|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Dire Elf wrote:
I find the first half of an AP to be very open and encouraging of RP. Unfortunately, this fails to continue into the second half. I think high level being an utter PITA to write for doesnt help.
This. Also, not every adventure is an epic save the world endeavor. Often, in a sandbox the adventures are much smaller in scope. The players can see them to conclusions or stop pursuing them as they see fit. I agree that consequences should have impact, however, if you do go with strict mechanical penalties, you may trap the players into every rat-killing McGuffin fetching quest that comes their way. Sounds like being on the rails to me. I tend to side with RP based reactions and leave mechanical penalties for rare occasions when they are really warranted. Its a balancing act not a binary process.
While I agree that a lot of that makes thematic sense, Id be careful not train the players to act a certain way. If they feel like anytime they don't rise to the challenge they will be punished, they will never back down again. Eventually, choices evaporate and you have trained them to accept the railroad. YMMV
I view railroading as a GM taking away choices they ought not to from the players. Often, this is due to an inexperienced GM, but sometimes its just a controlling individual that should be avoided. Railroading is the point a linear or structured adventure becomes too confining to enjoy. On the other hand, the general sandbox can also be too freeform and not provide enough boundaries for a sustainable game. That point in the sand is all over the place amongst gamers and only the individual or group can answer it for themselves.
For me I enjoy running modules and especially adventure paths. I think generally Paizo does a good job of allowing the GM to give their players adequate choices. Just because you have to resolve problems x,y,z doesn't mean you have no ability to choose how to resolve them, or in any particular order either.
Another benefit of the APs is the player's guide to the campaign. The guides give you a theme to base your character building around and an expectation of the type of game you will be playing. I know some folks want to build characters more organically, or even adventure where they feel like, but I find working inside a box can be just as enjoyable as working outside one.
Everything so far above is how I feel about fantasy gaming. When my group switches over to Traveller, a hard Sci-Fi setting, we engage in the opposite behaviors. We make very disparate characters with no link or set expectations whatsoever. The game grows organically and we enjoy the freedom to be proactive in our pursuits. Not sure if it is the system, or the setting, but we just like different lanes for different games. We even meet in the middle of sandbox and linear gaming when we choose Call of Cthulhu.
Ultimately, I don't put myself on either side of the sand because I like both. Miles vary greatly in my experience and there is no right or wrong way to play. Key is to figure out what you like and find a group that is similar.
We never talk about rolling "18s" though we talk about the times that one person had great stats and no one else did. Rolling stats wrecked more games for us then it ever made better or memorable. I understand what you are saying, im just providing another perspective. No insults, no badwrongfun, just a case of one man's feature being another man's bug.
My players reminisce about the time they played a ranger who became a city vigilante. They talk about the time their Bard became Baron of a small wilderness country. They talk about fighting dragons, old ones, and beholders. They never ever talk about their stats. Ever. I guess that explains why PB isnt seen as "cookie cutter" or "unearned" by me and the homies.
I just hope it's more akin to Stand Alone Complex (with a good mix of action and intrigue), and less like the Ghost in the Shell movie (that tended to feel like a freshman philosophy class being taught from Isaac Asimov novels).
Flip that around for me!
Though i'm guessing you will be very pleased when this comes out. Along with the whitewashing i'm predicting a simplification of the writing for a general audience. I think the comparison to the Aeon flux film is about what i'm expecting here. Hope I'm wrong tho!
Fine by me.
2) Set after STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY but before STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION.
3) The show will not involve a starship called Enterprise.
DS9 was my favorite Trek, so I can certainly live with that.
4) The show will be "tightly serialised".
Perfect, I prefer this method.
5) The show will be a "seasonal anthology" series like TRUE DETECTIVE and FARGO. Each season will be set in a different part of the STAR TREK universe and canon, and will be free to use different castmembers (new or old), settings and ideas.
Now this is the best nugget. I see a few folks were like "aw I wanted to see X period of Trek...." and I think eventually you will. Hopefully they can make cohesive interesting seasons over and over again within the format. I think that will be key to the success of this new series. My interest is piqued!
One of the biggest contributors I believe is the same topics coming up over and over. New forumites don't have the conversation history that the veterans do. So often the bad faith arguments are "here we go again" or getting "inb4" the rhetoric begins. Worst case scenario the poster makes bad faith arguments out of spite. A good exercise is to think if you have nothing constructive to contribute its best to not contribute at all.
Let me be the first to apologize for failing often on this. I swear im getting better though!
While I think its good for folks to discuss role playing games and their preferences, I feel talks of where the "pendulum" should be are not particularly helpful. The results of such are generally endless arguments about rightgoodfun, which is only true for the opinion holder and those who share it. The best part of the article was this paragraph;
"Not every game of this sort must be completely balanced with regard to all of these aspects. Such a decision is entirely in the hands of the game master and the players. If a particular group desires to stress acting, or combat, or problem solving, or any other singular feature of the whole, that is strictly up to the individuals concerned. How they enjoy gaming, and what constitutes fun, is theirs alone to decide."
Overall, I think there are some good nuggets in the article. Particularly, the parts that discuss calling out a module/adventure/tournament and what parts of the game it emphasizes to set accurate expectations for players. However, discussing the difference between role play and role assumption is fine, as long as the writer refrains from marking boundaries of good vs. bad. I think GG gets really close to doing just that here.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
+1 The only characters I hate at the table are absolutists. You know the type that must murder on site their favored enemy even to the point of suicidal odds, or the guy playing a "pharasmin follower" so he must destroy all undead immediately despite any assistance or leads say a ghost might provide the party, also the paladin that detects evil 24/7 and kills immediately once ping'd no matter the context. Those folks need not apply at my table.
All fair points. Keep in mind though, I never said ToD was good, just that CS is a stinking POS. I do get a huge smile on my face every time someone mentions the premier being at Cannes film fest for CS :)
I miss the 30's pulpiness and immersive feel of the older films. CS felt like a constant hood wink to the audience. The entire experience was like one of those craptastic MGM/Universal park rides. Speilberg has made a few of these stinkers in his career but nothing on this level. They completely missed the mark on the experience IMO. They could have taken and run with the "I like Ike" theme but ultimately they just put Soviet skins on the old nazi BBEG schtick and rolled with it....ugh. Oh and it doesnt matter who wrote the nuclear blast fridge ride scene it was fu##$g stupid, yeap thats right the gopher too. Also, vines and monkeys? WTF did you have to make me think of CS again for?
Molten Dragon wrote:
It didnt bother me so much in the past, however, since picking up the APs it bothers me greatly. I want to see the story all the way through now! Guess I learned my lesson no APs for my other GMs. Sadly, that means I dont get to play any :(
This. Rulings over rules means you can play fast and loose with skill checks. Some things a proficient player should just be able to do no check required. Some things a non-proficent low attribute score player should simply not be able to do, denied a check.
I get that some folks wont jive with that. Some need the game rules to be able to represent any scenario like a simulation. A rulings over rules player will just give a Hercules PC a belt of giant strength allowing them to be over the Str cap. Or alternatively they will allow that character to exceed the cap because of story reasons. They work around the system when they need to. This doesnt work for some folks who need solid written mechanical representation. In that case, folks might want to stick with a 3.5/PF type game. YMMV
Taking characters from level 1-15 in a narrow but detailed adventure is nearly impossible. Yet again another member from one of my groups wants to hang up the GM towel from burnout half way into an AP. Im not sure if Im a good GM or just damn stubborn enough to plow through one. All I really know is that im tired of APs dying on the vine and not getting finished. :(
y'all game with some lunatics.
I got one for out of game. I threw together a game of half my friends have a guy I recently met. As everyone arrives a few of us crack a beer. One of the guys I dont know says, "wait wait this isnt going to be drunken D&D is it? I dont want to play in that type of game." We tell him that no its a few beers adult type of game. His fears are quieted for the time being.
Well a few hours later he has polished off near a 12 pack and is pretty drunk. One of my friends a female player playing a female character casts charm person. The "oh no drunken D&D" guy starts hollering that she uses her huge breasts to charm. Well she was right creeped out and the game session ended with this guy passed out on the front lawn. Only session we played together and now that lady has sworn off gaming. :(
Hmm I was enthralled with my options early in the game with Eve. Scanning in deep space and hoping not to get caught was a blast. Then doing it in worm holes got even better. The constant threat was so exciting. Eventually, I got better and better and the threat dissipated. I moved on to working in a corp. later on into crafting. At the point of doing excel spreadsheets in my free time I decided to stop Eve and MMOs altogether. Ill always look back fondly though its the only one that held my attention. I ran DDO for a long time but that was due to great friends more than the game.
Back on topic, I still like my Birthright idea. Also, the mentioned killing lowbies doesnt net much reward so the focus is on the big fish. Id give it a whirl if i wasnt in a kick ass BR campaign right now :)
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
On a mostly unrelated note, I always thought Darth Vader getting into his little spaceship to help shoot stuff was silly as hell. Even as a kid. It kind of made him seem a lot less menacing to me.
I had the opposite reaction. When the x-wing pilots are like "hey the batteries stopped firing what gives?" Then vader is like, "watch my back i'll take care of this myself" then proceeds to down fighters like nobodies business. /badass
In the OP there is mention that the media "hates" Trump and I believe the exact opposite is true. The media love to sensationalize and Trump does all the work for them. Seriously, think of any other person you believe the media to focus on negatively for a moment. Most stories require a real stretch to be spun negatively, often taking quotes out of context to do so. Not with Trumpy, they can pretty much print whatever he says and it gets tons of views. The best part is he doubles down on a lot of terrible quotes making the stories all that much more sweeter. Say what you will about Trumpy but the guy is one hell of a circus ringleader.
Why it's bad? A police procedural meets action flick. Television is packed with Jack Reacher-ish programming. Jack Reacher described differently than Tom Cruise in source material. Everyone on the planet hates Tom Cruise.
Why I like it? I am a sucker for detectives, sheriffs, and secret agents. Some of my favorite childhood memories are watching Westerns, James Bond, and Columbo films with my Gran. Jack Reacher had elements of all of these but was down to earth. There were no super powers, impossible stunts, or cheesy effects. Just an interesting mystery and some extraordinary events. Tom Cruise was baller in it to.
Special note#1 I cant stand the mission impossible movies. Super boring and repetitive to me.
Special note#2 I get that in the books Jack Reacher is really a black guy bigger than Micheal Clark Duncan was, and twice as smart as Sherlock Holmes, but I didnt read it; so I dont care.
Why its bad? Incredibly ham fisted acting plus borders on torture porn.
Why I like it? The mystique of both the cube and the characters amnesia is incredibly interesting. Also, wondering what the next death trap rooms contraption will be is tantalizing; Such a guilty pleasure! Sequels are not as good though.
I loved DD and slow burn is not an issue for me.
Actually, I would disagree that a hard drinking private detective with a "screw the world" attitude is genre for noir. Thats like saying any fantasy without a copy of Gandolf isnt genre. Any fantasy or noir can include such aspects, but it doesn't eliminate them if they have say, a successful together insurance investigator, or a magician who isnt old and wise. Mages and detectives are not cliche, just some of the ways they are portrayed are.
I think most of my problem with the show is Jessica herself. I just dont find her sympathetic or appealing. Also, (im sure ill get ridiculed for this) I dont think Ritter is a very good actor. So I guess my problem is more with the character and actor than the setting. I am pleased to hear Killgrave is a big part of the show! However, if Killgrave is defeated or killed it would probably end the show for me, as I have little interest in JJ and her story. I'll probably move this to the bottom of my queue for a showhole day.
Thanks again folks.
I will start by saying I only read about half the thread. Hoping for a few folks to sound off for me about my experience. The GF and I watched the first two episodes and I guess there must be something wrong with me. I thought it was a really boring pile of cliches. I dont read comics so ill admit I didnt know what to expect from JJ. The only thing we found really interesting was Killgrave.
With that said, should I just forget about this show at this point since its clearly not making an impression? Does it get better? Is there enough Killgrave to make continuing worth it? Not looking for spoilers just some advice based on my experience so far.
The Blood of Heroes a.k.a salute to the jugger
why it's bad? Have you ever heard of it? I am guessing you havent. Its not a great budget and its pretty dated.
Why it's good? Well I was into post apocalypse films before post apocalypse films were cool. Its got Rutger Hauer and any film is instantly better with Rutger in it. Also, a young post gomer pile Vincent