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

4,842 posts (4,844 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,842 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Planning to be arrested is a common protest activity. A lot of people don't do it because they can't afford to be arrested. Assuming it's organized and planned and not because the arrestee was being violent or something, it's generally considered positive by the protesters. If the people protesting in Ferguson don't think he's an ass for doing so, why do you have to?

Him being there and getting arrested helps them get those headlines you want them to have.

The headline "dude no one outside of protest circles has heard of get arrested" doesn't help them, especially when the article talks about how he went there to get arrested. It will just as likely drive people away from their cause as help it.

For a similar reason, if I were among the protesters I would ask Al Sharpton to shut up and go away, since he is a more divisive figure than anything else.

Just because you don't pay attention to/don't like black people, doesn't mean they aren't important.


Caineach wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You basically just defined protesting. You are now saying that ALL protests are just a%!!*+&s, regardless of what they're protesting. Protesting is showing up and causing a scene to call attention to an issue.

Do you think that police brutality, corruption and abuse of power is something we should accept quietly? Or do you think people should stand up to them and call attention to their wrong doings?

The other aspect of what he did is help lend his voice to what other people were already doing. He didn't start that protest or was the sole organizer. He showed up to lend his voice and credentials, to show support for the locals and help magnify their cause.

Some random guy gets arrested in a protest in Ferguson, it just gets lumped in with the numbers. Cornel West, a former Harvard professor gets arrested, you get additional art and column space nationally, helping maintain a higher profile for the situation.

Really what I get from you is that the people of Ferguson should shut up and accept their lot in life. That people outside of Ferguson should stop thinking about the topic and let it go away. That's what I get from you when you say "this isn't newsworthy". You might not intend that, but that's how it comes across.

The vast majority of protesters did not go there with the intent of being arrested. Thousands of people showed up. A couple dozen got arrested. That one of those guys is remotely famous is not special news, any more than the dozens of other people getting arrested is news. That he went specifically to get arrested is what makes him a jerk.

I'm all for them protesting. I love the fact that they are going to public venues like baseball games to disrupt normal life. That should be front and center headlines. One guy in the protest, even if famous, is filler.

You're right, most people didn't go there to get arrested. They can't afford the court fines, time off work, having the black mark on their record, etc. Cornel West doesn't have to worry about not getting jobs because of his arrest record, he has a body of work that is known and people who know that will know why he got arrested.

Being arrested serves to highlight what is wrong. It proves a willingness to endure hardship that lends credence to what is being said. He isn't some Johnny-come-lately, he has a career talking about these issues, studying these issues and standing behind the things he says.

Seriously, if you think this isn't worth paying attention to, then just walk away. No need to chime in and talk down about people who are struggling to bring attention to the problems they have to endure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The basic issue that a lot of people seem to have problems tackling is that the mechanics you choose for your game fundamentally informs how the players (everyone involved, not just players, but players and GM for TTRPG's) interact with the game.

One of the primary issues with video games (I'll get to TTRPG's next) is that the mechanics of the actions used for acting within the game world often have nothing to do with the plot of the game. In the Final Fantasy series your choices rarely have any impact on the story. Indeed your choices are usually purely cosmetic and your interaction is purely a pass/fail on whether the story continues or not. You end up with two game modes:

1) Full story and the player becomes a passive observer, other then occasionally pressing (A)
2) The player is the active participant and the story is on pause until the next objective is met

There have been some advancements, but primarily due to the limits of technology players are only ever meeting pre-set objectives in video games. The story is being told to them. In some deeper games, multiple stories are created with branching moments where a player chooses between them, but often it's fairly obvious and it still isn't really player control.

Transitioning to TTRPG's, Pathfinder doesn't have any rules that directly relate to the plot. There are rules for killing monsters. There are rules for climbing walls. There are rules for talking to NPC's, but only in a pass/fail method, not in a plot directing concept. The rules of Pathfinder push you to consider how you will defeat monsters. The rules themselves do not ask you to consider WHY you are defeating monsters though.

The WHY in PF is left up to the GM and players to determine for themselves, with no mechanical considerations inherent to the game. This is why it feels like there is a disconnect, because there is very literally nothing connecting the two aspects of the game.

There are other games that exist that directly put into mechanics the WHY. Burning Wheel for example requires that each player put several plot advancing goals on their character sheet. When the player pushes those goals they receive rewards that can improve their characters or help them achieve those goals.

Another aspect of Pathfinder is that it doesn't have anything that determines consequences. This is entirely up to the GM and players. You killed a monster, but what does that mean in the game world? Nothing, unless you agree that it does.

Fiasco takes a different approach. At the end of each scene someone is responsible for determining whether a scene ends with a positive or negative outcome. These positive and negative outcomes get distributed as dice which oppose each other. Each player rolls their collected dice at the end and comes up with a result tally. That tally (measured mostly as a distance from zero) determines that nature of your characters story ending. The game tells you if something good or bad happens. As a player, you then get to describe what is good or bad in the eyes of your character.

Pathfinder is a system that is primarily concerned with combat. Sure there is technically only one chapter assigned to combat, but a lot of text in the other chapters is either concerned with sub-rules about combat, or a method of determining characteristics that will then be used primarily in combat. If you want Pathfinder to be a more plot driven game, you need to add rules that actually interact with how the plot is driven.


You basically just defined protesting. You are now saying that ALL protests are just a~!*!!%s, regardless of what they're protesting. Protesting is showing up and causing a scene to call attention to an issue.

Do you think that police brutality, corruption and abuse of power is something we should accept quietly? Or do you think people should stand up to them and call attention to their wrong doings?

The other aspect of what he did is help lend his voice to what other people were already doing. He didn't start that protest or was the sole organizer. He showed up to lend his voice and credentials, to show support for the locals and help magnify their cause.

Some random guy gets arrested in a protest in Ferguson, it just gets lumped in with the numbers. Cornel West, a former Harvard professor gets arrested, you get additional art and column space nationally, helping maintain a higher profile for the situation.

Really what I get from you is that the people of Ferguson should shut up and accept their lot in life. That people outside of Ferguson should stop thinking about the topic and let it go away. That's what I get from you when you say "this isn't newsworthy". You might not intend that, but that's how it comes across.


Caineach wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

The reports you saw are at variance with the ones I saw. Any links?

Also, do you think Martin Luther King, Jr. was an asshat?

And Rosa Parks. And Emma Goldman. And like a bazillion other people.

Relevant change has never been gotten without people consciously breaking the law. When it's even nonviolent crimes it's just idiotic to talk about them as "asshats" - unless it's their cause, like "stop police from shooting unarmed kids", you are against.

Not having heard of Emma Goldman before, but looking at her wikipedia page now, I wouldn't say the label is inappropriate for someone who supported assassination.

In Rosa Parks's initial confrontation she did not travel with the intent to get arrested in a distant protest.

Lots of people are asshats.

Yes, she did.

Some facts about her arrest:

1) She was the secretary of the Montgomery NAACP
2) She attended the Highlander Folk School, a training center for activists
3) Parks' own words

Rosa Parks wrote:
People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.

4) Other similar refusal's to move had been committed, with the intention to press law suits to force change through the courts.

5) Prior to her incident it was believed that the specifics of her attempt would be the most likely to succeed in a court case (it wasn't).

The point of civil disobedience, when protesting what a person thinks is an unjust law, is to force legal action by the state to highlight that the law is unjust.

Cornel West wanted to go into the police headquarters and arrange a meeting with the Ferguson police chief. He wasn't charged with refusal to disperse. He was charged with assaulting a police officer. Why? Because he wanted to walk past the police line to go talk to the police chief.

[sarcasm] You're right, it's Cornel West who is the asshat, not the police.[/sarcasm]


I stand corrected. My first Campbeltown. I have zero background in Scottish geography.

I'm still going to compare it to a mild islay. So take that as you will.


Caineach wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Cornel West Arrested in Ferguson
I really don't see how a guy going out to get arrested at a protest getting arrested is news.
I'm kind of curious exactly what about this situation you think isn't news worthy.
You have hundreds or thousands of protesters, most of whom are peaceful and not violating the law. One (or I believe a total of 17 IIRC) guy desides to go out and intentionally violate the law so he gets arrested. The story there isn't the handfull of asshats who don't matter in the grand scheme of things getting themselves arrested, it is in the hundreds of peacefully protesting people. The fact that one of these people is well known for getting arrested doesn't matter.

You make a lot of claims and assumptions in this post. By your post, it doesn't even seem like you know WHY he was arrested.

It also seems like you completely miss what the concept of civil disobedience is.


The day after I finished my last BWCA trip a friend called me and asked when my next one was. I hadn't planned one, but I never miss an opportunity to try and get someone hooked on wilderness camping. Since we were leaving town the day before my birthday, I decided to buy a bottle of something nice to fill the flask. Since I knew it would be cold, I wanted something strong.

Springbank - 12 year cask strength

The bottle I got was 53.1% alcohol, which makes for a fairly strong whiskey. When backwoods camping, strong flavors are great, though I find my palette isn't the sharpest at that time. The high alcohol felt nice during those 40 degree nights.

Getting it home to drink out of a glass (more smells) I can actually pick it apart a little more, albeit unsuccessfully. It smells like a damp soft-wood. Not pine necessarily, but it just smells "smooshier" than other woody malts I've had. Like everything (the smoke, salt and wood flavors) are all covered in a layer of dampness that sort of mutes and muddles them.

Without water the alcohol is too sharp for me to say anything other than I like the taste.

With water it gets a deep and robust flavor that keeps changing, but is still hard for me to pin down. It tastes dark is all I can say. Not coffee, chocolate or some other dark flavor, just dark. You get an earthiness similar to an islay, more salt, wood and peat (very, very light on the smoke) but it's all on the dark and muddled side, with a sharp and rising note to it.

It definitely feels rough and unrefined, but I kind of like that about it.

I also picked up a bottle of my current favorite whiskey to have around the house, Breckenridge Bourbon.


phantom1592 wrote:

I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.

Seriously, lets look at this statement some more.

That is hatred. It might be unintended hatred, but it is hatred none the less. Being opposed to diversity is being opposed to people who are different. That's all sorts of bad "isms".

It doesn't matter who is making a call for diversity, they're in a minority or a majority. In fact, people in the majority have a responsibility to make those calls, because it means we recognize that there are problems and they need to be corrected.

And yes, I do shut down. I don't apologize for it. I don't care what arguments people have to back up hatred. It's still hatred.

I hate reporting this stuff, because that just white-washes the issue and makes it seem to disappear, on both sides. People sit in their little bubbles and assume that they're right.

People pointing out patterns of racism/sexism/etc is not offensive. Anyone making such a claim is at worst unknowningly supporting said racism/sexism/etc.

Please counter this and tell my why black people shouldn't be allowed in comics.


Alex Martin wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Taking quotes out of context is not having a conversation. It's trying to "win points" in some invisible game that doesn't exist.

To wit: You will not convince me that minorities asking for representation is offensive.

Are you taking the position that it IS offensive?

The point is that making statements that start with "I've stopped listening to you at point A, and nothing you say is going to change my mind" - whether that topic is race, politics or any other subject immediately puts off any interest in further discussion. Make an argument stand on example and your reference points.

Lecturing someone with statements like: "Please take some time to reconsider your position on that statement. Really think about it. Don't just reply and try to prove your point, cause you will never convince me of it, so there's really no point in it. I just want you to think about it. I think you aren't considering what your words mean."
Whether it is your intent or not and whether you agree or not, it comes off as condescending and hostile to the discussion. And that makes it difficult to continue discussion the subject in a productive way.

For example, you asked where was tokenism being brought up. ("Please quote or link where someone called for more tokenism in this conversation") I made the point above that whole parts of the article bring up the subject of how the writer is trying not fall into token characters. Whether you agree or not, I made a point without trying to be condescending or hostile to your statement.

No, that's your interpretation of their argument. I asked where someone has openly advocated tokenism. Not where you think tokenism exists or could exist. Who is actively pushing for tokenism?

Also, if you're going to insist on reading my statements out of context, there's nothing I can do to help you. Cause it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to decide to read it however you want.


Calybos1 wrote:

No, what's being argued is "Demographic group/cause/issue X should be more popular and it isn't. This proves that bigotry is everywhere and comics companies are evil for not producing stuff I want to see regardless of what people are willing to pay for."

Who is arguing that in this thread? Quote and/or link their post.


Here's the part that puzzles me in this argument.

Is anyone arguing in favor of fewer or no minorities in comics? (or other forms of media)

If you truly don't care what skin color, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc of the characters, why debate the issue at all? Because all I've seen from people debating against this issue is reasons why minorities shouldn't be in comics. Is that the goal?


Alex Martin wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Don't just reply and try to prove your point, cause you will never convince me of it, so there's really no point in it.

So is there any point in offering further discussion on this topic if it disagrees with your perspective?

Taking quotes out of context is not having a conversation. It's trying to "win points" in some invisible game that doesn't exist.

To wit: You will not convince me that minorities asking for representation is offensive.

Are you taking the position that it IS offensive?


phantom1592 wrote:

This. Well said, thanks :)

Wiggz wrote:


I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think the point he is making is that including someone who is a minority (be it black, gay, female or whatever) for no other reason than that they are a minority is offensive, or should be in his mind to those being presented as 'tokens' in order to make a movie/comic book/whatever appear more socially conscious or be more socially acceptable. I think he's saying that preoccupying yourself with what a person's label is is missing the point, quite literally missing the forest for the trees. I think he's saying that, while there is nothing wrong with recognizing diversity as potentially valuable, what we should be celebrating is the things that make us the same. Our humanity. Our love for our families, our fear of death, our universal capacity for selfishness and for sacrifice, our existential need to ask 'is this all that I am?'. That's where the best stories come from, the universal truths we all must face, not the labels and tribalism that we so often fixate on.

People should define themselves by what they do and what they think, not by their skin color or sexual orientation or whatever superficial grouping they've been lumped into. There seems to be a presumption that every group must include a woman, a homosexual and a black person so that they can be the voice of what their respective groups think and feel... and based on my experiences, no two people from any of those groups think or feel the same way. Presuming that they do, representing them as if that were the case - that's offensive.

To my mind, at...

Irontruth wrote:

You lost me right there.

You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.

Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.

Please take some time to reconsider your position on that statement. Really think

...

Please link for me the post where someone argued in FAVOR of tokenism.

I don't care where you THINK it exists. I want to know who is advocating that we need more hollow tokens.


Freehold DM wrote:
token characters are a hard thing to pin down sometimes. It depends on the writer almost as much as the company.

That's a separate issue.

Wiggz brought up tokenism as if that was what was being argued. I'm unaware of anyone in this thread who is actively advocating tokenism.

Also, I find the idea of ALL DIVERSITY to be reduced to tokenism to be disrespectful to minorities.


Wiggz wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.

You lost me right there.

You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.

Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.

I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think the point he is making is that including someone who is a minority (be it black, gay, female or whatever) for no other reason than that they are a minority is offensive, or should be in his mind to those being presented as 'tokens' in order to make a movie/comic book/whatever appear more socially conscious or be more socially acceptable. I think he's saying that preoccupying yourself with what a person's label is is missing the point, quite literally missing the forest for the trees. I think he's saying that, while there is nothing wrong with recognizing diversity as potentially valuable, what we should be celebrating is the things that make us the same. Our humanity. Our love for our families, our fear of death, our universal capacity for selfishness and for sacrifice, our existential need to ask 'is this all that I am?'. That's where the best stories come from, the universal truths we all must face, not the labels and tribalism that we so often fixate on.

People should define themselves by what they do and what they think, not by their skin color or sexual orientation or whatever superficial grouping they've been lumped into. There seems to be a presumption that every group must include a woman, a homosexual and a black person so that they can be the voice of what their respective groups think and feel... and based on my experiences, no two people from any of those groups think or feel the same way. Presuming that they do, representing them as if that were the case - that's offensive.

To my mind, at...

Please quote or link where someone called for more tokenism in this conversation.

Not something YOU might interpret as tokenism, but that that person called tokenism.


phantom1592 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Children, teens, young adults, etc, are still exploring that territory. They're still building that self-image and searching for ways to explain their experiences and who and what they are. Because of that, they are much more likely to latch onto stories that include people who share some sort of similarity to them. Kids love shows with protagonists in their own age range. Add in gender, race, orientation, culture, etc... it becomes a way to explore their own story, not just the one presented.

They like stuff that doesn't relate to that as well, kids love good stories just like adults. Add in the above elements though and they become the stories that they carry with them through life.

A great example for me is Ender's Game. Often adults who read the book for the first time have some appreciation for the book, to varying degrees. They read the story and appreciate it (or not) on its merits. Give the book to a 6th grader though, and the potential for that story changes. Not all of them will love it, but for those that do, it becomes part of their life, it helps them make sense of who and what they are in some small way. They don't just read the book, they live it. This isn't an adulation of OSC's writing, but rather the subject matter and nature of the protagonist.

The diversification of protagonists is only partially for adults. It's much more important for drawing in younger readers and it can mean a lot. Validate them, tell their story and they'll be hooked for life.

I've never believed that.

I'm generally the odd one out that says diversity is overrated and claiming a need for it should be considered offensive.

You lost me right there.

You're saying that people who WANT to be represented, and who point out that they aren't, is offensive.

Black person: I wish there were more black super heroes.
You: That's offensive.

Please take some time to reconsider your position on that statement. Really think about it. Don't just reply and try to prove your point, cause you will never convince me of it, so there's really no point in it. I just want you to think about it.

I don't think you're racist/sexist/gender-biased/etc. I think you aren't considering what your words mean.


Caineach wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Cornel West Arrested in Ferguson
I really don't see how a guy going out to get arrested at a protest getting arrested is news.

I'm kind of curious exactly what about this situation you think isn't news worthy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hard Rhymin the rebel is on the mic - musical interlude


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
If someone is using a story milestone method, XP isn't being tracked, nor is anything similar to it. It's an entirely different way of leveling that discards the concept of XP.

Yeah, Feng Shui is a class system. Uses different jargon but it's still a class template.

Proxy - see item 2) in my previous post. :)

Story Milestones are a way of tracking XP. The point totals are just rolled into a small set of rational numbers. Instead of tracking individual XPs, a bin of XP is tracked and they call it a Milestone. When enough bins are stacked together the PC gains a level in her class.

Proxy can work both ways.

You could call 3.PF XPs "Milestones" if you wanted to. PCs start out having zero "Milestones" and as they adventure they pass more of them, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. When the PCs have 1,000+ "Milestones" they have crossed over into 2nd Level status.

But, since XPs came first, it makes more sense to speak of Milestones as proxies for XPs.

1) You asked for an example of a game that uses classes, but not levels. I provided it.

2) You just parroted an example from my post back at me.

You have successfully convinced me that you failed to comprehend the words I wrote.


Feng Shui comes to mind. They don't call them "classes", they're archetypes. Theoretically it's a skill based game, but you don't get to pick your skills. You pick your archetype and that determines your skills. If a skill isn't a specialty of your archetype it is limited in how much it can grow. It's not called "classes", but the concept is the same mechanically. Your character type determines your abilities.

I've played a few others, but my memory fails me at the moment.

They still aren't XP-proxies. The concept of XP isn't being replaced, it's being discarded.

Quote:
a figure that can be used to represent the value of something in a calculation

If instead of calling it XP I called them quibbits, that would be a proxy. The same calculations are still being done, but instead of XP, we'd be accumulating quibbits, and when players had enough quibbits they'd level up.

That process is being discarded entirely in non-XP methods of advancement.

Example: In 13th Age, the standard advancement model goes like this...

After 4 encounters the party gains a long rest. Each long rest, the characters receive 1 partial advancement (they gain one portion of benefits from their next level). On the 4th long rest, the characters take the full level, gaining the remaining benefits not yet taken.

In this, each encounter is worth 1/16 of the XP needed to level. That could be considered a proxy. This is essentially the result of the math from most XP systems as well (though I think medium advancement averages closer to 12-13 encounters per level in PF and most 3.X systems).

If someone is using a story milestone method, XP isn't being tracked, nor is anything similar to it. It's an entirely different way of leveling that discards the concept of XP.


Quark Blast wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

So, my 2 cp here:

Aren't XPs core to the system? PF and 3.x anyway.

If you bail on using XPs formally then you'll need to proxy them anyhow.

Is it Core? If you take out the XP is does very little to alter the game mechanically. Psychologically it might alter the players perception or feelings about the game. But this can vary from player to player.

When we played Rise of the Runelords we just looked at the recommended level for each module (printed therein) and poof/presto that is when we got our level. Had we added up exp as we went along we most likely would have gained our level at around the same time.

When playing a module that has magic shops and a difficulty that requires a certain degree of optimizing having exp granted this way felt ok for our table. When playing other systems or non modules we reverted back to a more detailed book keeping style.

-MD

Once more into the breech! :D

Yes, XPs are core to Class-based systems. At least all the one's I'm familiar with. Certainly 3.PF and their d20 clones and variants.

For example:
Let's say keeping track of every single XP is too tedious for your group so you round to the nearest 1,000 XP. Doing that isn't RAW but it works just fine - particularly at higher levels it really makes no difference.

Or like you describe with the APs:
As the campaign progresses, at the right time, simply round to the nearest PC Class Level. If you do that you are using Class Level as a proxy for XPs entirely.

Either way, and not to exclude other ways as well, XPs are being proxied somehow. They have to be.

Your first assumption is incorrect.

1) classed based does not mean level based. Some games have classes/roles that determine your skill sets, but do not have levels.

2) XP is only one method of tracking advancement in a level based system. Just because it is the dominant method does not mean that other methods are simulating XP.

Ex: I can walk to your house or I can bike to your house. Walking is not a proxy for biking, it is a different mode of achieving the same goal.

A proxy of the XP system would be an alternate method of awarding XP, such as using GM fiat instead of the CR system, or just giving players flat rewards per encounter regardless of difficulty. Those would be proxies of the XP system. Other methods that don't involve XP and never deal with the number have nothing to do with XP and are independent methods all-together.

Consider it like this, experience is a unit of measurement to track progress towards leveling. Other methods are different units of measurement.

Miles are no proxies of kilometers, they're just different types of units. They measure the same thing, but are irrelevant to each other for their own purposes (excluding conversion).

The thing being tracked is levels. It is possible to measure the level of a character while being completely unaware of what their experience total is. Therefore alternate methods have nothing to do with experience, since it is an irrelevant term when not being actively used.


I've been digging around, but image searches are difficult. Most searches are text based, which means you get like 99.9% chaff. Visual searches require an example of what you're looking for, which if I had I wouldn't need to look really. Was hoping something existed and someone might see this thread and be like "Oh yeah, I remember an adventure like that".


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


Deliberately pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is not an accident.

That is a true statement.

However, its a true statement that bears absolutely no relation to the incident in question.

After 5 pages, I do not feel constrained by the incident ONLY in the OP.

Even still, it wasn't an accident that that a flash bang went off in that room. It was a deliberate act.

It wasn't an accident that the officers didn't try a side/back door.
It wasn't an accident that they didn't bother looking through a window.
It wasn't an accident that they didn't do better recon on the place.

These are all deliberate choices.

An accident would have been the officer throwing the flash bang towards one house, being surprised by raccoon, missing and throwing it into a different house. This was a deliberate action of throwing an explosive device into a house without knowing who or what was present.


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


The problem is that we are paying them to protect us. So when cops kill innocent people, I get angry. You can't fix a dead person. You can't bring them back. "Getting it right next time" isn't enough.

Stop being angry and actually look at this from a logical perspective.

Accidents happen. Period. It doesn't matter WHAT your job is. You can slip and fall, chop off a limb, or accidentally injure or kill someone depending on your job.

That last one is a terrible act, yes, and should be investigated thoroughly to determine the exact circumstances involved.

If the accidental injury/killing was due to negligence on the party responsible (or worse, was not "accidental" at all), then he should absolutely be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. His f#+& up had much bigger consequences than another person's, and he should have been that much more diligent than the average person.

But if he did everything he was supposed to, followed procedure, used a very measured response, even, as in this case, then the fault does not lie with him. There is no reason to prosecute him except for sheer outrage over the fact that the act occurred in the first place, even though it was due to events outside his control (shoddy police work from the investigative team, and the arrival/existence of the child).

Deliberately pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is not an accident.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Bramnik wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Lumping the tens of thousands of good officers and detectives into the same group as the handful of bad ones is just plain wrong. What most people forget is a police force, no matter how big or small, is a direct reflection of the community they serve because the pool of officers comes from that community. If you really want to fix the problem, it is fairly simple. Better screening during the hiring process and better pay. When communities hire people to become officers and carry weapons that can maim and kill, and they pay the, less than a McDonalds manager makes, something is wrong.

Without attempting to derail the thread - I cannot "like" the above enough.

The media *loves* to focus on atrocity, in all its forms. When it happens because of someone who's supposed to be a "good guy", it's even that much more terrible (or "juicy", if you work for said media). For every "incident" involving a police officer, soldier, judge, or anyone else who wields weapons or law "for the people", there are thousands upon thousands of honest, hard-working people who dedicate their lives to doing things the right way.

thejeff wrote:
But so many others have tainted the well sufficiently you can't trust the cops to be telling the truth. Or even not fabricating evidence.

I'm a scientist. "Tainting the well" is often layman's speak for "not scientifically/statistically significant, but the fact that it exists at all is/will be enough for Jane Q. Public to get up in arms about it".

Considering I'm running around a bit nuts today, I can't recall if this is something referring to the FBI or CIA...but the phrase "our triumphs are secret, our failures painfully public" comes to mind too.

Carry on.

The problem is that we are paying them to protect us. So when cops kill innocent people, I get angry. You can't fix a dead person. You can't bring them back. "Getting it right next time" isn't enough.

Police officers have a sacred trust. If they want a good public opinion as well, they need to do better.

I agree that there are lots of cops out there who do their job well. The problem is that at the same time, they give cover to their comrades who don't do their job well, or even do their job purposely bad.

Things like this DO happen. You can argue about it being a statistical anomaly, but it doesn't matter how statistically likely it is, it is HAPPENING.

Even though it's a minority of cops, it's exceptionally difficult to find law enforcement groups who are lobbying for changes to policy that would make it easier to get rid of this behavior.

Oh, and as for statistics:
298 police departments...
210 task forces...

Have used the forfeiture laws to fund 20% or more of their operating budgets since 2008, even though it is illegal to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

. Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter how good of a cop you are. When another cop ruins someone's life, it doesn't matter that you were a saintly cop, that person's life is still ruined. There are police departments that are committing highway robbery, literally. They steal money from poor families traveling through the area. Those families don't care that you were a good cop during your career, they are still being harassed by cops.

"Not all cops" is a pointless statement. It does nothing to alleviate the problem that some cops ARE abusing their power. In this situation, I am not the problem. The cops abusing their power are. You want to be mad? Be mad at them. Go Serpico on their ass.

I guess you think profiling is ok then? What you advised above is very similar to same reasons federal law enforcement profiled people.

Like I said, replace almost any other group where you've put the word cop and you would be rallying against the side of those profiling that group.

No, my statements don't apply to other groups.

1) All police officers are paid with money funded by the community.
2) All police officers swear an oath

Quote:

I........................DO SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE ­ OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER - I WILL - TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE - DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF - FAITHFULLY - ACCORDING TO LAW.

SO HELP ME GOD.

That's a sample oath. I'm sure it varies from locality to locality.

Cops have a sworn duty to protect the peace. Even if it's other cops who are disrupting it. But we don't see cops being outraged at the bad behavior of cops, or working tirelessly to put other cops behind bars. We get cops who try to convince us that the problem isn't real, or it's smaller than it seems. We get cops who try to convince us of "not all cops".

"Not all cops" will never convince me. Putting other cops behind bars will. You want me to trust you? Put a bad cop where he belongs.


Awesome, I will check them out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

Here's the thing about "not all cops": I don't care.

There are too many bad cops. Maybe you didn't see them where you worked, maybe there weren't any. I still don't care.

As long as there are bad cops, cops get to deal with a reputation that includes their bad actions. If you want a clean reputation, go Serpico on their asses.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Generalizations about, and stereotyping of, any group is just not a positive way to go about life. Replace "cops" with just about any other group of people out there in your paragraph I quoted above and you should start to see what I mean. Stereotyping a whole group of people, whether it is a career, race, ethnicity, hobby, etc... is pretty unfair to the 98% of the group that doesn't fit what you've labeled them all as. I would think gamers (which all of us here are I am guessing) should know better than most what being the victim of a stereotype is like.

I didn't say you're all bad cops. I'm saying I don't care about your "not all cops" statement. There's a subtle difference there.

No one is born a police officer. No one forces you to be a cop. You aren't drafted into it.

You choose to protect and serve the public. That includes protecting us from your fellow brethren who do bad things.

There's a phenomenon that is pretty common to all groups, whether grouped by choice or circumstance (such as birth), whereby you are more likely to defend those who are similar to you than those who are different. For example, cops are more likely to defend and rationalize the actions of cops than they are non-cops. Cops have a reputation of backing each other up, which is sometimes a good thing, like when they go into dangerous situations together. Other times it's a bad thing, like when a cop unjustly shoots a civilian.

Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter how good of a cop you are. When another cop ruins someone's life, it doesn't matter that you were a saintly cop, that person's life is still ruined. There are police departments that are committing highway robbery, literally. They steal money from poor families traveling through the area. Those families don't care that you were a good cop during your career, they are still being harassed by cops.

"Not all cops" is a pointless statement. It does nothing to alleviate the problem that some cops ARE abusing their power. In this situation, I am not the problem. The cops abusing their power are. You want to be mad? Be mad at them. Go Serpico on their ass.

My statement doesn't apply to people of ethnic backgrounds, because [insert ethnic background] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.

My statement doesn't apply to people of various genders, because [insert gender] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.

My statement doesn't apply to people of various religions, because [insert religion] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.

My statement doesn't apply to people of various sexual preferences, because [insert sexual preference] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.

Your reduction of my statement fails.


Not looking for battle map scale stuff (though something that includes that would be cool), but a more broad scale of map (miles or hundreds of yards).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

Here's the thing about "not all cops": I don't care.

There are too many bad cops. Maybe you didn't see them where you worked, maybe there weren't any. I still don't care.

As long as there are bad cops, cops get to deal with a reputation that includes their bad actions. If you want a clean reputation, go Serpico on their asses.


Looking for a published adventure I can steal material from for my home game. It doesn't need to meet all my criteria, but the more the better. I'm mostly looking for maps, cause I don't draw maps well, so having some that have been professionally produced is nice. Anyways, what I'm looking for...

1. Valley of the Kings - similar to the ancient Egyptian area. It's a valley with numerous tombs/dwellings carved into various areas of the mountain.

2. Ruined city nested in a mountainous valley. I've looked at the one at the end of RotRL, less major metropolis and more ancient ruins.

3. A fortress guarding a valley path/road.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, regardless of publisher. I'm going to populate it myself, so level doesn't matter. Mostly looking for the art and maps.


The NPC wrote:
Because seven ate nine?

You're late.


Daily Show goes looking for statistics on police shootings. There's a law that requires them nationally, but no enforcement mechanism, so they don't exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

@Rynjin and Vod

You do realize not everyone has multiple choices when it comes to places to stay, right?

Also, the person in question had a "previous weapon charge," not a conviction. Do you write off any and all family that have had a run in with the police?

From reading a few articles, Wanis Thometheva, the target of the raid, not only owned the house the was raided, but another house in a different town where he was arrested. So there was at least another place they could have been.

And why is this an excuse for police officers throwing explosives into a room when they aren't aware who or what is inside that room?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

We are.looking at thing with full 20/20 after-sight. Its easy to armchair quarterback with all of that info.

The SWAT team knew what they had been told, and what was right in front of them. They also didn't have the luxury of time to mull over their decisions. In their chosen profession, a moment of hesitation can cost lives...their lives, their colleges' lives, and/or the lives of innocents/victims.

If you are going to judge their actions, these considerations MUST be taken into account.

I don't see it really as an indictment against the police officers. They're doing their job as they've been instructed and paid to do it.

Instead, it's the system that creates these situations that is wrong. Why is SWAT being sent in on a tip from a single confidential informant? Why isn't more recon being done? Why not stake out the house for a few hours, or even watch it for a few days to observe patterns?

The crime that was suspected was selling meth. While that is definitely not good for a community, at the same time it doesn't present an immediate danger either. It's not like this one SWAT raid was going to make meth disappear from the community for eternity.

The policies and laws regarding use of force by the police need to be changed. The War on Drugs has failed. We need to walk it back and bring back community policing, not para-military raids.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
I like how everyone is blaming the police instead of the scumbag methheads using their child's playpen to barricade the door.

You're saying that if the police suspect a crime MIGHT have happened at a location, they are now authorized to set off explosives inside regardless of the situation?


Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Are you claiming that no GM has ever thrown an encounter too easy or too hard at their players?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Because that is ALL I am talking about so far. I am NOT assigning value statements to anything. If you assign a value statement to anything involved, you are discussing a different topic than me.

No, not claiming that and I never claimed that - if it happens accidentally then it comes from poor GMing, not fiat/GM must let them win.

I'm not talking about why it happens, whether it's good or bad.

Only that it is a fundamental fact about GM'ing. Your choices impact the chances of success/failure of the players.


Are you claiming that no GM has ever thrown an encounter too easy or too hard at their players?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Because that is ALL I am talking about so far. I am NOT assigning value statements to anything. If you assign a value statement to anything involved, you are discussing a different topic than me.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Analogy:

Me: Automobiles exist
You: You're wrong and Ford is better than Chevy.

That is what you sound like to me. You didn't stop sounding like that, you further entrenched yourself. Feel free to argue with the imaginary person in your head, because you aren't arguing with me. Seriously.

At this point it does feel like I am arguing with an imaginary person or a piece of fiction.

Your examples sucked. Two out of three of your choices were non-choices. No one argued that they exist. They are just not choices. At all.

Dr to patient: You have a very advanced brain tumor
Patient: What are my options?
Dr: well, here they are:

1) We can stop your heart, thus eventually killing the tumor as the cells in your body die
2) Radiation followed by chemo
3) Cut your head off

The above serve as a better analogy of your "choices".

You can use the two bad ones (cats and dragons) and then continue talking to your imaginary players as they have fled your table.

Irontruth wrote:
I didn't say that 1 and 3 are GOOD choices. I said they exist.

When you can't use them for all "practical" purposes they do not exist. At least, if you want to run a game with players. And a waste of time.

Basically they are bad examples that you utilized to illustrate a point, where those examples would never come into play. Unless at a bad table that would make anyone want to quit gaming.

The examples are hyperbole, in an attempt to make clear the intent of the examples. I'm sorry that you're getting caught up in the specifics of these examples, even though I stated in the original post that they weren't specific, but rather generalities meant to highlight the actual choice. A more realistic example:

1) 1-2 kobolds
2) 4-5 kobolds
3) 12 kobolds

Now, for a first level party, 1 kobold COULD be dangerous, but it's highly unlikely. Most likely it'll be easy.

A party of 4 first level characters should be able to handle 4-5 kobolds. Assuming that they're going to have another encounter later in the day it's largely down to how well they manage resources in this encounter. Luck could swing it against them, but even then they should survive (mostly).

12 kobolds is most likely too many. The party has a chance of survival at 1st level, but it's too many targets, too many attacks and the damage will be spread out to too many party members too quickly.

The GM has to make the decision designing this encounter. How many is too many? Where is that tipping point? All three encounters are potentially realistic and explainable within the game world.

You got caught up on the analogy, trying to prove the hyperbole as false. Congrats, you're right, hyperbole is false. But I wasn't trying to show that hyperbole is 100% true, I was using it to make my point clear.

I'll reiterate the point for you:

1) When a GM designs an encounter with kobolds, he has to decide how many kobolds are included in that encounter (or pick a method that determines how many are included).

2) The number of kobolds affects the difficulty of the encounter.

3) Therefore, the GM is inherently setting the odds of success/failure by the party.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Your jumping to conclusions and assigning value to things that I didn't say in my post. You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with an imaginary person that you invented.

Actually no, I was busting the terrible examples you cited for your contribution to the "GM must let them win" argument.

So yeah, I was arguing with you, your examples at least. Good attempt to dismiss though, I'll give you that.

Irontruth wrote:
I didn't say you SHOULD throw cats or great wyrms at the party. I said that the GM is making that decision between those 3 options. You've made that decision as a GM. By your post, I would guess that you avoid throwing cats and great wyrms at your players.

No, but you listed them as a range of "potential" encounter examples for 1st level characters. That may work for new players + new DM as a mistake, but once you understand and accept the premise of certain game assumptions about fairness/appropriate, what makes a good game and having some system proficiency then two out of three of your examples are ruled out immediately.

A choice that you cannot legitimately make is not a choice. Choices 1 and 3 are not choices, not for a proficient GM or a group of players who understand the game. So they are dismissed outright.

Also fairness or appropriate =/= GM must let them win.

There are way too many outside factors that don't let this sit solely as a GM decision. Namely, people leaving your table if you run a softball/too hard of game.

Irontruth wrote:
Even still, the XP system does not inherently solve the issue of properly challenging players.

Neither does, xp or no xp/GM decides when it feels right system.

Accurate monster ratings or lacking those a GM who understands threat values are the best things for "properly challenging players". So the Xp-less game as argument for "properly challenging players" is inappropriate.

Analogy:

Me: Automobiles exist
You: You're wrong and Ford is better than Chevy.

That is what you sound like to me. You didn't stop sounding like that, you further entrenched yourself. Feel free to argue with the imaginary person in your head, because you aren't arguing with me. Seriously.

Every time you dismiss my point as ridiculous, you then spend several paragraphs proving that my point is correct.

I didn't say that 1 and 3 are GOOD choices. I said they exist.

Consider this: Any time a GM introduces an unkillable GMPC that solves everything, he's introducing an entity that is both 1 and 3 combined. There are literally dozens of stories of this happening on these boards.

Again, I'm not saying that this is GOOD. I'm saying it EXISTS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:

As to ITs post

NO

If you keep throwing cats or great wyrm red dragons at your 1st level PCs and you won't have a gaming table.
The former due to the Zzzzzz's involved and the latter because it's a waste of time everyone's time. Both are actually.

Players can expect many things out of a game - one of them is a decent chance of survival at the start and a sense of fairness of play. This can be all curved based on the experience of the players (easier or harder) but if the experience is unfulfilling or a waste of time either way they will walk.

They are actually part of the agreement, not the GM by himself. He can try those tricks out a few times and the players may put up with it for awhile, but at one point they will throw their hands up in frustration or boredom and walk.

If that's the argument for "GM must let them win" then it's a terrible one.

Player want a chance to win, and (Imo - the good ones at least) want a chance to lose.

And they want to play a part in dictating those chances. Once you take any of that away from them and they realize it then you will start to lose players.

Your jumping to conclusions and assigning value to things that I didn't say in my post. You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with an imaginary person that you invented.

I didn't say you SHOULD throw cats or great wyrms at the party. I said that the GM is making that decision between those 3 options. You've made that decision as a GM. By your post, I would guess that you avoid throwing cats and great wyrms at your players.

If you had bothered to ASK me, I would say I agree with you (mostly).

Even still, the XP system does not inherently solve the issue of properly challenging players.


snickersimba wrote:
Add not an axe murderer to the list. Being an axe murderer is a big downer for managers.

It's a good qualification for being a murder hobo though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

All this fatalism... wow.

Yes nothing really matters, your GM spoon feeds you the adventure and you succeed or fail on his whim. This isn't the kind of game I want to play. I want a clever GM who will set up challenges with varying degrees of difficulty that I win or lose on my own merits and those of my friends. I want my efforts to matter. I don't like TOZ's multi-track railroad all leading to the one outcome he as GM decrees will happen. I hate it when a GM spoon feeds us our successes and failures. I want to EARN them. I can think of nothing worse than the no XP GM of the type TOZ is describing who just tells you a story and you advance whether you spent all session striving for victory or playing games on your iphone. He just adjusts to let you win. And this IS the trap of no XP systems.

Except XP doesn't inherently solve the "problem" you're talking about.

I could be wrong, but I believe some of what TOZ is talking about is a philosophical situation. Consider this:

Brand new party, 4 players with 1 PC each starting at level 1.
As the GM I get to design an adventure and determine what monsters are included.

Taking the old trope of meeting at the inn, I decide it could be exciting to have the inn attacked. I could go one of three ways (the actual monsters can vary, but examples given to show intent):

1) A single house cat attacks the party
2) A small group of goblins attacks the party
3) A great wyrm red dragon attacks the party

As the GM, I have to make that choice. By making one of those choices, I am inherently determining the odds of success and failure. No matter what, the GM is always making these decisions and so success and failure is inherently up to the GM's whim.

In Pathfinder (or most any version of D&D) the GM is not constrained by rules in determining encounter design. The GM is actually given a wide range of latitude to design and build encounters as they see fit. There are systems that help aid the GM in balanced encounters, but they do not enforce it or even ensure it.

There are other games out there that give the GM explicit resources that are used up to challenge PC's. I've played some, they're actually really fun, both as player and GM. As player, I know I'm almost always being appropriate challenged. As GM, I have less effort to spend in designing the mechanical aspect of encounters and get to focus more on my descriptions and roleplaying.

Anyways, using an XP system doesn't actually solve the problem you claim it does. It actually has almost nothing to do with it at all.


There's a couple of simple solutions to avoid curling:

1) grill the bacon - I just put it on the rack, usually flipping it once to get a little crispy-ness on the other side. I do indirect heat, for example if I'm cooking burgers on 1/2 the grill that side is on, while I do the bacon on the other half with no heat directly underneath, otherwise you get burnt bacon.

2) bake the bacon - put a rack over a shallow pan, put the bacon on the rack. Cook around 350-425, depending on how fast and crispy you want it. Drain the pan into a container afterwards if you want to save the bacon fat.

The nice thing about both methods, you can do a LOT more bacon at a time than you can in a frying pan, so they're also good if you're cooking for groups or just making lots of bacon.

Yesterday I made spaghetti carbonara with the best local bacon I've found. It was delicious. I think tomorrow I'm going to try it again but use the bacon from Tennessee that I bought, which is by far the best bacon I've ever had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


I'm going to assume that part of the problem is that as a culture we don't have a uniformly recognised right of male passage, so we leave it for men to define on their own, as influenced by various outside sources, including peers and media. We tend to put our men in a state where they have to constantly prove their maleness to themselves and so a sign of gender irregularity in someone else becomes projected to this uneasy sense of sexual identity, so they have to prove themselves "male" to affirm that identity. Unfortunately for our culture, the sanctioned method to do that is violence.

As Orfamay said, I don't think a widely accepted passage into adulthood would fix the problem. The problem is misconceived notions that people need to fit into specified gender roles.

It's often commented that people use stereotypes to describe others, because as humans we need to categorize people and their social standing and it's much faster and easier to use generalized concepts that do a full inventory of every individual we meet. We use these shortcuts constantly, they're good when people can resolve social interactions quickly and to the benefit of all involved, but when negative generalizations dominate our lives bad things happen.

The other aspect is that because we use generalizations for everyone else, we also end up using them for ourselves. There's a concept in physics that nothing is a thing unto itself, but rather everything is a set of relationships. The volume of an object is not determined independently, but rather comparing it to another object for which we've assigned values to. You measure a string by holding it to a ruler, you don't measure the string independently. The same concept applies to ourselves (and others).

People don't create their sense of self out of thin air, they create it by having interactions with all of the people around them. Even strong and independent people. When someone enters the scene who is social different, people define themselves as "normal" by being opposed to this difference. One of the common definitions of manhood around the world is being able to commit violence when threatened. This is why when people show weakness or difference, violence gets used. Against weakness, it shows that you are stronger and capable of violence. Against difference, it shows that you are "protecting" your way of life.

If people are accepting of a "difference" there is a danger that they become associated with that difference. This could threaten social standing. George Takei has talked about it regarding his career. He thinks that most people on Star Trek knew he was gay and were even accepting, but he was worried about it becoming public knowledge, because he had seen other actors who's careers had ended by their outing.

This is one of the reasons that a broader mix of characters media is a good idea. A lot of our cultural norms are mirrored/created/altered in media. Having characters who represent a broader "norm" creates a less strictly defined culture where more different types of people are considered "normal".

TL:DR
People are mean to outcasts because they don't want to become outcasts themselves. Stronger cultural delineations only provide sharper contrast as to who is an outcast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:

I actually did not take offence at the "chump" comment; it was the "plague" analogy that rubbed me the wrong way...

So again, I thank you for the apology.

Yeah, it was just the first thing to come to mind. (Actually the first was radiation poisoning but hazmat suits don't protect against that.) I'll have to figure out a better analogy.

Pizza.

If I like anchovies, but you don't, we should probably get separate pizza's.


Guy St-Amant wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm also unconvinced. The name on the box has little to do with the name referenced in the code. Also the implication that Microsoft is worried about code 16+ years old from 3rd party programmers, as others have pointed out, is pretty hilarious. When has Microsoft EVER shown that kind of concern for users/3rd party publishers?

Lot of people still play/run things made in the 1990's and early 2000's. The RPG Maker, Fighter Maker, etc Maker from those times are still used.

...

Will Windows 10 have an Omnitrix?

Estimate for me the % of recent PC's (manufactured/assembled within 4 years) with windows on them that you think are used to play games that were published in the mid-90's.

I'd wager that it is currently at a peak of 0.5% (of the overall trend during those same 4 years), because of a recent revival because of sales on places like Steam and GOG.

Combined with the fact that the language in the code DOESN'T HAVE TO MATCH the picture on the front of the box and I'm pretty sure that ensuring that Windows 10 can still run SimCity (the original, or other similar games) was not the primary concern behind the name choice.

Scenario 1 - The programmers showed up to a meeting with marketing and said "There's a problem in the code, we need to change the name of the OS"

Scenario 2 - Marketing came to the meeting "We need to call it 10 because of these reasons... find us a technical reason so people don't call us on our b~$#@#@%"

Scenario 2 seems much more likely to me.


bugleyman wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
The question is easy to resolve, I'm curious whether people are reading 5E rules in the same manner as they read other modern games.
I think it largely depends on the tone of the game. It could be argued that games which attempt to simulate everything in the name of "realism" are simply reaping what they have sown.

I think it has more to do with the development of an RPG as legalese language. Using predominately words that are defined within the game, related to but not completely, as their real world counterpart. It's a style of writing choice.

For example, 13th Age is written in a much more conversational style, with authorial intent spelled out directly on the page. There are comments about stacking, allowing something to be powerful or trying to limit it's power.

Pathfinder though is written as if it were it's own language. Terms get defined within the system and then that definition is required usage throughout all the books. I think part of this stems from the culture of players (by that I mean anyone who plays PF, regardless of role at the table) who want clear and definite definitions that can only be interpreted one way. It also aids when you have multiple authors, so avoiding their interpretations improves the overall flow and continuity of the games language.

It has nothing to do with the style of the game itself, but rather a legalistic approach to having things that can only be interpreted in one way. You get the same kind of language in M:tG, because it's important that the game be played exactly the same everywhere, since people have a lot of money riding on the outcome, the rules need to be perfectly predictable and not open to subjective interpretation.

This doesn't mean that PF can only be played one way, but that there is a one-true way according to how it was written and that is intentional.


I'm also unconvinced. The name on the box has little to do with the name referenced in the code. Also the implication that Microsoft is worried about code 16+ years old from 3rd party programmers, as others have pointed out, is pretty hilarious. When has Microsoft EVER shown that kind of concern for users/3rd party publishers?

1 to 50 of 4,842 << 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.