|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
And, yes, NSFW movies will be good. They can't be any worse than the supposedly SFW jokes I overhear in some of the labs... I will never look at pickles the same way again...
Along the lines of stuff like Porky's, I also have a soft spot for Screwballs and The Cheerleaders -- they're really dumb T&A movies (the latter more blatantly so than the former), and don't pretend to be anything else.
A few months back I got half-smashed and watched Cold in July, with Don Johnson and Sam Sheppard. The seemingly random, almost jarring genre shifts -- from psychological thriller to buddy comedy to action shoot-'em-up -- are a breath of fresh air for people who think Hollywood movies are too predictable.
In Joe Landsale's book, the genre shifts actually make sense; in the movie, just go with them, they're great.
One of my favorites is Takin' Care of Business, with Jim Belushi and Charles Grodin (and Mako, and a super-hot Loryn Locklim) -- now slightly dated but still immensely fun. Jim is in prison but wins baseball tickets on a radio show, so he decides to break out of prison to see the game, then break back in so they can release him the next day. Somewhere along the way he gets mistaken for a high-powered ad exec. Hilarity ensues.
Comedies are always great for turn-your-brain-off time. I like the classics (Caddyshack, Airplane!, Animal House, Vacation, et al.) and stoner comedies (Grandma's Boy, The Stoned Age, Harold & Kumar, et al.). Some of the really fragmented, inappropriate, and stoopid skit-based ones can be a lot of fun as well (Kentucky Fried Movie, Movie 43).
Me, too. I should mention that I'd have likely been hit, too, except I instinctively took my foot off the gas when the sports car flew past me, so the whole thing took place in front of me instead of on top of me. Moral of the story -- slow down anytime something is happening you either don't understand or can't keep track of the spacial relations of.
With all that said, on a lighter note, I-10 is a pretty nice highway here, with big, convenient 3-lane feeders on either side.
Interstate 10 (I-10) is the southernmost cross-country interstate highway in the American Interstate Highway System. It stretches from the Pacific Ocean at State Route 1 (SR 1) (Pacific Coast Highway) in Santa Monica, California, to I-95 in Jacksonville, Florida. This freeway is part of the originally planned Interstate Highway network that was laid out in 1956, and its last section was completed in 1990. I-10 is the fourth-longest Interstate Highway in the United States, following I-90, I-80, and I-40. About one-third of its length is within the state of Texas, where the freeway spans the state at its widest breadth.
I drive on I-10 in Texas every day. Once saw a guy killed in a horrific accident right in front of me there.
A kid in a sports car going at least 95 mph sideswiped another vehicle, which plowed through the separator and into the toll/HOV lanes, struck the median barrier, rebounded all the way across all 4 lanes, and finally smashed head-on into a minivan that was trying to merge onto the freeway and had nowhere to go to avoid it (the driver's side of the minivan was crushed so badly it became part of the out-of-control car, so I assume no one could have survived that). I'm still trying to un-see that.
Toddler Gersen, being barely 2, usually says stuff like "Want eat that!"
Ironically isn't the republican party suppose to be the party all for keeping it the same and the dems are about change I mean Barack Obama slogan was?
That's exactly why I earlier referred to Clinton as the "conservative" candidate, and Trump as "reactionary." Things have shifted so far right that most Dems are now staunch conservatives, and the Republicans are off the edge of the earth.
This reminds me of the stories of how Redford and Newman used to prank each other.
I liked hearing about how James Garner, who maintained a notoriously well-kept yard, kept finding beer cans all over it in the morning that someone was throwing over the fence. Turns out the culprit was his good friend and new neighbor, Steve McQueen.
I'd probably suggest that's not really a "compromise" -- you're basically telling the person point-blank that they need to play "mother may I" in addition to playing Pathfinder. So I guess that's the problem I'd have: if rules-legal stuff isn't even allowed without me having to pitch an ad campaign to the DM, then I'm better off finding someone a bit less authoritarian. (Please understand that I'm not in any way saying that approach is wrong in general; just that it's wrong for me.)
To re-iterate, it's not wrong for the DM to tell the players, "Talk me into it, and make sure I like all your ideas, or it's not allowed" -- in fact, many players crave that kind of rigid chain-of-command and will leave a table that doesn't provide it. Other players are more prickly about it, and don't care to be told that, regardless of the rules, their imaginary ideas are only OK if they happen to match your imaginary ideas. I'm one of the latter type, and I vastly prefer to DM for the latter type as well.
Amazing conversation at lunch -- and by "amazing" I mean "actually causing amazement," and not in a good way.
Democrat: "How do you vote for someone who's endorsed by Putin, Kim Jong-un, and the KKK?"
The bartender there is very good and makes a "Dirty Sazerac".
The Sazerac is my absolute favorite cocktail, ever since I visited the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans. Unfortunately, outside of NOLA, it's nearly impossible for me to find someone who knows how to make one; when I offer to teach them, they invariably lack one or more of the ingredients.
Right before I left Pittsburgh, I went to my favorite restaurant (the incomparable Joseph Tambellini's) with a kit and told Joe, "Here, I've got all the ingredients, and I promised last time I'd teach you guys." He told the bartender to pay very close attention, and I hope they're now proudly serving Sazerac cocktails.
Revised Chapter 4 wrote:
Active Checks (Jumping):
You can use the Athletics skill to jump across gaps and pits, as well as soften your fall. The base DC is equal to the distance to be crossed (if horizontal) or four times the height to be reached (if vertical), ignoring the small amount of leeway needed for landing in the event of a long jump. These DCs double if you do not have at least 10 feet of space to get a running start. Instead of trying to meet a specific DC, you can instead choose to jump as far as you can (a distance equal to the check results, or a height equal to ¼ the check results). If you jump further (or higher) than you could normally clear by Taking 10, you fall prone at the end of the jump. Modifiers concerning the surface you are jumping from (see Acrobatics) also apply. If you fail the check by 4 or less when jumping across a chasm or similar obstacle, you can attempt another check at the same DC to grab hold of the edge of other side after having missed the jump; even if this save is successful, you end up prone and hanging vertically into the pit/chasm. If you fail by 5 or more, you fail to make the jump and fall (or land prone and possibly take falling damage for a jump over 10 feet in height, in the case of a vertical jump).
Active Checks (Running):
When running, make a DC 20 Athletics check to move five times your normal speed if wearing light or no armor and carrying no more than a medium load; or four times your speed (if wearing medium or heavy armor with a check penalty or carrying a heavy load). If untrained, your maximum running speed is 4x your normal speed. Running is considered maximal exertion (see Endurance skill, below).
A 1st level human Expert (Str 15) with 1 rank in Athletics and Fleet and Skill Focus (Athletics) as feats has an Athletics bonus of +9 and a base speed of 40 ft. On a successful DC 20 check, he can sprint 40 x 5 = 200 ft. per round (6 seconds), or 33.3 ft./second; his time when running the 100 m dash is 9.9 seconds (compare to the current world record of 9.58 seconds). On a natural 20, he can clear 29 feet for the long jump (compare to the current world record of just over 29 feet), or 7.25 feet for the high jump (compare to the Olympic record of 7’10”).
That said, having competed in the long jump (albeit at nowhere near an Olympic level!), I'm intensely aware that your speed on takeoff is far more important that technique, so some adjustment for speed would need to be included. Maybe +5 to the DC per 5 ft. BELOW 40 ft. speed, and -5 to the DC per 10 feet faster than 40 ft. (up to a max of, say, 60 ft.)?
I would point out as evidence of this countless men who killed and died on war fields in the name of imaginary beings.
Which, when you describe it that way, makes it seems very pointless and silly, doesn't it?
Now that we got that laid out let's scale down and bring it back to game level. The "fluff" is not fluff at all. It is the material with which the fabric of Golarion's reality is made.
Wait... you just lost me. People adhering maniacally to imaginary stuff leads them to pointlessly die IRL, so we should encourage and, indeed, enforce it in a game, too?
Hopefully that's not where you were headed. I'll try and develop the courage to read paragraphs 75-116 of your post and see if I'm misunderstanding.
But those who do not creating interesting characters with strong concepts because of their focus too much time and attention in, or perhaps in spite of, the above. Where they create the character they based simply or largely on the most powerful options made available to them.
In 35 years of playing I've somehow never met these people. In fact, the aggregate of my experience suggests that the people who are most into optimizing are the ones who are most into the game as a hobby. As a result, they tend to be much better role-players, too, with the strongest characterizations and best-developed personalities for their PCs.
*sigh* Aggregate polling still has Trump at +3 in Texas, and the state is a traditional conservative stronghold, decade-old talk about rising Hispanic population notwithstanding. Come on, guys, work with me here.
Being a conservative stronghold would benefit Clinton, the conservative candidate. But Trump is a reactionary candidate, and large swaths of Texas are reactionary in politics. To clarify, there is no liberal candidate in this election, except maybe Jill "Moonchild" Stein.
A moment was once precisely 90 seconds. In the Medieval period, each hour was divided into four 15-minute segments known as points, which, in turn, were divided into 10 shorter segments known as moments.
In 1e D&D a "turn" was 10 minutes long. It was subdivided into 1-minute "rounds," which were further subdivided into 6-second "segments."
Freehold DM wrote:
That was actually Joss Whedon in disguise.
Just kidding. Please continue.
It's a shame. Johnson sees pretty much all the same problems I do.
Trump sees a lot of the same problems I do. Unfortunately, his "solution" is to throw a tantrum and make them bigger problems.
Clinton sees some of the problems I do. Unfortunately, her "solution" to the rest is to preserve them at all costs because they've become the status quo.
The 007 game replaced Wisdom and Charisma with Perception and Willpower, respectively. It eliminated an awful lot of ambiguity. I really wish D&D had done the same.
As it is, Wis and Cha are random mish-mashes of stuff that in some cases overlap, and in others have almost nothing to do with one another, in a kind of two-stat soup that no one can sort out.
Well sure. If you're going for a strict sandbox setting, then hell, maybe the PCs don't take the road the farmwife lived on at all and miss this plotline entirely. Oh well.
And why is the villain kidnapping this farmwife? Obviously it advances his plans in some way, which will have repercussions down the road. And maybe the party, right or wrong, thought that investigating some other happening was a priority, and maybe it turns out they interfere with whatever is going on over there. Events will tell if it turns out that they were right.
I might also note that slinging around terms like "strict sandbox" is veering into "rollplay vs roleplay" territory. Guess what? You can have a coherent story and STILL allow the players to make their own decisions!
Or maybe they happen to arrive at exactly the right time and get slaughtered because they were stupid enough to try to interfere in a kidnapping without doing the research to discover the kidnappers were much tougher than they were. Again, oh well.
Adventuring is a dangerous business. Otherwise everyone would do it.
@ Kirth: why is there an intentional trip to the farmhouse?
Knowing my players, their PCs probably want to hit on the farm lass, or get provisions, or both. Or maybe enslave the farmers, for our current evil pirate campaign. Or maybe they're randomly passing by -- but even then, they might arrive before the bandits, or during, or after, depending on their timetable vs. the bandits'.
Or maybe they decide not to even go there, and the whole abduction happens without them knowing about it.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Let me stop you there for a second, because that's absolutely not how I personally would have done it. I'd have a note like "Tuesday, attack on farm at dawn if still on original timetable (adjust if needed). Attack takes 10 minutes, so assume 06:10 ride off with woman."
The day before: "So, are you guys stopping for the night, or do you try and push on to the farmhouse in the dark?"
Same for all your other examples. For example, I use their actual movement speeds, rather than the Speed of Plot. That way, the ranger's ability to keep from veering off-course, and to track at full speed, has actual value instead of just being flavor text. A dwarf or halfling with no pony slows the party to 2/3 normal and might make them too late for some encounters. A night ride, and not being able to rest and re-prep spells, is a calculated risk. Etc. Yeah, you have to track time, but, hey, being an immersive DM involves some work.
This is why preparation GMing [I can't give detailed advice as I'm a zero prep GM, aside from helping the players to level up and-when using published material instead of made up stuff- pre-reading the adventures] works best if you prepare encounters rather than adventures and wing the story aspect creatively.
I'm borderline OCD when it comes to overprepping, and yes, I painstakingly prep encounters and NPCs. I give them motives and assets, then allow the story to proceed -- if the PCs ignore them, their plans advance, if not, they react appropriately and we see what happens.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
If the party then decides to ignore the adventure you brought, now what?
This happens to me a lot. The answer is that I have 2-3 others ready to go, in my back pocket, so to speak. I've got hundreds more in my library, catalogued and easy to insert. So I allow them to go do whatever it is they decided. Usually I find that they come back to the one I'd intended by their own decision once they've finished their side trek; curiosity is a powerful motivator for my groups. But I don't tell them they have to.
As DM, it's my job to run the game world. It's not my job to run their PCs, or make major decisions for them.
As a player, I try to cut the DM some slack, and make it a point to stick with whatever adventure he or she has prepped. But that doesn't make him/her a perfect DM; rather, it makes me a considerate player (or, to an extent, an enabler, if you want to be harsh about it).
Orfamay Quest wrote:
With that said, I don't see anything particularly objectionable about KG's "Hard Work Party," except by omission. One of the key points that distinguish modern Democrats from modern Republicans is the issue of protecting people's rights, particular the rights of vulnerable populations. Would the "Hard Work" party act to prevent states from disenfranchising minority voters? Would it act to make sure that schools in minority districts were fairly funded? Would it act to make sure that local police treated all citizens fairly? If these are among the "hot-button" topics that are left to the local governments to decide, then we've just allowed the racist dog whistles back into the "Hard Work" party.
Ideally, they'd be selling (and basing their platform on) the idea that anyone can succeed through hard work. To make that even remotely convincing, you'd need fairly-funded schools, equal treatment by police, no disenfranchisement of voters (except maybe if they're unemployed? I'm obviously spitballing here.) You could actually sell this even to the borderline racist contingent by explaining that you therefore favor and encourage "hard-working" minorities who "believe in the American way" (as opposed, in their tiny minds, to "thugs"), and of course you'd have no problem selling most of it (except maybe the no welfare votes) to Democrats.
When it came to issues like abortion and gay marriage, they'd fall back on Jesse Ventura's famous, "the supreme court already decided that, so I don't have to comment on it."