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

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 6 Season Marathon Voter, 7 Season Dedicated Voter, 8 Season Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 20,035 posts (23,762 including aliases). 17 reviews. 4 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 35 aliases.


1 to 50 of 4,067 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My meatspace group is playing Curse of Strahd (a Ravenloft 5E adventure), and player absence is explained by the mists coming and taking the PC and doing something weird, then when you come back your PC rejoins the group with some kind of minor, random psychosis. My rogue spent my absence surrounded by mist, with wolves jumping out and attacking him at random times. Came out with a constant fear that at any moment, wolves would jump out and attack.

There is now a haunted house containing multiple pieces of wolf-shaped décor that have my arrows in them, despite the local merchant charging 10x the book price for everything. And when we finally had a combat against wolves, I threw myself against them first with daggers, then with my bare hands, then finally with my face, in a blind rage.

Not very effective, but seemed appropriate to the narrative.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Rednal wrote:
Ten Minute Background

That looks super cool. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:

Well I was waiting to see if this post was going to be modded due to the "using an alias to insult someone" rule that is sometimes applied and sometimes not, but since it hasn't:

Grammar Nazi wrote:
It's probably due to you not knowing what "earned" means.
Just because you don't agree with the use of a word in a certain context doesn't mean the user doesn't understand the definition of the word. Childish behavior Jiggy.

I didn't insult you. All I did was point out a factual incorrectness. It's not like I said (or implied) that you were stupid or illiterate or anything. My statement was completely confined to the identification of an objective error. (And yes, it was an objective error, not a matter of how each of us feels about the use of the word "earned".)

I have no intention of insulting you. That does not mean I'm not allowed to point out factual incorrectness.

Just like how, if there were an obscure alternate definition of "earn" that made your original usage correct and you pointed it out to me just like I pointed out your error to you, that also wouldn't be an insult.

It is not childish or insulting to correct factual errors.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It's a rather optimistic assumption to think you can go through that campaign without getting hit by a serious status effect or three.
If that were the assumption I wouldn't be recommending a medkit of remove blindness/deafness and lesser restoration potions.

Didn't you know? For any given conclusion, there's only one thought path that leads there, so that's all anyone ever needs to reply to. ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, so someone says "My players tell stories about XYZ, not about what stats they rolled", and Fake Healer and Tormsskull have categorized that as labeling rolled stats as criminal badwrongfun? That's... wow.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've started letting my players just pick their stats out of thin air. Nothing's gone wrong with it yet. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Explain "gamist"

Actually, I decided to edit that out of my post, lest the term carry any sort of baggage I might not be aware of and alter the meaning of my post.

like derogatory.

Yes, that's the type of thing I was worried about. I "built" the term in my head while I was typing, just to mean someone whose focus is on fun and engaging gameplay, then afterwards I was like "Wait, I think I've heard that term used before, and I think it might have been something bad." So I removed it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh, it's all just a matter of playstyle preferences.

Rolling in order shifts character creation from "preparation" to "gameplay" by offering a challenge in the form of a "puzzle" to be solved by figuring out what you can make with the stats you get. Thus, folks who prioritize engaging gameplay will have lots of fun rolling up a set of stats and trying to work with it.

By contrast, point-buy allows you the chance to invent any type of character you want and faithfully represent it in the game, which is something that rolled stats work against (for example, you can't play the "feeble wizard" trope if you roll a 15 STR). Thus, folks who prioritize roleplay will have lots of fun using point-buy (or in my games, simply picking whatever stats they want) as a means of faithfully realizing their character concepts.

So basically, rolling stats (particularly in order) is the more gaming-oriented approach, while point-buy/selection is the more roleplay-oriented approach. Of course, some players could have fun either way, and thus might jump at the chance to do whichever one they haven't done in a while.

All in all, I don't really find the OP surprising in the least.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
I didn't say "all Christians like to..."

I have a hard time believing you would accept that same distinction if I were to talk about what "women" do and then pointed out I didn't say "all".

Look, I'm philosophically opposed to the entire notion of "acceptable targets", but apparently you're not, and it seems we've found (one of?) yours, so I guess there's not much more point in discussing this side topic with you. Maybe we can get back to the main topic now. Or if not, maybe I'll just hide the thread. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I just disagree that acceptability of condemning the entire group for the actions of a subset of its members is part of that difference. How a person got into a group—inborn genetics, cosmic perspective, voting history, romantic decisions, whatever—has no bearing on whether or not it's okay to condemn them for the actions of others.
Which very nicely avoids being able to hold any group accountable for anything. No, no group is 100% responsible for the actions of individual members. However, when they don't condemn those actions, and benefit from them, yes, they bear responsibility.

Well, who's the "they" that failed to condemn the actions? I'm pretty sure an awful lot of members of the group in question would absolutely condemn the actions you described. How would you ever find out? I mean sure, if the group's leadership or public-facing representatives fail to condemn fellow group members' actions, then the group's leadership absolutely bears responsibility, just as you say.

Of course, that's assuming that the leadership even knows about it. Meanwhile, there's the other umpteen million members of the group who may or may not even know the actions in question were ever performed, and if they do, may well condemn those actions quite thoroughly, even if the group's leadership does not.

So once again, you're generalizing about a massive group based only on what you personally have or have not heard about its handful of public figures doing. That's massively unfair.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
to criticize a group of people who are defined as a group because they believe the same thing

The group you criticized is not defined as a group by the thing you ascribed to them.

The group you cited ("Christians") is defined as a group by all believing in the "Christ-ness" of the Jesus in the Bible. Very little else is part of the definition of being a "Christian".

The thing you ascribed to the entire group was "they like to throw Judaism under the bus". That is not part of their definition as a group.

If you wanted to critique the belief that Jesus was the Christ, then it would be valid to refer to "Christians"; just like if you wanted to critique the belief that there is no god at all, it would be valid to refer to "Atheists". But as soon as you want to critique an activity/position that is not part of what it means to belong to group X, then it is no longer okay to refer to the group as categorically embracing that activity/position.

I agree with you that there is a big difference between being in a group due to a choice of beliefs and being in a group because of genetic chance. I just disagree that acceptability of condemning the entire group for the actions of a subset of its members is part of that difference. How a person got into a group—inborn genetics, cosmic perspective, voting history, romantic decisions, whatever—has no bearing on whether or not it's okay to condemn them for the actions of others.

Now can we please get back to a productive discussion on sexism, without having to kick anyone on our way past?

EDIT: Wait, hang on, this is "misandrists in the setting;" what should we be getting back to? Dang, this thread has really wandered.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
Christians like to...

...be a monolith?

Most of your post was reasonable and fair (regardless of whether anyone might agree or disagree with the actual points you made), but here you've slipped into the exact same type of "Here's what this whole group is like" talk that I've so often seen you caution others not to do in regard to women. (And to be clear, I agree that we mustn't talk about "women" as though they were a homogeneous whole; I'm just saying that applies to all large groups, including those of a religious nature.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Osakaben wrote:
4. Add in enough extra healing/channeling items to make up for not having a cleric.

"Extra"?

Can I ask what your understanding is of how (A) wands, (B) the wealth-by-level guidelines, and (C) the magic item availability settlement rules, function in Pathfinder?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.

Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.

Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?

When religion is part and parcel of the foundation and justification for our prejudices, it's fair game. For millennia Eve has been used by both Hebrews and Christians as justification for women's "lesser" place in the world. The Greeks did the same thing with Pandora, the first woman, a creature created by Zeus specifically both to tempt men,and to make foolish decisions, such as opening the eponymous Box, to unleash all of the Troubles to plague mankind.

By all means, discuss those specific things that have been done wrong. Those are very valid points of contention.

They're also not what I replied to.

I replied to a backhand against an entire category of people, not a citation of specific grievances.

Folks who believe in some form of god are no more a monolith than women are. Discuss individual wrongs (religious or otherwise) that have been committed, rather than taking cheap swipes at entire categories of people. You know, just like how you'd like men to handle this discussion. Hypocrisy is bad.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.

Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.

Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?

But anchovies!!!

I understand; I've been there too. It's not easy to embrace diversity; you can't just simply mentally acknowledge that it's good to treat others as equals and leave it at that. You've got to proactively alter yourself, because your actualized beliefs don't automatically align with your declared beliefs with the flip of a switch. It takes ongoing work. It's a process. And the moment you think you're done, you've failed. You must constantly work toward greater acceptance in practice, not just in declaration.

Even in regard to anchovy-lovers.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.

Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.

Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
prostrate cancer

i've fallen and I can't get up

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?

Everyone's. Until things are physically or legally risky enough that police need to be involved, anyone who decides that intervening against harassment is someone else's responsibility is as guilty as the perpetrator.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The bespectacled orc listens politely to each of your accounts of what happened, though he seems to avoid eye contact with Gwen. When everyone has finished speaking, he says "Oh dear, that sounds like quite an ordeal indeed! I hope those people are okay. I'm certainly not in a position to promise anything, but as a newer campus we're likely to be trying to gradually expand, and therefore we may indeed be able to employ some of them should they come here seeking such employment."

He reaches into a satchel at his hip and says, "Now, as for the matter of payment, you've clearly gone through quite a bit of trouble. It'll max out my budget for such things, but I'll happily compensate you with a total of 120 gold pieces."
This is taking into account Teo's Persuasion roll from waaaaay back on page 1 that I said I'd let you all keep, so this is as good as it gets.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
due to what Mrs. Price was saying
It's Jessica, or Ms. Price if you want to be formal, not Miss or Mrs. Price. My marital status isn't relevant to my professional life, and isn't the business of strangers.

seems he really mispriced you

but if we get a happy ending where he can just start calling you jessica, that'd be priceless

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
If I can make an effective character and roleplay just as well as I'd an inertective one... Why wouldn't choose to be effective?
"Optimized" and "effective" are not, despite people trying to constantly use them that way, synonyms. Something does not have to be optimal to be effective.

Well, to "optimize (a thing)" is to make that thing as "effective" as possible.

And what does "effective" mean? "Successful in producing a desired or intended result".

So, the two things you're wanting to make sure we all know aren't synonyms are
"To make something as successful as possible in producing a desired result"
and
"To make something successful in producing a desired result".

So, "optimized" is not 100% interchangeable with "effective"; rather, "optimized" is simply the fullest degree of "effective".

Now, you say that something can be non-optimal but still be effective. Well, if we fill in our definitions for those terms, that means you're saying that something which is NOT
"as successful as possible in producing a desired result"
can still be
"successful in producing a desired result".

I suppose, depending on what your "desired result" is, you may well be right. If your desired result has a gradient of outcomes for which two results can both be considered successful while simultaneously one of those two results is more successful than the other, then you do indeed have a situation where that which is non-optimal can still be considered effective.

However, if (for a given desired result) either of those elements is not the case—that is, if there is only one result that's considered successful, or if all successful results are of equal value with none being superior to any other—then it becomes impossible for something to be less successful than something else and still be considered successful, which in turn leaves no room for a differentiation between "successful" and "most successful". Therefore, in such a situation, "optimal" and "effective" have indeed become synonyms.

Alternatively, we could all just unclench a little, treat each other like real people, and stop devoting all our focus to revealing the mustache-twirling villainy of anyone who voices an opinion contrary to our own.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But it is also "not the italicized text the OP was asking about". ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Quote:
For your specific example, of course the Iron Golem is going to detect as metal. It's literally iron.
The counter argument to that is that nothing in the Iron Golem's statblock mentions iron anywhere.

Incorrect. You didn't finish reading the Iron Golem's entry.

Look:
Iron Golem wrote:

An iron golem has a humanoid body made from iron. It can be sculpted into any shape its creator desires, but it almost always displays armor of some sort, from simple and utilitarian to ceremonial and ornate. Its features are much smoother than those of a stone golem. Iron golems sometimes carry a weapon in one hand, though they rarely use these, relying instead on their slam attacks.

An iron golem is 12 feet tall and weighs about 5,000 pounds. An iron golem cannot speak or make any vocal noise, nor does it have any distinguishable odor.

Although the practice has fallen out of favor in modern times, the ancients of certain powerful civilizations once took great pride in crafting iron golems of tremendous size and strength. These golems, which are never smaller than Huge, still exist in remote parts of the world, mindlessly following the orders of a long-dead empire.

Ergo...

Quote:
Therefore, mechanically the Iron Golem is not made of iron, as the fluff text related to the monster is irrelevant. See also an earlier thread that concluded that an adamantine golem's fists aren't adamantine.

...this conclusion is flawed.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Though that just changes the question to "Is introductory text on monsters and feats irrelevant".

Typically, a short statement that introduces a more in-depth description (such as the opening sentence of a paragraph, or a line leading into a list) is understood to be loosely accurate. The purpose of such an introduction is to take the full data that follows and compress it into a single idea that mentally prepares the reader to properly frame the information they're about be given. It intentionally sacrifices precision for the sake of brevity. When you want the full details, you read the full details. When you want a general idea (such as because there were too many details for you to process), you read the introduction. An introduction is a loose and imprecise summary.

However, the italicized text at the top of a monster entry in the Bestiary is not exactly an introduction. You can tell it's different both by its different formatting (being italicized) and by the fact that it's written in a narrative tone rather than a descriptive tone. The "voice" of this text is that of a GM describing to the players what their characters see, not of a manual informing the GM of how the mechanics work. Its purpose is not to summarize, but to provide an example of the mood and tone of a scene in which the monster might appear. It is a narrative suggestion.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

I've seen a pretty common thought on various forums discussing Pathfinder that italicized text at the heading of feats and monsters and other things doesn't matter.

This was a source of a lot of debate back when Pummeling Style was first printed and I've seen similar contentions with people arguing whether Iron Golems are valid targets for Detect Metal and Rusting Grasp and so on.

I haven't been able to find anything one way or the other in the rules though. So is there anything definitive?

Paizo doesn't italicize feat descriptions and such. They reserve italics for spell names and magic item names, so you don't get them confused with other rules elements (like feats, class features, or normal uses of similar words).

For example, if the rules refer to "darkness", they're talking about a specific spell; if they refer to "darkness", they're talking about the simple absence of light.

Open up your Core Rulebook. Look at the feats chapter. You won't see italicized descriptions like what you're asking about. Those are added by sites like d20pfsrd.com, specifically to make the italicized text look like it's separate from the rest. That is, the contributor at d20pfsrd.com already believes the line to be "flavor text", and so they italicize it so that it'll look that way to the reader as well.

Be careful. Sometimes they go beyond just italicizing things that they want to label as flavor text. I remember looking up something once and discovering that they'd chopped up a couple of sentences, rearranged the pieces, added a line of space between the resulting parts, and then italicized one of them. Somebody had an idea of how they thought that rules element worked, and edited it to demote the part they didn't like into "flavor text".

Any time you EVER have a rules question, Step One is to look at something other than d20pfsrd.com. Your question about the italicized text wouldn't even have come up if not for the way they re-format things.

EDIT: One exception: Paizo does actually italicize the opening one-liner on monster stat blocks. But they also have more (non-italic) descriptive text after the stat block that covers the same stuff and more anyway, so no big deal there.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two thoughts:

First, I feel like maybe I remember "text trumps table" being a thing.

Second, the table heading which reads "Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent" could be meaning "The weapon enhancement bonus that is considered equivalent to the property in the first column".

I'm not aware of any clarifications, but those two elements make me think you need actual enhancement bonuses.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Skeld wrote:

I make these kinds of rolls for my players. I also make Disable Device and Sense Motive checks for them, oftentimes. There are some saves I'll roll for them too,,such as the Fort save versus disease they get when they're hit by a diseased creature attack. In fact, I keep a post-it note on the inside of my screen that has all their saves, Perception, Sense Moytive, and Disable modifiers so that I don't even have to ask for them.

Some checks/rolls are, by the very act of rolling and seeing the number that appears, can be metagamey.

-Skeld

Why do you even have players then?
There was a time when the players didn't roll anything and the DM rolled everything.

There was also a time when your character's awareness of the world around them depended on the player's ability to expertly grill the GM for unambiguous information.

And I believe those times were one and the same. So I'm not sure I see your point.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any examples of "you're not a roleplayer" in which the evidence included anything other than character-building skill.
Usually the examples I see are based on a player having their character take an action that doesn't fit within their character concept. This can also often cross over into metagaming territory.

That would certainly qualify as evidence that someone's not very into (or not very skilled with) roleplaying. I've encountered such a situation once or twice myself, and even pointed it out to the player in question.

But I'm not talking about "When is someone demonstrating a lack of good roleplaying?" I'm talking about "When does someone else accuse you of a lack of good roleplaying?"

And in my experience, all it takes for someone to make that judgment about another player is to see that they started with an ability score higher than 16 or lower than 10 (after racial adjustments), or to see that their AC is higher than a certain number, or to hear them speak of an assumption of being able to get (relevant) magic items sometime during their career, or prefer point-buy over rolled stats, or reference a rulebook in a discussion of how a rule works, or use the word "build" as a noun.

The list goes on. And those aren't hypothetical, either. They're all real things I've seen Person A cite as a reason why Person B obviously doesn't care about roleplaying. Notably absent from that list of things I've seen cited as why Person B doesn't roleplay is literally anything at all relating to actual roleplay.

This brings me back to my post relating to my favorite character: my point was that by any reasonable metric, I'm very clearly someone who is interested in roleplay, and yet I still frequently get labeled as NOT liking roleplay purely on the basis of what they see when they lean over and peek at my sheet or what terminology I use in an abstract discussion about some element of the Pathfinder system.

This, in turn, relates back to why I pointed out that old post from Chris Lambertz. While perhaps you might acknowledge roleplaying inclinations as a preference and only make your determinations about that preference after seeing how they actually do their roleplaying in-game, the truth of the history of the Pathfinder community as a whole is that (1) people are consistently labeled as being unskilled/uninterested in roleplaying based on things that have nothing to do with roleplaying, and (2) the people labeled in such a way are consistently demonized and ostracized. It's not everybody, but it's enough people that it's a very real facet of the Pathfinder community, not just a couple of outliers here and there. And do you know what the Pathfinder community at large uses as its weapon for hurting the people it doesn't like? Terms like "rollplayer," "munchkin," and "powergamer".

That's why those terms aren't okay to actively use as labels here on paizo.com. No matter how neutrally-useful one individual (such as yourself) might find such a term, the fact is that the term has a history in the Pathfinder community, and that history is ugly and shameful. No matter how useful you might find the term, or how neutrally you might mean it, the term has no place in discussions here, because it can't be separated from its history.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Every time* I see someone claim that XYZ should be done in secret by the GM, I learn a little more about the social health of the gaming community.

*With exceptions for things explicitly laid out that way in the rules, or situations where a given group simply decided communally that they prefer it that way rather than declaring it a general necessity of gaming, etc.

Provided you can trust the GM (and if you can't that's an entirely different issue), it can actually be nicer for the players to let the GM roll in secret.

You get to enjoy the excitement of not knowing for sure how you rolled. I think there's more thrill in that than in knowing "I got a 20, if I didn't see a trap then there is no trap".

Also. if you decide you'd rather be sure and ask for a couple more rolls, you're not metagaming, either. It can be very liberating as a player not to know stuff, because then you don't have to self-censor so heavily.

As I alluded to in my footnote, there's a big difference between "I (and/or my table) enjoy not knowing what the roll was and feel liberated by mechanical safeguards against metagaming" and the far more commonly expressed "The GM is supposed to be rolling in secret".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:

One of the better role-players I have played with said that the best way to determine if someone is a good role-player is to ask them about their favorite character.

If the description they give back is in-character detail (accomplishments, motivations, etc.), then they are probably a good role-player.

If the description they give back is in mechanical terms detailing their stats, the feats they took, the max damage they ever dealt in a round, etc., then they are probably not.

Anything that simple is of course not going to be 100% accurate, but I've found that it is a fairly good device to determine a player's focus.

Hm, that's rather interesting. My favorite character is Thomas the Tiefling Hero, a cleric of Iomedae who delivered judgment to the guilty and protection to the innocent, and finished his career by decapitating a demon lord 3,000 years in the past. I even kept a campaign log in his messageboard profile, detailing the people he saved and the evils he ended, all from an in-character (rather than mechanical) perspective.

Despite all that, I find myself quite frequently getting labeled in the rollplayer/powergamer/munchkin/non-roleplayer group. Sometimes without even being present or involved in the discussion (i.e., I'm reading through a discussion and someone says "If your AC is higher than X, then you're playing a spreadsheet, not a character, and I would boot you from my table, no questions asked;" I wish that was a hypothetical example, but it's from a multi-star PFS GM).

It's been my experience that most people interested in discussing whether or not somebody else has any interest in roleplaying, seem to think they can make that determination by seeing whether your stats are too high or your build is too complicated. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any examples of "you're not a roleplayer" in which the evidence included anything other than character-building skill.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Even Diplomacy. Your character doesn't know you rolled low, they only experience the result of the failed roll after 10 minutes of conversation.

Bull. If you haven't had the experience of saying something and then immediately regretting it, you have a serious deficit of social self-awareness.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terronus wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


I'll wait for clarification from you before giving an answer, but in the meantime, I've got further questions for you:
Why hasn't anyone been taking 10?
Why hasn't anyone been taking 20?
I think what I was really seeking is some sort of advice on the in-game implications of perception and how to handle it out of game, as well. So table harmony is probably the best fit! In this particular case, 10s and 20s were not allowed because-- being in a dungeon-- the GM ruled we were in danger.

*blinks*

Okay. The GM wants the game to be all about swingy d20 results, so if the goal is table harmony, then "What does a Perception result look like?" is an irrelevant question. Either you convince the GM that, at a fundamental level it's okay for actions to be resolved by something other than a single d20 roll, or you simply do things his way, roleplay opportunities be damned.

This isn't a matter of how he envisions Perception working, this is a matter of how he believes the game is meant to be played.

Quote:

If I roll really poorly on a perform or acrobatics check, there is a tangible result of that roll in-game. I fall on my face or the crowd boos, for example. I agree the PC's would never be aware of a 1 on any roll, but they would know if they did poorly. Even in the case of a really skilled character just rolling poorly, they would know they could do much better.

There is no such consequence for a poor perception check, though, so the issue was whether or not a character even realized they searched or examined something poorly. There is an absence of a result, rather than an actual result.

It's academic at this point, but Perception might be a skill where (in my opinion) it's hard to self-evaluate, because the act of making the check does not itself produce anything observable. When you use Diplomacy, you're talking, and you can hear and react to your own word choice. (We've all been there, amirite?) When you use Acrobatics, you're performing a physical action. But with Perception (and perhaps also with Knowledge?) we're just resolving whether or not you're aware of something.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Late to the party, but this is relevant, especially to the dialogue between Tormsskull and Deadmanwalking:

In a different thread, Paizo moderator Chris Lambertz wrote:
...in our Community Guidelines we have a line that says "There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!" This line was written expressly because we do not want people using pejoratives like "munchkin" or "rollplayers" and terms like "Paizo Defense Force."

(Bolding added.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mirrel invisibly creeps up to the back of the tent, then waits for a chance to pounce.

The two human guards nod to each other, and one goes inside the tent while the other remains vigilant at its entrance.

Halsere fires a bolt of flame at the cleric, but misses!

Thyra and Pietro, you're up! And Thyra, remember what's in that spoiler...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
So the thing that wouldn't be fair and equitable is for a PC to willingly blind themselves during all the monsters' turns?
If the PC wants to complete avoid the monsters gaze attack, then yes.

I'm trying to imagine the encounter where getting immunity to gaze attacks in return for always being flat-footed (and opponents getting +2 to hit) is somehow abusive or unfair, but I just can't seem to think of such a scenario.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

It's kinda like this

I close my eyes during my turn to have a 50% miss chance against mirror image instead of dealing with the 8 images they have.
Then at the end I open my eyes and now I have no penalties off my turn to my AC for being "blinded" when the enemies are trying to hit me.
I just get the best option for my turn and not my turn.

So the thing that's not fair or equitable is that the effects of the wizard's 2nd-level spell are limited to merely a 50% miss chance, instead of getting either a higher miss chance or additional concealment benefits?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Claxon wrote:
To ensure that everything is fair and equitable it is only reasonable that once the selection is made on a turn it should continue until their next turn.
I think I've lost track of the discussion (or at least, part of it). Hypothetically, if opening and closing your eyes is a free action (able to be performed repeatedly, but only on one's own turn), what specifically is the non-fair/non-equitable scenario that you and others are so afraid will happen? Did I miss it somewhere?
I believe you read my post before I finished my edit. Please see my last paragraph.
Claxon wrote:
If you ruled that it can be done more than once a turn a creature could act only averting his eyes risking a 50% chance to be affected by the gaze, and then at the end of his turn close his eyes to complete negate the chance. This robs the creature of the chance to use the gaze attack actively instead of passively, which is why it should be allowed only once per round to decide whether you are averting/closing your eyes.

So the thing that wouldn't be fair and equitable is for a PC to willingly blind themselves during all the monsters' turns?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
To ensure that everything is fair and equitable it is only reasonable that once the selection is made on a turn it should continue until their next turn.

I think I've lost track of the discussion (or at least, part of it). Hypothetically, if opening and closing your eyes is a free action (able to be performed repeatedly, but only on one's own turn), what specifically is the non-fair/non-equitable scenario that you and others are so afraid will happen? Did I miss it somewhere?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Coming up next: defecation - move, standard or full round?

Kinda depends on what you eat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:
robot chris: PSYCHE, I just have knives

I don't need friends! I've got knives!

*throws knife*

I'm... all out of knives.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
I love the Pathfinder system. I love that they have options for those that want the options. And that's one of the things I despise about 5th edition (no to little options for those who want options, unless you go to the dmsguild in which you have to try and convince the DM to let you use any of it at which point you may as well not even bother). It's the Pathfinder players that I don't like (based off my experiences only, which I know this doesn't apply to every one). Of course, my last experience with Pathfinder has colored my views the most, and that was the worst I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing.

I've found that the "option gap" between the two systems tends to be overstated due to system ignorance. If you look at Pathfinder, and I mean really look at it critically, you discover that a lot of the "options" are things that nobody actually plays because they're so bad. A book might come out with dozens of new feats and spells, but only a tiny handful actually get played. The chaff can't really be counted as "options Pathfinder has that 5E doesn't". Not if we're being honest about real games.

Then, out of what's left, you've also got to eliminate (for purposes of system comparison) all the Pathfinder material whose sole function is to allow a strategy/build that all 5E characters are allowed to do for free. For instance, 5E lacks all those combat maneuver feats that Pathfinder has, but 5E will let you do the actual maneuvers free of charge. So in this case, Pathfinder's actually the system with fewer options, since you're limited in what you can do by how many feats you can afford to pay for the privilege.

So by the time you've factored in Pathfinder's non-option bulk and the things that you can do in both systems but only Pathfinder will charge you for, the gap in options between the two systems is actually a lot smaller than it first seems.

Quote:
Those who have chosen 5th edition as their main game, seem less focused on the numbers above all else, though it still exists. My last Pathfinder game, everyone seemed more focused on the numbers, and had absolutely 0 character interaction. NPCs were devolved into nameless piles of numbers, and the PCs were nothing but numbers on sheet of paper. I could tell the GM was annoyed, almost as much as me, at the other 3 players only wanting to do combat after combat after combat, where the monsters could only hit on a natural 20, while the other 3 PCs could only miss on a 1, rolling massive amounts of dice each hit. Even the final bad guy of the AP only lasted 2 rounds.

That's ironic that you imply a connection between "only care about numbers/combat" and "only miss on a 1, high-level fight ended in 2 rounds". The former is certainly a player issue (and one where I share your dislike), but the latter is a system issue (and part of why I left Pathfinder).

It is the design intent of Pathfinder that you eventually start hitting on a 2 with your primary attacks; that way you can hit on a 7 with your second attack and on a 12 with your third attack. If your primary attack needs something like a 9 to hit, then the whole framework of iterative attacks falls apart (especially for full-BAB classes, who get that fourth attack). Similarly, high-level Pathfinder combat has a natural tendency to get faster and faster (in terms of meaningful combat rounds, not real time at the table) due to the swingy nature of full-attacks/crits as well as the increasing pervasiveness of save-or-suck spells. This might be why, a year and a half later, you still haven't found a Pathfinder group where you can expect those things not to happen: they're built in. If it's not happening, then something's been modified (like the GM fudging rolls/HP, or people playing high-level Pathfinder as though it were low-level Pathfinder, etc).

All that being said, have you tried Play-by-Post? It has the advantage of open recruitment allowing you to say "I'm looking for X type of players", which might be a real boon for you. Best of luck! :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think I've ever felt narrative tension as a result of the PCs' lives being in jeopardy. In the same way, it's pretty rare I feel any narrative tension as a result of a book or movie's main character being in mortal danger. In fact, if you look at the vast amount of storytelling history in the world, the number of really good stories in which the protagonist's survival is a primary point of tension is so staggeringly small that it quickly becomes obvious that the interest in life-threatening RPG encounters has nothing to do with narrative tension. I could discuss where the draw of deadly encounters does come from, but that would be getting off topic.

Anyway, no, narrative tension doesn't come from the threat of a PC dying. It comes from the same place it comes from in non-gaming mediums: the stakes.

What happens if you can't stop the evil plot?
What will the choices you've had to make do to you as a person?
Are you going to be able to find the answers to your questions?
Can you win without destroying everything you love in the conflict?
Will your victory actually change anything?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Why would it?

Hell if I know; that's why I asked.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I played Pathfinder for a few years, then for various reasons switched completely to 5E about a year or so ago. I've recently started my third 5E game as a GM, and am in a few more as a player (mostly PbP).

If someone has a particular way they're set on playing (always murderhobo, always talking first, playing out the same tired stereotypes since 1980, whatever) then they're going to keep doing it regardless of whether the game is 5E or Pathfinder. I've seen every sort in both Pathfinder and 5E.

One exception would be the people who, in Pathfinder, fail to realize that it's a system where it's the player's responsibility to assemble all the little bonuses into an appropriate total (much like assembling bricks to form a wall), and then look down their nose at the people who do understand that Pathfinder's set up that way. I've often encountered Pathfinder players who seem to think that (for example) BAB plus your starting STR is all the game is assuming you have, and anything else is gravy; then when they see someone who understands that no, Pathfinder is built around an assumption that you also start accumulating enhancements, stat-boosting items, and other little bonuses here and there; they start accusing the latter player of "abuse", "rollplaying", "playing a spreadsheet instead of a character," etc.

Since 5E puts everybody on the same pre-packaged math, the whole "your numbers are so big you must not know how to play a real character" thing from the Pathfinder community doesn't seem to really come up in the 5E world. Which is refreshing. In fact, I think I'd have to say that overall, in 5E I've scarcely seen a shadow of the condescension, elitism, one-true-wayism, and backward-minded reality-denial that I've come to accept as a standard element of the Pathfinder community (not the whole community, just always present).

But as far as actual playstyles (like preferring dungeon crawls or social interaction or whatever)? Both systems have both types of players/GMs, and I've not yet noticed any particular trend for one system to have a higher proportion of a given style.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
A large part of the price of buying a book is because of printing costs. With e-books, they don't have that whatsoever. It quite literally costs them mere cents (if that) to make another copy of the e-book. Yet they charge you MORE than for a physical book. That is simply indecent.

Yes, once you already have your template/original all laid out and ready, producing an additional copy is more expensive in paper than electronic. However, is it possible that reaching that point in the first place is costs more time/money for an e-book than for paper books?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

If each paperback you bought came with the option of spending an extra $5 to acquire enough extradimensional space to carry them all with the same amount of weight/space usage as a single book, would you pay for that?

Only if they were originally priced that way. When I used to be able to get Kindle books for cheaper than paperbacks, and then suddenly someone decided to start charging more - That's really the part that induces anger.

Okay, yeah, that's different. I'll share your displeasure on that one.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
atheral wrote:
The problem is I'm not sure how you would portray a different sort. The name of the game in this is conflict, and a good depiction of a good GM would negate the conflict aspect. Most of those stories depict the games as GM Vs Players setting one side as an antagonist against the other. I would like to see it be otherwise but I'm unsure as to how it would work.

In an episode of Big Bang Theory, the GM is depicted as just a guy trying to have fun with his friends for an evening; the conflict comes from one of the players having an issue with some of the subject matter in the game.

In an episode of The IT Crowd(?), the GM is depicted as wise and benevolent, using a positive game experience to resolve two other conflicts in the episode (visiting VIPs needing entertainment, and a coworker finding cathartic release for a personal struggle).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:

Why are Kindle books so expensive!!!

$10 for a digital book when you can often get the paperback for $5 is infuriating.

If each paperback you bought came with the option of spending an extra $5 to acquire enough extradimensional space to carry them all with the same amount of weight/space usage as a single book, would you pay for that?

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was promised a semantics question. I'm still waiting.

1 to 50 of 4,067 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.