|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I would like you to come up with an example of something meaningfully different and exact equal power.
I wasn't talking about "exact" or "perfectly" equal power, and I'm not interested in trying to find examples for things I didn't say.
Now, if you want to have an open and honest discussion about the actual content of my assertions, I'd be happy to listen to your thorough explanations of why I'm wrong and address your points with proper attention, using examples when relevant.
But "You're wrong unless you can find an example that I would agree is totally perfect" isn't very compelling, and doesn't really inspire me to put effort into engaging with you.
If/when you decide to switch gears into legitimate discussion, I'll be here, eager to discuss. :)
Steve Geddes wrote:
Well, we could expand the discussion into what constitutes "willful" ignorance, and how that relates to holding the idea that a country might reasonably be believed to produce only a single genre in its animated works, but that discussion probably wouldn't be worth the effort, as those who can admit to having any ignorance at all about anime tend not to be the ones causing problems. ;)
So! Now that you know that there's a whole wide world of "anime" of all genres out there, you should check some of it out. What kinds of shows do you like? I might be able to recommend some good options. :)
It seems that several folks are under the impression that for options to be different (and for the choice between them to be meaningful), one must be better than the other.
This is false.
Things can be different (and I mean meaningfully different) without one being clearly better than the other. The key to making that non-hierarchical difference happen is by giving each option a benefit that isn't measured in the same way as the other option's benefits.
For example, in Pathfinder, the only thing your weapon does is spew out HP damage. Therefore, when comparing a bow and crossbow in Pathfinder, the only metric we have for that comparison is "How much damage?". And since Pathfinder relies on the full-attack paradigm for damage output, the crossbow (with its reloading actions) scores lower on the only metric that Pathfinder gives it.
By standardizing the effect of all weapons to be damage and nothing else, the choice of which weapon to use actually ceases to be a "meaningful choice", being instead reduced to a calculation: whatever results in the highest damage output is the winner.
Poorly-executed asymmetry actually reduced "choice" (at least, meaningful choice).
But what if different types of weapons had things going for them other than pure HP depletion? What if two-handed weapons dealt a little more damage but lighter weapons were easier to parry with and thus boosted your defenses? What if the longbow dealt more damage per hit but the crossbow had some kind of armor penetration or was better for sniping? Now the options are asymmetrical, but since they're not simply different values on the same metric, it's not so easy to say that one is "better" or "worse" than the other. (Of course, this requires the rest of your game to be built in such a way that these different abilities can be relevant. If offense is better than defense, then the melee example above falls apart; if the system doesn't support sniping as a viable tactic, then the ability to do it well isn't a benefit. Then we're right back to "one is better than the other", but we're also right back to bad game design.)
Balanced asymmetry requires options that can't be measured with the same ruler. It requires that you think of "difference" and "choice" in terms other than simply one thing having better numbers than another thing. If you think asymmetry requires imbalance, then your thinking is still stuck in that box.
I'm struggling to understand how that post is at all a reply in the dialogue about game design. It's like you're having a different conversation, JiCi.
Let's try again from the beginning.
In a poorly-designed game, there are some builds that are more mechanically powerful than others. You personally don't care about that power gap and build what you want anyway, which is fine.
In a well-designed game, the gap is never there in the first place. You can still build whatever awesome idea you want, but instead of "I don't really care about if they're good mechanic-wise" there just isn't a question about it in the first place.
With a well-designed game, threads like this can't even exist. You can't ask whether people are okay with their wacky characters being weaker if their wacky characters aren't weaker in the first place. The fact that you're asking the question at all proves that we're talking about a game where different character types are at different power levels. And I call that poor game design.
Was that clearer?
So I found the Shaman class extremely interesting and began creating a character for my new campaign. What I found was that a level 1 Shaman would be able to cast level 5 spells. Is this right? From what I understand Shaman's don't have a spells known list, they are assumed to know all the spells from the Shaman spell list. From a Shaman's spells per day list, the Shaman can prepare 3 different orisons and 1 1st level spell each day at 1st level. With a Wisdom score of 20 his 5 modifier grants him 2 bonus spells of 1st level and 1 bonus spell from 2nd to 5th level. Pathfinder states that to prepare or cast a spell, a shaman must have a Wisdom score of 10 + spell level. Is this all correct? Is there something I'm missing?
For starters, the bonus spells for a high casting stat has nothing to do with the Shaman. It's a universal rule for all spellcasters.
More to the point, the bonus spells granted by a high ability score only apply to spell levels you can already cast. So you get your extra 1st-level spells per day, but you don't get the others until you reach those spell levels.
"People can't imagine what they haven't seen."— Mizuho Kusanagi
When your entire fantasy RPG experience is wrapped up in a handful of games who share a legacy of forcibly separating the mechanics and theming through poor design, you can't really imagine anything else. It becomes your definition of how things work, and the notion of "mechanics and theming should reinforce each other" becomes a foreign concept that you'll never think of on your own and is just incomprehensible white noise if someone tries to tell you about it.
*shakes off some of the loose blood from the pan*
I think one of Paizo's biggest achievements is its well-developed setting. The anime tradition is a potent storytelling medium. Putting the two together seems like it could have a lot of potential.
Of course, there are lots of hurdles to clear: the stigma from the less than stellar past history of game-based cinema (both animated and live-action), the deep-rooted willful ignorance (and resultant bigotry) toward non-Euro-centric media among a sizable portion of the Pathfinder community, the financial and logistical burdens (which I couldn't really comment on with any specifics but are almost certainly an issue), and so forth.
But if it did happen, and if it went well, I'd watch the crap out of it. :)
My stance is that if the topic of this thread is even a thing to be considered, then you're probably not playing a very well-designed game in the first place.
Not my cup of tea, ... but pushing hate for that is just even more stupid.
Earlier, thegreenteagamer wrote:
I mean, to each their own, but all of the animal-people, especially cat-people...clearly there's a lot of closet furries out there.
I'm having trouble reconciling your later statement of "let's not hate on people for liking the anthropomorphic races" with your prior statement of "people liking anthropomorphic races indicates some kind of deep-rooted fetish or identity issue".
Seems a bit contradictory to me. That is, unless you yourself really do get off on believing that you're a member of whatever races you prefer to play and wouldn't consider it mean for people to draw that conclusion about you. If that's the case, then I suppose there's no issue. But if not, then having the above two posts come from the same person is a bit... bizarre.
Steve Geddes wrote:
My point is that I don't think ruling out a whole genre in this way via gross mis characterisation and oversimplification is "not okay".
The thing that's "not okay" isn't the ruling out of a whole genre based on oversimplification. What's "not okay" is choosing to believe that the bulk of the visual media output of an entire country is "a genre".
Because sure, if you think that "anime" is a single genre, then of course the stuff I've been saying seems nitpicky and oversensitive and unreasonable. That's why I keep using the analogies about cowboy movies: we're not talking about making generalizations within a genre (such as lumping all cowboy movies together), we're talking about taking a nationwide category of media (such as "American live-action films") and calling it all one genre.
That's a very small box to cram such a large piece of human culture into, don't you think?
Steve Geddes wrote:
To be clear, I'm not talking about subtleties.
For example, if I offered you True Grit (a conventional American cowboy movie) and Rustler's Rhapsody (a spoof on the American cowboy movie genre), I wouldn't expect you to see the difference prior to watching those movies. They're both clearly cowboy movies. Knowing the subtleties of their differences is not something most people would expect of you.
However, if I offered you The Avengers (sci-fi/fantasy superhero action) and Get Smart (a comedic spoof on spy movies), and you said "No thanks, I don't like cowboy movies," well, that's just ridiculous. Even worse, imagine your actual words were "No thanks, I don't like Hollywood films" while your meaning was still "No thanks, I don't like cowboy movies". And then imagine that when I asked what the hell you were talking about, you referenced the photographs of Americans posing with guns on the box art, just like how you saw John Wayne posing with guns on the box art of all the other "Hollywood films" you've heard of.
That's nonsensical. It's absurd. You'd likely be stunned speechless if you had an interaction like that with someone.
But that's exactly what happens with a lot of folks talking about "anime".
If I offered you Dragon Ball Z (ninjas and aliens doing over-the-top crazy fights) and One Piece (pirates doing over-the-top crazy fights), no reasonable person would expect you to grasp the subtleties of how the two are different without seeing them first, just like with True Grit/Rustler's Rhapsody. That level of difference is not what I'm talking about.
But if I offered you Re:ZERO (a normal kid is transported to another world, gets disemboweled, then has to keep repeating the same few days until he figures out a way to not die) and Sweetness and Lightning (a recently-widowed schoolteacher learns how to cook better meals for his 6-year-old daughter), and you said "No thanks, I don't like over-the-top crazy fights", then that would be just as ridiculous as the example above with The Avengers/Get Smart. Furthermore, comparable to the above example's use of the term "Hollywood films" to mean "cowboy movies" would be the use of the term "anime" to refer only to the crazy, over-the-top fighting shows. And just like it would be mind-boggling to hear someone say that the "photographs of Americans with guns" is enough to infer that the above examples were cowboy movies, it's equally ridiculous to cite the drawing method of cartoon Asians as being indicative of Re:ZERO/Sweetness and Lightning being DBZ-style action shows.
Any number of folks in this community would find the above "cowboy movies" example shocking, to the point of probably not believing such a dialogue could even happen. And yet, doing the exact same thing with "anime" seems to be par for the course for a lot of folks in this community. What I take issue with is (1) that double-standard, and (2) that some folks are so thoroughly convinced of anime's uniformity that they think the "cowboy movies" comparison is invalid.
Making assumptions on the same tier of absurdity as "that James Bond movie has a guy with a gun so it must be like a John Wayne movie", and/or asserting that anime isn't diverse enough for that to be a valid analogy, are what I'm speaking out against.
Did you go through the gut flora medical tests? I think that having beneficial gut bacteria replaced with less benign can give symptoms similar to what you described, depending upon exact bacteria...
I've been under the impression that gut flora issues tend to be acute in nature, rather than persisting for ten years straight. Is that not the case?
You mean the arrow that can cast mass hold person on all the guys with guns when you're surrounded, so that you can pick them off one by one without having to worry about the rest of them returning fire?
Yep, pretty cool arrow. ;)
Sometimes, yes. Other times, the fact that they believe it's from Japan has come up as a factor.
Then there's the two-step version, where they (1) see eastern looking cartoon characters and think "anime", then (2) think "anime" means "DBZ". And that's a whole 'nother thing itself.
If they'd be perfectly happy with the anime-style as long as the characters didn't look eastern? I don't even think that happens. People perfectly happy with anime as long as the characters don't look asian? It's possible I guess.
Often the reasoning starts with "the show looks Asian", which (depending on the context of what brought up the conversation) might mean they're talking about the art style or it might mean they're talking about the Asian-inspired architecture/clothing of the setting, or both. Then, from whichever of those things made them think "this is Asian", they then conclude that it must be "anime" (because Asian animation is inherently anime, I guess?), and if it's "anime", then it must be DBZ-style craziness.
And when someone goes from "this cartoon looks Asian" to "must be like [one specific subgenre particularly from Japan]", I find that to be offensive. "Racist" might not be the right word, but it's a pretty nasty way of thinking about the world and its diversity.
Well, beating up the setting's mid power casters anyway. Without massively favorable circumstances I don't see them taking Bumi or the firelord. They'd seriously struggle against Azula.
Plus, referring to the "casters" on a Pathfinder forum, or even on the heels of a reference to DBZ, seriously overstates their power, and by extension the power of those who can nonmagically stand against them. Not only are the "martials" not leveling mountains, but neither are the "casters". Avatar's most powerful "casters" are still lagging behind many of the "martials" of the type of anime people tend to lump it in with.
So... yeah. The kinds of situations I've been talking about, where someone sees an Asian-style cartoon and assumes DBZ-style stuff... they're pretty damn far off. And even if we ended the conversation about what causes someone to make assumptions about things like Avatar, there's still the conversation about people who have seen a little bit of DBZ, Sailor Moon, and Digimon and think they have a general grasp of the entire animation industry of the eastern hemisphere.
It's not clear to me why you think the rejection is linked to race of the characters. Or why the other data contradicts the impression given by the style.
It's not that I think that's what's going on with any particular person, it's that if that's what's going on with someone's rejection, then they're doing what I'm talking about. All other scenarios are outside the scope of my comments. It's not like every rejection of an Asian-styled work is bad. It's just that I'm only talking about the rejections that happen for certain reasons.
Given that the characters look eastern and are drawn in an anime style, I still don't see why it's unreasonable to think the whole work might be anime (or a western imitation). (And honestly, "look eastern" is by far the less significant of those to me.)
I don't object to someone seeing anime-style art and thinking it might be anime; note that I haven't even really been using the term "anime" lately. I'm talking about when they see anime-style art and assume "flying ki-wizards who scream their attacks and hadoken mountains into next week DBZ-style". Again, that's like the difference between the viewer of a "photographed Americans" movie cover concluding "probably Hollywood" versus concluding "probably a John Wayne cowboy movie". The latter is the only part I take issue with.
If it looks like anime, sure, go ahead and assume it's anime. Just don't assume it's DBZ unless it looks like DBZ.
But maybe I'm still just to dumb to figure out what you're saying. Or maybe it's not as clear as you think it is.
You had legitimate questions that I was happy to try to clarify, so I guess it must have been the latter.
Side note: I really prefer to stick to discreet actions (such as "not listening" rather than extrapolating character judgments (such as "too dumb". I think the conflating of the two (whether by the speaker or the listener) is the source of a lot of this community's problems. So let's just stick the assertion and denial of individual actions, and leave the whole-person labels out of it, okay?
Here's another thing that I'm not saying: "Choosing not to watch a movie because it's the same style/genre as other movies you don't like".
I'm talking about making assumptions about the content based on things that don't actually indicate those things about the content.
It's okay to see an eastern art style on the box and assume that the movie is animated in that style. (It's even okay to pass it up if the art style itself is something you dislike.)
It's okay to see Asians on the box and assume there will be elements of eastern culture involved in some way.
It's okay to see photographic images on the box and assume the movie will be a live-action film.
It's okay to see Americans on the box and assume there will be elements of western culture involved in some way.
It's not okay to see Asians in an eastern drawing style on the box and conclude that it must be DBZ-style over-the-top ki-magic action even when the box art depicts something vastly different than that, just like it wouldn't be okay to see photographed Americans on the box art and conclude that it must be a John Wayne-style cowboy movie even when the box art depicts something else entirely.
I'm not talking about looking at everything the box art tells you and drawing reasonable conclusions based on the whole dataset you have available. I'm talking about disregarding a large part of what the box art tells you and drawing completely unreasonable conclusions based on the single element that you can't seem to see past.
Maybe the people currently reading don't do that, but I'm not saying they do. I'm just saying that there are plenty in this community who do, and that's what I'm talking about.
You're absolutely right. That's why I go back and re-read my posts after someone misunderstands me (and why I often quote myself verbatim in subsequent posts). And sometimes my next post explains how I communicated poorly. Or sometimes the other person explains how something I said could be taken a different way, and I acknowledge that.
But other times, I read what I wrote and what they say I wrote, and there's no reconciling the two. Like the time I said "Roleplaying is when your stats and your portrayal match" and the person I accused of not listening said "Of course I'm listening; you said you need to have high stats in order to roleplay!" Or when I've said "The best way to be a team player is to do something other than healing in combat" and they say "Stop making it all about yourself and think of the team!"
I fully agree that the first place to look after multiple misunderstandings is at one's own words. Sometimes the investigation finds that not to be the source. :/
I just think it's hilarious that I even got you on the name. ;)
Would you please pay attention to what I actually write? It was like this the first time around with this thread as well; I'd assert N, then had to go through multiple iterations of "No, I don't mean X, I said N; no, I don't mean Y, I said N; no, I don't mean Z, I said N" before one or two people finally recognized that I was saying something different than all the XYZs that they're used to hearing. You're starting that process all over again, and it's getting old.
Now, pay attention. You seem to be under the impression that I think the art style should be ignored, and if you draw any conclusions from it then you're racist/bad/whatever.
I did not say that.
Go back and re-read what I actually wrote. Here, I'll even re-post part of it for your convenience:
Here are some key differences between what I actually said and what you somehow managed to absorb:
In short, I'm talking about when "hand-drawn Asians" is basically all they can see on the cover.
Now, can you rephrase back to me what my point is? Because I'm not going to invest in you any further unless you can demonstrate that you really read and absorbed what I wrote. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to demonstrate that whatever you might be about to disagree with is what I actually said.
PK the Dragon wrote:
The hell? Your CHA score reflects your place of residence now? So the cleaner parts of town go to the smiley folks instead of being based on price? Do you even hear yourself?
What exactly are you disagreeing with here?
Are you disagreeing with the claim that the Pathfinder basic stat array is 13/12/11/10/9/8? Because I can show you that in the books.
Are you disagreeing with the claim that dwarves get a -2 CHA penalty that's described as them being "a bit gruff"? I can show you that one in the books as well.
Are you disagreeing that 8-2=6? I'm pretty sure I can find proof of that one as well.
So what is it that you're saying you disagree with?
If that gruffness affects their score to the point that it is a 6, that commoner has effectively dumped CHA
We're talking about one sixth of the dwarven population here. See above.
...and that will be obvious in SOME WAY.
In a way that's believable to be true for one sixth of the entire dwarven population, yes. Your assertions thus far seem a bit far-fetched for that requirement, though.
The problem is that you're doubling up: the situation of the "face" being the only one with a CHA higher than 7 is already accounted for by the fact that his allies have lower chances of succeeding at Aid Another, making the face's own potential for low rolls more risky compared to the face of a more socially adept group.
It's already built into the system, and then you're talking about adding that drawback again by adding a circumstance penalty.
If you had an entire group of 14 INT researchers, then yeah actually I could make an argument for that, if they were trying to think of something that was generally common enough that a collective effort could help each other.
Again, the Aid Another mechanic already covers this, and having the whole team have positive modifiers is already rewarded. Again, you're double-dipping.
Labeling one of your two instances of the negative CHA mod as a "circumstance penalty" doesn't mean you're not double-dipping anymore.
PK the Dragon wrote:
If the bugs in the hair are the same lice everyone else has, then why is it affecting anything?
...And how does having a higher CHA keep them away, for that matter?
You're starting to implode a bit, I'm afraid.
I was under the impression that fantasy baths were kind of a rich-people thing, not an everybody-but-the-low-CHA-folks thing.
Finally, -2 CHA for 8 CHA is a bit gruff. A dwarf that does the full dive is going to be more than "a bit gruff"
No, the description the CRB gives for the racial penalty does not only apply to a single score.
Remember which game we're talking about: the random commoners don't have 11/11/11/10/10/10, they have 13/12/11/10/9/8. So where a non-dwarf's CHA will be somewhere in the 8-13 range, dwarves' CHA will be 6-11. The difference of that whole range is what's called "a bit gruff".
The difference between a human and a dwarf with the same pre-racial CHA is that the dwarf is like the human except "a bit gruff". That's the caliber of impact that Pathfinder ascribes to a score two points lower.
Yes, to reflect circumstances. Circumstance modifiers come from circumstances, not ability scores. Those have their own modifiers. Does a 7 STR attacker get a -2 "circumstance" penalty on their attack roll? Does the 14 INT researcher get a +2 "circumstance" bonus on his Knowledge check?
PK the Dragon wrote:
Okay, so in your campaigns, one third of dwarves have bugs crawling out of their hair, or some other flaw of the same caliber. Got it.
But again, PF is kinda vague when it comes to exactly what bad CHA is. My argument is just that it's BAD, it should mean more than just a few relatively minor features of appearance.
The Pathfinder Core Rulebook calls the dwarven CHA penalty "a bit gruff". That doesn't really sound like it's in the same league as your ideas.
And that's not even really my central point- just that mechanically low CHA should have a significant effect on the circumstances in social dealings (with, I should add, characters that care about such things).
Social dealings are covered by skills. Trying to alter someone's attitude toward you? Explicitly Diplomacy. Same with making a request. It's Diplomacy, regardless of which stat you managed to use.
EDIT: Not trying to be a dwarf racist here, so I'll elaborate. It's a trope that Dwarves do things that are offputting to normal Humans (and other races with normal CHA).
It's interesting to watch you vacillate between "off-putting" and "bugs in hair" depending on your conversational needs.
They're also much less interested in nice things like taking showers.
*tries to remember a story/setting that included both dwarves and showers**fails*
So... they smell like everyone else?
It's a different cultural standard. But to your standard Human, it's going to be more than a tad offputting to meet a Dwarf that has done the full CHA dump. That's why we get the trope of awkward culture clashes between Dwarves and other races.
Again, that's what Pathfinder calls "a bit gruff".
PK the Dragon wrote:
And once you get into the 5-7 CHA range I'd argue you are , uh, "peasant level", meaning more than just greasy hair and pimples.
Remember that you're referencing a full one-third of the entire population of dwarves in all of Golarion with that description.
I suspect you might need to recalibrate your understanding of what those numbers mean.
I didn't mean they're adventurers because they went on an adventure, I mean they fit the "band of adventurers" trope in the sense that they're a group of mixed skillsets doing a job that they're not exactly specialized for. The council of Elrond didn't hire a professional courier and a team of career bodyguards who specialize in protecting a VIP during overland travel; they sent a grab-bag of available people.
Fair point on the "not serially/professionally" thing, though. Still, there are plenty of other examples. Firefly, which I mentioned, is about an adventuring company that makes their living as such, in a universe where that lifestyle is not exactly uncommon. Much the same for One Piece, and there are other examples as well.
Having a setting in which such a lifestyle/career is common enough that it would make sense to have a word for it is pretty easy.
Can a witch take 10 when adding new spells to their familiar?
The take 10 rules are an umbrella mechanic; if you're under its area (skill checks) then you're automatically covered unless there's a specific exception.
Does anyone have a rules reference
That'd be the take 10 rules themselves; they're not particularly ambiguous.Here, from the Skills chapter of the Core Rulebook:
"When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. .... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."
There you go. Unless you've got some other rule saying that the check in question is a special exception, you use the normal take 10 rules.
I am the GM in this situation.
What's that got to do with anything?
The crew of Serenity in the Firefly series isn't too far off from "adventurers", and the show heavily implies that they're far from uncommon.
The so-called "pirates" in One Piece are a fixture of both daily life and world news, yet many (most?) of them are less like "pirates" and more like "adventurers". (In fact, the only reason I became aware of the show was because a friend was telling me about how it feels like it's basically somebody's D&D campaign. My wife once pondered this very issue of why it seems like so many random civilians are combat-capable, and resolved the dilemma by saying "Well, I guess if I just assume Pathfinder is like One Piece where you never know when someone will pop out and try to beat you up...")
The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.
The protagonists in The Mummy are basically an adventuring group: first they're planning to delve a ruin for treasure, then they end up facing off against an undead BBEG for the fate of the world. Because THAT's never happened in D&D, amirite?
The concept of adventurers has quite a pedigree.
Do you mean officially empowered, or empowered by the leadership culture?
Officially, you're correct: GMs have the power to make calls on ambiguities and corner cases, and that's it.
EDIT: Removed some salt. Let's just say that the folks near the top endorse a different take on what the GM can do in PFS than what's theoretically permitted.
Fortunately for the OP, it sounds less like a run-in with that crowd and more of a case of the GM not being familiar with the concept and trying to play it safe; hopefully things will go more smoothly next time. :)
That's true of an awful lot of fantasy RPG staples, not just the word "adventurer". Special inks for spellbooks/scrolls, divine miracles that mirror mortal magic in scope/availability/relationship to general experience, most of the 3.X magic item paradigm, and plenty else. The fact that the word "adventurer" gets called out from among them is a bit silly, IMO.
I'm actually working on a setting in which "adventurers" are a thing in-universe, so no, it's not (inherently) a meta-game construct. It's only a meta-game construct if the setting doesn't include it. Which was kind of my point.
Hence why so many adventures have some kind of non-professional plot hook, such as being thrust randomly into a dangerous situation or being called in for a favor by an old acquaintance.
Seems a lot of folks want well-developed settings (like Golarion), which isn't always very conducive to stories based on being an "adventurer", so there's always some other way to get the PCs involved in the plot.
All I'm saying is that doesn't mean there's something inherently meaningless about "adventurer" as a term; the lack of such a profession is a product of the setting.
True, but plenty have looked at their character sheet and thought "Man, I wish I'd known that I'd be wanting this feat back when I still had a chance to meet the prerequisites and start the chain".
Which leaves me really curious why Piccolo thinks picking all your feats on the fly and never planning ahead for feat chains is going to consistently provide the most fun. Either he seriously misunderstands the Pathfinder system, or he's really generous with letting his players rebuild (or skip prereqs). I'm really hoping the latter; that probably would improve the game a great deal. :)
Note: Link is blocked at work, but I get what you're saying.
Your analogy is fundamentally flawed (perhaps due to misunderstanding my earlier statements?), so let me see if I can straighten this out.
You're talking about people making assumptions about the content based on the deliberate message of the cover. I'm talking about people not even getting that far because the character on the front is a cartoon Asian instead of a painted American (or whatever), regardless of what the cover is actually saying about the content.
You're talking about the publisher deliberately trying to communicate something about the content (such as "it's a romance" or "it's sci-fi" or "it's action-packed") and somebody correctly identifying that deliberate message. You're talking about a publisher making a major blunder and communicating the wrong message, and the viewer failing to mind-read past the error.
That's not at all what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about when the viewer completely ignores the message that the publisher is trying to communicate with the cover. The exact opposite of what you're talking about. I'm talking about when they don't buy into the cover's message because the characters were hand-drawn Asians instead of photographed Americans (or whatever else).
For example, take this DVD box cover: three teenagers stand in battle-ready poses in the foreground, while the background includes a battleship and a looming, angry face.
What you are talking about is if people absorbed the intended message that this is going to be about three young protagonists an a militaristic antagonist with probably some amount of action/combat; but then they missed out because the content is actually about something else.
What I'm talking about is if the viewer would actually like a story about young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat, and probably would have picked it up based on that, except they noticed that the youths look "eastern" and are drawn in a particular style, causing the viewer to completely disregard the obvious message of the art and instead assume that it's going to be hadokens and sonic sword-slices and over-the-top craziness.
You and I are talking about completely different things. You're talking about correctly assessing the message of the cover/box art when it might be wrong; I'm talking about ignoring that message because it looks eastern.
Stop building characters to fulfill a string of feats. Instead, build characters in response to what happens in the game. Your PC will live longer and you'll have more fun. For example, if your GM likes to run in the horror genre, you will probably need Iron Will instead of that feat chain you've been eyeing.
Or maybe the next campaign you switch GMs and discover they like pitting you against large numbers of weak enemies, so you'll want Whirlwind Attack instead of Iron Will. Too bad you weren't eyeing the feat chain four levels ago when you needed to get started in order to be able to get Whirlwind Attack any time soon.
Oops. Maybe Toughness?
Neal Litherland wrote:
You can say, "adventurer," or "troubleshooter," but those words don't mean anything.
Sounds to me like a function of your setting, not of the term.
If your setting is well-civilized and has countries, jurisdictions, regulated law enforcement, and sufficiently-developed populations such that you can hire whichever set of specialists (explorers, bounty hunters, artifact analysts, etc) you need for this particular job and still have some selection available among the candidates; then sure, "adventurers" might not be a common thing.
If your setting is more wilderness-dominated with smaller population centers that don't have formalized defense organizations or specialized career training, where someone who wants to make a living exploring, fighting, investigating or relic-hunting is going to need to be capable of all of those things instead of just their preferred specialty (or at least be on a team that can handle them all), and where folks who need such jobs done likewise don't have a pool of specialized experts to choose from for just the type of job they need done and instead have to hire one of these "generalist" teams; then "adventurers" might well be the best term for the teams in question.
The hobby is bigger than your own narrow set of habits.