. Or the thieves tools break and the player takes a -2 to all rolls until he can get back to town and fix/replace them. Failing a roll doesn't HAVE to stop the action.
People also don't realize that wind has reached a cost efficiency nearly on par with coal (both of which are more cost efficient than natural gas).
In order of cost efficiency it goes:
Hydro 50% better than coal
For recirculating plants (roughly 80% of power plants are recirculating, regardless of fuel source) they use water as follows:
Solar: 900 g/MWh
This is water drawn from a source and not returned. Many plants draw 10's of thousands more than that per MWh produced, but they return most of it to the system. In most regions power production accounts for roughly 3% of water usage.
Also, wind is only 4% less cost efficient than coal, while being roughly 15-20% more cost efficient than natural gas. It's actually become a very viable means of energy production.
When prepping a sandbox campaign I come up with the basic scenario of what's happening, who the factions are and what they want. Then I have the players make decisions of who they are and what they want. I have them figure out what is important to their characters and what they want to do. Then I know what exactly deserves my additional attention.
Have several books full of stat blocks, not just monsters, but humanoid npcs types as well. Things like bandits, knights, wandering wizards, etc.
When your creative juices are low, ask your players questions. Simple questions like:
Why do you trust (blank)?
Asking a leading question before the players meet an NPC helps throw in twists, adds some involvement from the players and reduces the creative load you have to bear.
Lastly, if the game starts to feel a little boring, or the players are going into an area you don't feel comfortable improvising, have ninjas attack. They don't have to be literal ninjas, but whatever bad guys are appropriate (bandits, goblins, invisible stalkers, sprites, etc). This works particularly well when getting semi-close to the end of the session. You can also follow up with some mysterious information, like a note carried by the bad guys that says the PC's are getting too close and to take them out.
Are you using this as some sort of proof that acid rain isn't real?
There's also acid rain, which was a huge problem and probably would have destroyed the environment as we know it had we not stopped that particular brand of polluting.
And the Dust Bowl.
People that claim humans can't affect the climate are ignoring history, which shows us that humans have impacted the climate multiple times in the past.
Solar and wind is cute, not a cure.
Solar is no where close, agreed. Wind is closer than you think.
If you remove taxes, subsidies, financing, etc... Wind energy is slightly more expensive than coal. Slightly. We're talking a 4% difference in costs over the life time of each type of generator per kilowatt produced. But we have to keep in mind that wind energy has fallen in cost drastically in the past 25 years, to roughly 1/4 of what it was in 1990.
Wind energy is cheap enough that some US utility companies are actually choosing it purely based on economics in their future expansion projects.
Right now, cost is not the prohibitive factor on wind, it's production on demand for peak usage hours. Yes the current capacity is still low, but that isn't a reason for it not to expand.
Also, solving the the major problem with wind, peak usage hours, could be done within a couple years. There's a European company right now that is in the process of bringing organic flow batteries to market by 2017.
Sissyl, here's my take.
When you talk about anti-democratic groups grasping for too much power. I'm with you, I don't like that either.
Where you lose me is when you try to use this as proof that AGW isn't happening. There's a disconnect there.
Do you think that increasing our reliance on clean energy would be a BAD thing? Do you think we NEED to pollute the world to continue existing? If you want to rail against HOW people like the IPCC and Greenpeace act and how they should not be the ones making decisions, I'm all in with you. But when you take it an extra step and make it sound like NOTHING should be done because these people exist, that's when you lose me.
That's the rub of how your posts come across. It sounds like because these people are idiots, we should do nothing.
I agree that the IPCC act like idiots, they put their foot in their collective mouths and they seem to purposely mismanage information in an attempt to get their point across. That isn't proof that AGW isn't real though. It's just proof that they're idiots and asses. Which I would agree with the latter.
Does anyone dispute that pollution is bad for people?
As a specific example, does anyone dispute that pollution has had a negative impact on health of residents of the most polluted major cities around the world?
Does anyone have an argument for why we should increase pollution levels? (not just that more pollution is okay, but a reason we should actively seek to increase it)
My favorite is that "the media" is shoving this down our throats.
I forget, in the US, which news outlet is the largest now?
BigNorseWolf: the biggest issue with alternative energy sources like Wind farms is storing the energy during their peak performance which can occur *when* the powergrid do not have great demand for it, so some of that energy collected is lost. I read a brief magazine article about a proposal to store the peak energy from Wind farms in compressed air in deep underground tanks so that the energy can then be drawn on when the powergrid need it (said article was on seeking out energy storage methods that have a decent efficient ratio of storing and then releasing the energy.)
Another company is working on flow organic flow batteries. They've recently formed the actual company and are working to release a commercially available battery in 2017 capable of 5-20 kWh of energy. The average home in the US uses about 30 kWh/day, so this could be enough to cover some evening and night time usage.
Basically imagine the propane tanks used for rural homes. Reduce the size to about 1/2 or even 1/4 and it being safe enough to install in the basement. All of the involved materials being readily available and fairly cheap. The expensive part is development and but even manufacturing isn't too bad. But it means a family could charge their battery during the day, often when power demands are minimal and many renewable energy sources are available (wind and solar) and store that energy for use in the evening and night.
Science does not thrive on uniformity. Science thrives in an environment where differing standpoints clash and break against one another. Consensus is not and has never been a part of the scientific method.
If 99.99999999% of mathematicians agreed that 2+2=4, would you argue that because they aren't allowing for disagreement, they clearly aren't engaging in "good math"?
No one is saying you aren't allowed to disagree. Or that a scientist who disagrees is automatically wrong.
Rather the point is that there isn't a "scientific debate" on this topic. The debate is in the political sphere. The science is in and to the best of our understanding, it is well decided. I agree with you, people should be allowed to poke holes in current climate research all they want. The problem is that the holes are either very minor, or they're entirely dependent on the humans involved.
Basically, you'll never trust a scientist backed by the IPCC, correct? Does that sound like a very scientific thing for you to do? Wouldn't the correct response be to actually look at their research and see if it's valid? But you AUTOMATICALLY discount their science because of who paid for their research.
You're doing the EXACT thing you accuse of others.
You should check out The Mountain Witch. It's a one-shot RPG about a group of ronin hired to climb up a mountain and kill a witch. It includes trust mechanics (which includes breaking that trust). I have not played it yet personally, but I've heard great things.
I get it. You think that the wording of the survey was done to be scientifically clear, but intentionally misleading to the public. Let me clarify something for you.
A majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
97% agree that the surface of the Earth is warming
Feel free to dispute that. I have no interest in trying to wage some sort of grammatical proof with you. I couldn't care less how your textbook words a definition.
You got your definition wrong.
Climatology is the study of climate. Climate is defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.
Climatology is not "the study of how humans change climate".
Also, the existence of climatology goes back several millenium. It's primary focus being the tracking of large scale weather patterns (weather conditions averaged over a period of time) to aid in farming. As a career focus, this was typically the job. As a scientific study, climatology was also something addressed by scientists from many fields, but typically not as a career or life's work.
It is true that it wasn't until evidence of large scale climate change that the science of climatology was really pushed into it's own discipline that became the major focus of some people's careers. For some reason you see this as evidence that climate change is fake?
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
I've been reading reports for the last 2 hours of how it's getting darker in Minnesota. Based on this trend, I believe the Sun will never rise again.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
You make the claim that scientists are in it for the money, or saying what they say because they're paid to. Can you prove that scientists make more money by backing the "party line" as you call it, than they would in the private sector backing whatever the company wanted them to back?
Here's a basic fact for you, the total money spent by the US government on climate change research totaled $2,400 million across all departments in 2014. Meanwhile, the major oil companies have a daily profit of $375 million. Not gross revenue, profit. Oil companies make more money in 8 days than the US government spends on climate research in an entire year. That number comes to a little over $1.3 trillion over the course of the year.
I'm no mathematician, but I suspect that $1,300 billion is larger than $2.4 billion. So, why do the 97% of the money grubbing scientists go after the much smaller pie? Please explain it to me.
Think of it like this: You want to win the lottery, which lottery do you buy a ticket for...
1) $100 prize, with 97 tickets sold
One ticket in each drawing is guaranteed to win. If scientists were truly motivated ONLY by money, you'd think they'd go after the bigger pile of money that has less competition. In fact, if we were doing the analysis based purely on where scientists COULD make the most money, that evidence would actually point to them focusing on doing their work and working for the common good and not their own self interests.
The argument that 97% of climatologists agree only because they were paid to agree is b%!~%#!#. It only makes sense if you don't actually look at who really has the money and where the most money could be made.
Oh, it also completely ignores the fact that Republicans have held large swathes of power for the past 15 years (control of the white house for half that time and control of the house/senate for more than half, plus control of a majority of state legislatures). Why aren't the scientists toeing THEIR party line? Republicans control the purse strings for a lot of scientists. Why doesn't the % more accurate reflect that?
Oh that's right, because this argument is b~~*%%#~.
Richard Muller was employed by the Koch brothers to find evidence to deny climate change. He concluded it was real.
Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
He said that while receiving his primary funding from people who are climate change deniers. By your logic, since he's running counter to what he was paid to say, we can trust him.
Alex Martin wrote:
They don't stay true to the distances. Las Vegas strip and Goodsprings are about 27 miles apart in the real world (as the crow flies), but the New Vegas map is about 4 miles wide (16 miles square).
Almost the entirety of population growth in the next 40 years will be from increasing life spans and not reproduction.
The Stormwind Fallacy is that claims that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive are logically flawed.
So, if you say that roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, you agree with the premise of the Stormwind Fallacy.
That's partially the rub of the problem.
The more complex the system and more options it has, the more you get minmaxing, the more you get players finding loopholes or unexpected ability interactions.
You can still have variety of characters with simpler rules, but the burden to make them feel vastly different shifts to the player and/or GM.
If you hate, hate, hate minmaxing, Pathfinder might not be the best game for you, because the game not only allows for it, but goes to great lengths to encourage it. You can fight against this as a GM, but now you're spending extra energy to make the game into the one you want. But this isn't an either/or thing, it's a spectrum. Just because you (proverbial you, not specific) hate minmaxing doesn't mean you need to switch to Fiasco, maybe just a step or two back from Pathfinder will meet your needs.
Let me clarify. I wasn't talking about circumventing encounters. At least not in the way you are. Circumventing encounters can be a byproduct of what I'm talking about, but it was not the topic of my post.
I didn't say my point was new to pathfinder. In fact I referenced another game in my post which isn't a roleplaying game at all. I did this to try and point out that the phenomenon is broader and more universal.
I'm not talking about unexpected decisions by players in the fiction of a game.
I'm talking about a play style of games (all games, any kind of game), where players look for ways to essentially rewrite the win conditions in order to invalidate opponents strategies. While this can happen within the fiction of a game, that isn't what I'm talking about. This isn't a comment about player characters and their actions within the game. This is about players and their choices in the real world, such as what they write down on their sheet.
I'm also an experienced DM, I know full well that players go in directions you never expect. That's normal and my favorite part of DMing actually. This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a strategic approach to the rules with the goal of finding loopholes or unforeseen connections that create unexpected "I win" buttons.
It's been happening long before Pathfinder existed. It will continue long after. My point specifically about Pathfinder is that because it is such a large and complex game and its growing steadily every year (new spells, feats and archetypes), the possibilities for such things are greater than with many other games.
I get that Iron. I don't care about that. I get annoyed by the mentality that if you're not doing that you sick at the game and are forcing others to carry you.
My post wasn't about whether something was good/bad. I'm merely talking about something that exists, that isn't always obvious or very well understood.
Oh, you've been playing for 40 years. Well then, I'll shut up, because clearly you know everything better than I do. [/sarcasm]
It's a common... artifact? of game strategy. It happens all over, though more in tightly competitive games. I'll see if I can give it justice, but bear with me if I'm not clear.
Essentially there's a mindset/strategy that the best way to "win" is to not play the game, but rather change the objective on your opponent so that they can't win, meaning that you win by default. It comes down to bypassing the intent of the game and dictating new terms to your opponent.
Now, we could have a whole discussion about how RPGs are collaborative and you aren't playing against the DM and blah blah blah, but that's not the relative point.
Rather the issue is being presented with a challenge and instead of just utilizing the given tools to overcome it, for many people it's exceptionally rewarding to find a way to circumvent the entire problem from the start.
We could argue about whether this is appropriate attitude to bring to a game, but I think that is also irrelevant. This attitude does exist and will always exist to some extent, so just saying it should go away to make the game better isn't going to help.
Rather it should be recognized and accounted for. Analogy:
I'm dog-sitting, long term, for a friend. This dog is an escape artist and quickly gets bored in my yard, then runs off. He's done it about a dozen times in 3 months. I can wail and moan, gnash my teeth all I want, it doesn't matter. I can punish the dog. Doesn't matter. All I can do is account for this behavior and do my best to mitigate it's effects, like watching the dog and only letting him out for short periods of time. I don't have the money to build a new fence, even if I did, I wouldn't want to spend it on a fence I won't need in another 2 months.
With a complex game like Pathfinder, with so many books and options in all of them, players will find ways to circumvent encounters in ridiculously easy fashion. This is an inherent problem with the system, more so than many other games. The unfortunate reality is that as long as you play Pathfinder, players will be able to find "I win" buttons that can negate any amount of careful planning on the GM's part.
I will second Druid as being very fun in a KM campaign.
If you want to maximize your kingdom, someone with a high Charisma to act not just as party face, but also party leader (and potential king/queen) is highly recommended. For full casters, this puts Sorcerer and Oracle right at the top of the list.
Oracle of Battle is probably one of the most versatile character builds possible. A spell or two and you're ready for front line duty. You get battlefield control spells (fog cloud and wall of fire are both very useful spells). You still get a few ranged blasting spells which are not great but still decent and useful. Plus, you get Perception and all social skills as class skills. It's also nice because fights are outdoors and if a baddie really wants to avoid the fighter and go straight for you, they often can.
Of course nearly any mystery could be good though.
One thing that is a hit on Oracle/Sorcerer is that a lot of times you'll have 1 or 2 encounters per day, especially while exploring. You never run out of spells, but your larger number of spell slots doesn't come into play as often as a the wider selection of spells a wizard/cleric would have. Though you can pretty much burn through your highest level slots constantly without too much fear.
In our game, I played a druid. I relied on mobility to stay out of melee, using flying creatures and earth elemental form to stay out of reach. We had a large party (usually 6-7 players, sometimes as high as 9) and I still got attacked in melee quite often.
This whole issue all but disappears if you abandon Pathfinder's built-in use of wealth as a second XP track (whether through houserules, Unchained variants, or simply playing a different system).
And opens up to the possibilities of more abstract methods of tracking wealth. I always liked Burning Wheel's method. You had a Resources stat, so to acquire something, you rolled your Resources vs the obstacle of whatever you were getting. If you failed, you got "taxed" and your Resources was lowered, depending on what you were getting (compared to your wealth level).
If I were designing my own, I'd use a tiered system of results. The better you roll, the cheaper it is, with worse rolls offering the item at increased cost or the choice to not acquire whatever you're going for. Finding treasure would usually give cash, which would be a one time bonus to a roll. Owning things like land (which produced something, like crops or livestock) would grant permanent wealth, though that can still be reduced with purchases (things like loans eating into your yearly income).
Scott Betts wrote:
I'm sorry if my post implied that I didn't understand the difference between the two control sets. I completely understand the difference and am well versed in them. My post had nothing to do with that difference, but is rather directed at the common behavior that people exhibit. They prefer a thing, so they like to tell people who like the other thing that they're doing it wrong.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
You're right. I used a word wrong.
I concede the thread.
For one, you've removed the context of my sentence.
Have I once mentioned video games in this thread?
If you want to talk about video games and their relationship to TTRPGs (or lack thereof), start a new thread.
I was really hoping we could get past ridiculous hyperbole. Guess not.
What falls within the purview of the term roleplaying is defined by the scope and focus of the game.
This thread is mostly concerned with actions related to social situations that take place in the story.
Because the term is all-encompassing. It's the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. The entire game, combat, character building, dialogue, story-building, campaigns, treasure, magic, etc... it's all aspects of the game. It is Paizo's version of what a roleplaying game is and so defining the term as something less than the entirety of the game means you're leaving something out.
Roleplaying is a much fought over word, if you like I'm sure I can find multi-page threads with people vehemently disagreeing on rpg.net, forge, story-games, gitp, and of course these forums as well.
It's also something that varies from game to game. Pathfinder treats it differently than Amber, which treats it differently than Fate, which is different from Dread, which is different from Dungeon World, which is different from Fiasco, etc.
A game I love to run, called Mythender, is very intense creatively. I feel there's a lot of roleplaying going, but there isn't much dialogue (1st or 3rd). In a 4 hour session, there's about 15-30 minutes of dialogue somewhere in the middle with how I run it and a few lines spaced out in the rest of it. It has to do with the nature of the game and the story it tells and what part of the story I focus on as GM of that game. I know it's creatively intense, because after a 4 hour session I'm often in a bit of a daze as I've expended massive amounts of mental and emotional energy.
It's also challenging enough that I don't run it for people who aren't experienced roleplayers. I've tried it with people as their first experience, or who have limited experience, and even if they're creative people, the well runs dry very quickly.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm willing to move on as well, as long you stop explaining to us that RPG's require talking and imagination.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Gonna tone it down.
Here's my point of view...
1. Either you're being a jerk and trying to a prove a point
2. You don't understand this enough to actually contribute, because you're stuck debating basic concepts that everyone already agrees on.
No one disputes that the game involves talking and imagination. We're discussing methods on how to best utilize and incorporate said talking and imagination, even if someone isn't personally skilled at talking in real life or isn't confident at sharing their imagination.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Except the fallacy is an invention on your part. I'm not sure how to make this clear to you.
I completely understand what you're trying to say. I get it.
The thing is it has nothing to do with what williamoak said. So I don't get the point of saying it. Maybe you don't understand his point? That would make sense. If you aren't understanding what he's saying, it would be perfectly logical for you to base your posts on that misunderstanding.
If you want to double down on the concept that he's trying to eliminate talking and imagination, feel free. I'm going to stop responding, because it will be clear to me that you don't actually want to discuss this with us, but rather have a discussion with the people you've invented and for us to watch you do it.
I think that can be a reasonable discussion. I just also think that the starting point for that discussion is not "you want to eliminate talking and imagination".
I think you and I, and several others, have come to a good understanding. There are a couple hold outs though who persist in their attempts to make this a right vs. wrong thread. They're disruptive to the conversation, but not really disruptive enough to warrant flagging (or have their posts deleted).
I just wish we (proverbial) could get past that for this thread (and probably a few others).
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
There's a reason it doesn't add up. You invented it.
You'll note that instead of inventing this point, that he wants to remove talking and imagination, I asked him. He doesn't.
This conversation would go a lot smoother and be more fruitful if people stopped assigning this anti-RP stance to others. Just because someone wants to experience their RP in a different way than you, does not mean they want to remove RP.
Just curious, and while my question is directed at you, my intention or purpose for asking you is to actually direct the information that results at other people.
Do you think that talking and imagination should be removed from the game?