|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I question the objectivity of a "science writer" who produces pieces with titles like (I am not making this up) "Scientists examine why men even exist."
Queen Moragan wrote:
I also find it VERY OFFENSIVE of you, MichaelCullen, to even vaguely suggest...
oh noes! And now I say I am VERY OFFENDED by you being offended, and so on...Charlie Hebdo pretty much convinced the world that "I'm offended!" is no longer a viable argument among civilized people.
If you want to convince people, back your argument with logic, not drama.
Choosing height and weight is a symptom of rampant player entitlement. You can't let those special snowflake players choose stuff like that, or they always end up with something totally inappropriate to your campaign world, and will destroy the game that you worked so hard to create for them. Why do they need to run a tall person when tall people obviously do not exist in your setting? Not only is it totally unrealistic, it ruins the storyline you want to run about them being rejected by all the girls because of their lack of height -- this is important because the angstyness of your setting demands it.
And besides, if you let them just CHOOSE stuff like height, you have to allow them to choose everything, like race -- so allowing them to pick height and weight inevitably results in a kitchen sink campaign full of cybernetic half-dragon catgirl space marines. That might be fine for some people, but I refuse to run something like that and I value my setting far too highly to allow it.
So when I have a player who rudely shows up with something like 6'7" written on their character sheet, I calmly but firmly explain that they're free to pick any height between 5'9" and 6'1" (the campaign restriction range), and if they don't like that, they know where the door is.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
What I dont understand is why do 'you' care if some likes to play a rogue? If the group is having fun, how does that effect 'you' who are not even in the group/state/counrty?
What do 'you' care if my little cousin gets traded from his Pee Wee Little League team to your favorite major league baseball team, to pitch in the World Series? If your favorite player is the catcher, he's still catching, so it shouldn't matter at all who's pitching, right?
The fact that it's a team game is exactly why people care that the rogue is presented as being equal to a bard or investigator, but is actually worse at everything.
"...she just kicks ass!"
For real! I mean, look at that stupid "d'Artagnan" character. Got nothing going for him except being a swordsman. What does he do when Dumas the DM gives him a social encounter? He challenges the NPC to a duel. So Dumas tries again, and he does it again. And Dumas tries again and he does it again! Stupid player never got the hint! And to think the campaign went on for like five volumes!
Orfamay Quest wrote:
But... emails! Therefore, your graph is false propaganda, right?
Naw, the article contains "science" and hence is automatically wrong because conspiracy theory.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
I don't like giving out my government name in situations I don't need to give it, but if the name they ask for has to be my government name, I need to know that, so I know which name to give, thanks
"So, you admit to using an alias? I believe you must be a terrorist. Come with us, please."
Second, don't let anyone else tell you how to drink Scotch. If you like it over ice and drowned in Coke, that's fine.
Er, to quibble, I'd say that's fine if you drink it alone and not when other people might smell it. Scotch and Coke?! That's like saying "You want a bite of cooked carrots mashed into chocolate milk?" No one is going to thank you for sharing.
666bender, did you notice that everyone else in the thread is posting in sentences, and that your posts are in bursts of microbytes? It kind of reminds me of my grandmother, who would sometimes sit there and interject Spanish into everyone else's English conversation, just because she knew half of them wouldn't pay attention.
I'm not saying it's wrong, just that your points would reach more people by following their lead.
Go ahead and whine about it being suboptimal. Many people do and will. But opening character concepts up without having to cringe every time you roll a d4 is priceless to those players that want to roleplay over rollplay.
Oooh, good, Stormwind Fallacy, badwrongfun, and condescention, all in one post!
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Going to the opposite silly extreme does not invalidate someone's preference of something somewhere in the middle.
"Squatting in between those on the side of reason and evidence and those worshipping superstition and myth is not a better place. It just means you’re halfway to crazy town." --P.Z. Myers
And when he says 'houstonderek, TOZ, and I' he means 'that TOZ guy showed up to a couple games and had fun'. :)
Modesty -- from YOU of all people? What's the world coming to?
Seriously, though, your insatiable interest in what makes a good game had as much influence on the rules as all of Derek's grognarding. (Also, it should have been, "Houstonderek, TOZ, myself, et al.," because Jess Door's systems mastery and incisive reasoning had a lot of influence, too; and Frank Trollman's various rants during the PF Beta playtesting, some of which finally sank in; and Psychicmachinery pointing out "you've kicked the wizard enough, it's time to ease up on the poor guy!"; and so on.)
When a PC tries to use Acrobatics to move through a threatened space, and the roll succeeds, I would totally rule that the PC actually did a standing high jump instead, because that's also a function of Acrobatics, and it's far more realistic than moving through a threatened area when someone is clearly looking to kill you. So the PC jumps in the air, lands, and takes an axe to the face.
Another thread where half the people say that the DM's job is to run the game according to the rules as fairly as possible, and the other half say that, yeah, that's maybe true to a small extent, but really the DM's primary job is to always make sure those horrible, conniving, entitled players are put in their places.
Raith Shadar wrote:
If you're forcing fewer than 14 encounters a day and/or not providing infinite free healing for fighters, you're obviously a Bad GM(TM)!
Unless you're a dirty minmaxing munchin DPR Schroedinger roll-player, playing a Commoner is just fine. My commoner always contributes to the party. He carries extra supplies from 1st level through 20th level, and he can do it all day long. When there are monsters to kill, he has barbarians and fighters and wizards in the party to do that. When there are other situations to handle, he has casters to deal with those, too. Because it's a TEAM game.
All these threads about "fixing the Commoner" are making me angry, because the Commoner is just fine, and those people are all theorycrafting or else just playing wrong. Their GM should fix whatever "problems" they claim to be experiencing, because I don't see them. And we all know that tinkering with the rules to try and fix them will inevitably bring about 4e.