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

ShinHakkaider's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 1,207 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


Okay I'm gonna stop right here because you and I seem to be talking past one another. It's entirely possible to have a deep immersive game without mollycoddling the PC's to make sure that they survive an entire campaign.

I hope you aren't taking any of this personal, because I certainly am not. We are talking past each other a bit, but we come from different places and play very differently. As we'll most likely never be in the same game, I really have no problem with you, your play style or anything else.

I'm just continuing conversation from the OP as much as anything else. I fully believe that you can have a game that does NOT Mollycoddle... AND is not an epic Bloodbath of disposable characters. The OP's DM is whacking characters in one surprise round with questionable rules... that doesn't sound like fun to me.

So most of my comments are generalized comments not directly attacking you in any way... but something you said about there not being main characters of the story and what not confused me and I use them as a springboard to my own thoughts and comments.

ShinHakkaider wrote:


The PC's in my games ARENT nameless extras. They have motivations. They have families. They have friends and obligations. Sometimes they succeed and other times they DON'T. And the game and their backgrounds are rich enough that when a PC DOES die it's not hard to figure out how a new PC is going to integrate into the story at present.

But yeah nameless extras? NO.

In Epic bloodbath meatgrinders... I have seen this happen. We did a Tomb of horrors Halloween game where everyone showed up with XX characters... and just fed them in. Some of my characters were more developed then others. However when they lasted thirty minutes real time, their hopes and dreams amounted to nothing.

I've had a character last 14 levels or so... only to die and get replaced by a new character for the last 4-5 game sessions. He didn't have the same kind of experience that I would...

No not taking it personal. Just a little annoyed by a 3rd party taking our exchange out of context. I guess some of that annoyance may have spilled over into my response to you but no worries.

We just have very different playstyles is all.

Epic Bloodbaths arent any fun unless that's what the table is going for. But I've never at any point said that's what I was going for. I think that I very clearly say in my post that there is balance to be had. That I dont think that character death should derail a good game if the players and the GM find a way for it to continue. My main issue is the conceit that if you lose a PC or even a succession of them that continuing to play the campaign is pointless. And I find that attitude to be kind of strange considering all the talk I always hear about the game being a story.

Is it a story where everyone needs to stick to the idea that the same group that starts out HAS to finish the mission or it's a failure?

What's the point of playing an RPG with so much leeway if the thinking on how to progress the story is so restricted? And I'm not a big "story" guy. But it seems to me that if the game is fun enough and rich enough that it should find a way to continue.

But only if people want that. Again, I acknowledge that this is my own preference.

In my own game I've had two players actually give up their PC's as NPC's around level 5 or so because they were unsatisfied with them in play. So they both stayed in the city getting involved with other NPC's and situations around their newly created PC's.

Those same two players each lost the new PC later on and created yet two other PC's tied into the previous party. One of them was basically enlisted by the spirit of the previous character (a druid) to carry on his mission. The new PC was made aware of the stakes and agreed to help. The other player's new PC had ties with the city guard and was seen kind of as an annoyance but since the guard was running low on volunteers the allowed him to help out.

Both of those PC's are still around at 11-12th level. One of the players has decided to go BACK to his retired PC for this one adventure and have her rejoin the group.

The whole thing with my particular group of players feels very organic considering what they're trying to do. Yes, people have lost PC's. In our last session a demi-lich killed 2 PC's and an NPC. The two people who lost their 11th level characters had 2 new PC's ready to go and back stories that would tie them to the location and the missions of the previous two and also leaving the window open to raise at least one of the dead PC's later on. (A complication having to do with the current adventure prevent that from happening right away...)

I think the thing is that we think about what we want to do to make the story and the game work for us. I know our group isnt the norm but it is frustrating to constantly hear that character deaths basically ruin campaigns and games when the game itself is SO MALLEABLE and flexible and really is only limited by the prowess and imagination of the people playing the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:

And that's one of the reasons I find slavish devotion to die rolls, when the DM can employ his authority to judiciously fudge them, tremendously silly. Random chance does, on occasion, ruin things. Sometimes the guy/gal in charge can fix that with a tweak.

In my opinion, it's irresponsible in that case not to do it.

Here's the thing I will cop to very, VERY rarely fudging dice as a DM. Everytime that I've done it it's been to benefit my players. When I say VERY rarely? I mean MAYBE twice in 5 years of game play. And one of those times wasnt even a fudge, I didn't have a piece of information right in front of me (I had it on a post-it and couldn't find it!) so I went with the option that would have benefited the PC's as opposed to the opponent.

I usually house rule in a buttload of buffers to give the PC's the best chance of survival in my games. But usually once actual play starts? The dice fall where they may.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

I LITERALLY said if you're reading a book or watching a movie you are a passive participant just along for the ride.

I said that to enforce the point that that's NOT what a roleplaying game is. Two different types of media/consumables.

/Shrug

I don't see them as THAT strict of a line. There are a lot of novels written in continuity with a game world, Some are written about actually games that have been played and some authors are also DMs on the weekend... The Adventure Paths are written with a beginning/middle/end and yet it's the characters that make the decisions. The video games have set stories too...

I think it's absolutely awesome to finish a campaign and then look back at the story the players and the DM wrote together. Which is key. You're not just passively watching a story... you're also WRITING it...

To see the connections and relationships the characters had with each other. To see the vendettas that were formed with the BBEG. Some of our campaigns have been Novel/movie worthy epics...

That gets lost sometimes (not Always... and not for everyone) when there is a rotating band of strangers picking up the torch and trying to figure out the quest.

I got into roleplaying by watching movies, reading novels, Reading Comics... and then seeing a game where I could BE the main character. Go through adventures like that and make the decisions on what to do.

So yeah, the cinematic adventure is what I enjoy. I like being the hero, not just nameless extra who cleared out dungeon room K-3... and died before finding K-4... but his replacement was found wandering K-5 for completely unrelated reasons and choses to join the party...

Different playstyles.

Okay I'm gonna stop right here because you and I seem to be talking past one another. It's entirely possible to have a deep immersive game without mollycoddling the PC's to make sure that they survive an entire campaign. The PC's in my games ARENT nameless extras. They have motivations. They have families. They have friends and obligations. Sometimes they succeed and other times they DON'T. And the game and their backgrounds are rich enough that when a PC DOES die it's not hard to figure out how a new PC is going to integrate into the story at present.

But yeah nameless extras? NO.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

You did, but then you talked about wanting the game to not be like that, in the context of not caring about high levels of PC death.

Why complain about things not related to the point phantom1592 was making? Especially without making it clear you weren't talking about the same thing.

???

Wait...let me see if I've got this straight.

I say this:

"The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going."

Wherein I'm clearly using the identifiers PC, CAMPAIGN and PC and CAMPAIGN and STORY clearly in reference to a GAME and NOT a movie or a book.

He says:

"I'm not really sure what you mean by Alien and Lacks Verisimilitude? MOST of the stories I've read and movies I've watched have central group of characters from the beginning to the end. There may be a change of one or two.. but the 'core' remains. I'm sure they're out there, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any story I know where the whole cast is gone by chapter six and a whole new group is carrying the torch.

Maybe Game of Thrones..."

Wherein he's clearly referencing different media, THAT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT.
I know that I'm not talking about those different media because in the initial thing that I wrote i said THIS:

"and that doesn't mean artificially keeping the characters alive like in books or stories."

So when you say something like:

"Why complain about things not related to the point phantom1592 was making? Especially without making it clear you weren't talking about the same thing."

It makes me wonder if YOU were actually reading what was being written and what was said or maybe YOU didnt understand what was being said.

When you say:

"You did, but then you talked about wanting the game to not be like that, in the context of not caring about high levels of PC death."

it kind of makes me wonder. Again especially when I wrote my initial post:

"PC death is a thing my game. I don't celebrate the deaths but failed saves are failed saves. Crazy Crit damage (we don't confirm natural 20's in our game) is crazy crit damage. It happens. But for every character death these players and their PC's have pulled out some EPIC win's against their foes."

So to sum up:

Phantom1592 responds to my post addressing something that I was saying using a completely different frame of reference.

I respond to him actually CLARIFYING what I was saying and reinforcing my point.

You respond to me disagreeing (which I have NO PROBLEM WITH) and also clearly misquoting me OUT OF CONTEXT (Which I do have a HUGE problem with).

I correct you.

You say that why am I complainig about things not related to the point that Phantom115 was making?

WTF?!?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going.

I'm not really sure what you mean by Alien and Lacks Verisimilitude? MOST of the stories I've read and movies I've watched have central group of characters from the beginning to the end. There may be a change of one or two.. but the 'core' remains. I'm sure they're out there, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any story I know where the whole cast is gone by chapter six and a whole new group is carrying the torch.

And that's kind of my point.

I'm playing a game, not reading a book or watching a movie. Both of those media have predetermined outcomes. The author or authors have already decided whats what and as a passive participant youre just along for the ride.

There's no way that I want any game that I run or play in to be like that. Nor do I want to play with players who want that type of game. For me it kind of defeats the point of playing a game.

I find it interesting that there often seems to be this correlation of low death rates with some kind of "passive participant youre just along for the ride".

There are plenty of ways for players to not be passive and drive the game off in unexpected directions without a high death toll. In fact, you can run an awfully railroaded game, killing off PCs left and right. The story and ending are known from the start, the only question is whether it's PC 1 or 5 that'll be there at the end.
Or you can have a game where no one dies, or only a few, but the actions they took and the decisions they made drove the game...

thejeff Please read what I actually wrote.

I LITERALLY said if you're reading a book or watching a movie you are a passive participant just along for the ride.

I said that to enforce the point that that's NOT what a roleplaying game is. Two different types of media/consumables.

I mean, you guys do get that I was citing what I like in a game right? I'm not saying everyone's game should be like mine or that I want a slaughterfest of a game. I was addressing the fact that there are more than a few people in this thread who seem to like a low fatality game and the idea that fatalities end campaigns. I'm of the mind that they dont have to and if they do that it's the players who make that decision NOT the GM or the campaign. Which dovetails into the idea that the entire game is pretty much focuses around not only PC's but those SPECIFIC PC's. And if those PC's aren't around then the game is over.

It's as if there's no way (depending on what's going on) another group of heroes can't pick up where the old PC's left off. OR the remaining PC's have to find new heroes to help them complete the quest. OR if the heroes were part of an organization that organization wouldn't gather more people to help complete the mission. I mean I'm pretty sure that there are a more than a few stories or movies that start with someone gathering a new group of heroes to complete a failed or stalled mission. But that option isn't available or feasible to players because they're stuck on their specific PC having to complete the mission from start to end?

Nah.

Again, I'm not interested in that style of play. It works for some people but for me? I find that way of thinking kind of alien and counterproductive to the experience I'm looking for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going.

I'm not really sure what you mean by Alien and Lacks Verisimilitude? MOST of the stories I've read and movies I've watched have central group of characters from the beginning to the end. There may be a change of one or two.. but the 'core' remains. I'm sure they're out there, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any story I know where the whole cast is gone by chapter six and a whole new group is carrying the torch.

And that's kind of my point.

I'm playing a game, not reading a book or watching a movie. Both of those media have predetermined outcomes. The author or authors have already decided whats what and as a passive participant you're just along for the ride.

There's no way that I want any game that I run or play in to be like that. Nor do I want to play with players who want that type of game. For me it kind of defeats the point of playing a game.

And if the players cant tie new characters into the present story line after losing PC's that has to do with the lack of imagination concerning the players, not the story or the game.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the world revolving around the PC's. I prefer that the PC's exist in the world. They may be the big damn heroes but they're involved in dangerous work. Work that by all accounts SHOULD have a high mortality rate depending on what they're facing. That's what I mean about verisimilitude.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm of the mind that character death does not mean the end of the campaign. Even a TPK doesnt mean the end of the story.

I was inspired as a GM, over 12 years ago, by a story hour that I read on Enworld. (Contact's) Temple of Elemental Evil 2. It was originally played using tidbits of the then new at the time 3.0 rules gleaned from Dragon Magazine.

I thought that reading some gaming group's story was going to be the driest and most boring thing in the world. It wasnt. It was really fun and entertaining.

But the thing that caught my attention the most were the character deaths. The character deaths never derailed the campaign. People simply made new characters and integrated them into the group. The players/GM found creative ways to keep the game and the central conceit of the campaign going (with from what I can tell little to no ego in regards to the loss of their respective PC's).

The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going.

and that doesnt mean artificially keeping the characters alive like in books or stories.

I think that a roleplaying game should comprise of elements of BOTH. And I think that a balance can be struck. Hell, I've been running my Curse of the Crimson Throne game off and on for the better part of 5 years now (My group can only get together intermittently) and the PC turn over has been high but not outrageous. My house rules include Hero Points and inflated HP and then averaged Hit Points. And each of my players (5 of them) have lost at least one PC. One of my players lost his starting PC at level 8 or 9 ascending Kaer Maga and was promptly reincarnated by another PC Druid as a Dwarf. That player recently lost that character again in Scarwall at level 11.

PC death is a thing my game. I don't celebrate the deaths but failed saves are failed saves. Crazy Crit damage (we don't confirm natural 20's in our game) is crazy crit damage. It happens. But for every character death these players and their PC's have pulled out some EPIC win's against their foes.

All I'm saying is that there's a balance to be had. And I let my players know from the outset that character death will be a thing. Role play the hell out of your PC, but be prepared to role play the hell out of a different one should the time come. Like I said roleplaying game. I find the idea of roleplaying being a waste of energy "if the character is just going to die" a huge cop out. I'm a GM. Alot of the characters and creatures that I roleplay wind up meeting their fates at the end of a PC's blade or spell.

Hasnt slowed me down.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Soilent wrote:

I'm currently GMing a ROTRL campaign in which the party is level 2, has just received a letter regarding an early PC kidnapping, and two of them are insisting on going off to hunt the Sandpoint Devil, which is a CR 8 encounter with save-or-die abilities.

They really want to go hunt this creature, but I don't want to drop a TPK on them, in their 4th session.

There's a level of mystery and intensity with creatures like the Sandpoint Devil, and I won't nerf him, out of principle.

What should I do here?

Drop in game hints that a fight with the Sandpoint Devil may be too tough for them.

If the hints dont work then just flat out warn them that the Sandpoint Devil will likely kill their PC's at this level but give them no more info than that.

If they still insist? Let the dice fall where they may. If their characters die and they get upset about it?

FIND NEW PLAYERS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:

At our table the heartless fates tumble in open view across the table, feasting on the tears of lesser men.

Cheating of any kind is not allowed and this starts with the GM. The closest I've ever seen to player cheating at our table (in recent years) are players who roll attacks or skill checks before being promoted or before I as GM have given approval. These are most often honest mistakes of eagerness on the players part. In such cases I just ask that they re-roll in the open for all to see.

We are all grown ups and this arrangement has never been an issue.

I'll often roll attacks and damage while the person before me in initiative is still doing his turn (I'm not sure what "being promoted" means in this context). It's not cheating, it's speeding up the game. I have my numbers ready to go when he turns to me.

Only when I don't expect my actions to change based on the PC before me , of course.

Yeah if we're all rolling in the open and still adjudicating one players actions the next player doing his/her roles during the previous players turn would be a big problem for me and would be heartily discouraged.

I'm focused on that player and what they're doing and shouldn't have to split my attention from them to monitor another player rolling because they didn't want to wait their turn. I know it looks like it's speeding up play. But if we're rolling in the open and I didnt see the actual die roll? Then I'm just gonna make them roll over anyway. If another player saw the rolls and vouches for the player I let the roll stand but ask them to wait until their turn next time.

That may be just me though...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've seen the original POLTERGEIST well over 20 times since I saw it in the theaters as a kid. About the only thing in the film that still rattles me a little bit is that DAMN CLOWN. No matter how many times I've seen that scene and I pretty much know the EXACT BEAT of the reveal? Still gives me the shivers...

I think some horror is more effective when youre an adult than when youre a kid. Especially anything that puts children in danger. The Exorcist is a movie that I loved as a kid but has completely different meaning watching it after youre a parent. It terrifies you for completely different reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I know one thing for certain whatever D&D movie that they decide to make shouldn't be based on the desires of the fanbase. Definitely not a fanbase as fractured, nitpicky and contrary as D&D fandom.

Let someone come up with a decently paced, action filled adventure with relatable characters. Find decent actors and a director who is going to treat the material with respect and not a too cool for school attitude ("Whaddya want? it's D&D. how serious do you expect people to take it...") a decent effects budget and you'll have a decent film.

Slap a D&D logo on it and you're done. Do we really need anything else to tie to the brand other than say the actual brand? No not really. The only people who are going to be bothered and upset by that are the fanboys and since theyre a fickle fraction of the movie going market they dont matter all that much.

A GOOD movie with the Brand on it WILL be a D&D movie.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As someone who is pretty familiar with the original movie and someone who doenst autohate remakes and sequels, I didnt care for this particular remake.

While I'll pretty much watch Sam Rockwell in anything this remake was definitely lacking in intensity and scares. It felt like a weak grade school production of a Broadway show.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Because that's that they feel that women want.

I think there's a bit of chauvinism therein, too. A woman's story, many still feel, on some level should be smaller in scope than a man's.

I mean, "How could Wonder Woman have a story bigger than Superman? He's Superman! She's just Wonder Woman."

While that's a complete crock, in my opinion, I think the sentiment, whether conscious or not, is still out there.

We're agreed on that point. Wonder Woman is part of DC's Trinity of super-heroes (or at least she WAS when I was reading DC years ago...). Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

Superman gets a huge sprawling movie (Man of Steel), Batman gets not a HUGE movie but then his scope and stakes are different (Batman Begins). Still Batman Begins wasnt a small movie. Diana is a DEMI-GOD with super strength, flight and a warriors mentality and the skills to back it up. She's also capable of great compassion and unerringly loyal to people she calls her friends. She SHOULD have an epic film of some sort.

The problem is we really don't have a worthy successor to Lynda Carter, who set the defining benchmark on playing the Amazing Amazon.

Yeah whereas I dont think that's the problem at all. The Wonder Woman TV show is not one I remember fondly, if at all. Just like the Hulk it was a show with all the limitations of it's time including crappy special effects and really bad writing.

There are probably more than a few actresses out there who can portray Diana today. As much as Lynda Carter was the definitive Diana she's really the ONLY widely remembered live action Diana. I'm eager to see someone else take up the mantle frankly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Because that's that they feel that women want.

I think there's a bit of chauvinism therein, too. A woman's story, many still feel, on some level should be smaller in scope than a man's.

I mean, "How could Wonder Woman have a story bigger than Superman? He's Superman! She's just Wonder Woman."

While that's a complete crock, in my opinion, I think the sentiment, whether conscious or not, is still out there.

The most recent Superman movies have been "epic scale action films", yes.

Know what else they had in common? They both sucked.

LOLZ.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Because that's that they feel that women want.

I think there's a bit of chauvinism therein, too. A woman's story, many still feel, on some level should be smaller in scope than a man's.

I mean, "How could Wonder Woman have a story bigger than Superman? He's Superman! She's just Wonder Woman."

While that's a complete crock, in my opinion, I think the sentiment, whether conscious or not, is still out there.

We're agreed on that point. Wonder Woman is part of DC's Trinity of super-heroes (or at least she WAS when I was reading DC years ago...). Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

Superman gets a huge sprawling movie (Man of Steel), Batman gets not a HUGE movie but then his scope and stakes are different (Batman Begins). Still Batman Begins wasnt a small movie. Diana is a DEMI-GOD with super strength, flight and a warriors mentality and the skills to back it up. She's also capable of great compassion and unerringly loyal to people she calls her friends. She SHOULD have an epic film of some sort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The very notion that people feel that character driven may be incompatible with epic scale action kinda baffles me a little bit.

BRAVEHEART is remembered for it's battle scenes and action but in a movie that ran 3 hours long? Comparatively a small amount of it was action and battle. MOST of it was dialogue and character focused.

If we go back even further:

William Wyler's BEN HUR was much the same. yes full of spectacle but at it's core it was how a man's need for revenge against a man who wronged him almost hollows him out and the realization of what revenge does to you when it's all consuming.

David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA as well as THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI were films of epic scale that were were character driven as well. BRIDGE was a pretty much the definition of a battle of the will to survive vs. doing your duty.

I think alot of the talk of having a character driven film is a misplaced too cool for school approach combined with an ignorance of what film in the hands of a capable director can do. In the end "character driven" doesn't mean "better quality film". There are crap loads of character driven indie GARBAGE that came out during the 90's during the indie boom. I know, I saw a lot of them.

"Epic Braveheart level action" doesn't mean hollow, empty action either. Mel Gibsons APOCALYPTO is a movie that was shot entirely in another language and is one of the BEST action/chase films that I've ever seen in my life. You do get invested in the characters in that film (if you have any sort of empathy that is) and that's because both the characters and the actions that they take drive the film.

I think that Wonder Woman deserves an "EPIC level action" film and the reduction to a 'character driven" approach is a cop out in an attempt to appeal to what they think women will want to see. I just saw a movie, TWICE, where a woman was the co-lead (and arguably the lead) and with MAYBE 30 min worth of dialogue in the whole film it was pretty darn character driven. MAD MAX: FURY ROAD and specifically Charlize Theron's performance might is pretty good template for what a epic scale action movie with a female lead could be.

But instead we're probbaly going to get something smaller and toned down.
Because that's that they feel that women want.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You see I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum where I thought that cameos would have damaged the movie for me. To me this needed to stand on it's own and be it's own thing. Yes Toecutter from Mad Max is in it but he's barely recognizable on the screen and not as recognizable as Bruce Spence or Mel Gibson or Virginia Hey.

The Evil Dead (2013) actually LOST points for me with that little BS Bruce Campbell cameo after the closing credits. I get it nostolgia. But If I wanted to see those actors in their prime in the movies that I love them in? I'll just watch those movies.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Honestly I disagree on the creatures thing Dale. Speaking as both a GM and a player and an a game designer I HATE the way other editions of D&D have isolated monsters from characters. It's the same world, it should run on the same rules in my view.

Philosophically, I completely agree with you. I totally agreed with you before before I was a game designer. Then I started designing monsters and I realized how it can be a serious problem.

Take Intelligence for example. This is probably the least used ability score of any monster. When I design a monster, typically it is the last one to get assigned and it is assigned by "how many skills should this monster have?" If it is a leaping, acrobatic animal, it quickly be out of the Int 1 or 2 range. Either case leaves us with 1 skill point/HD. Acrobatics, Climb, Perception, Survival, Swim. If you split the skill points 5 ways, the skills are useless. If you split it between 2 skills, you're at half what it should have, but it is still workable. Sure you can make up what it should have with racial bonuses, but, at what point are you really just ignoring the whole skill point system and assigning skill point whily-nily because it fits the flavor of the monster?

Its the same with the other ability scores, only worse, since they have interactions with hit points, saves, attacks, special ability DCs. All of these have target numbers and when you change 1, it usually has unintended consequences. So if you are increasing the Con score because the hp and Fort saves is too low, you also increase the special ability DC to much higher than it should be. Sure you could have used a feat to fix them, but you spent all your feats and assigned a bonus feat already to let it have the kind of attack you wanted it to have.

Monster creation, when it has to stick to the same rules as character generation, breaks down alot earlier than high level play does.

I agree with you for the most part. But my thing is that I'd rather have the solid structure in place so that I can use it as a baseline but ignore what I need to than to have it be built on too loose of a framework with very little in the way of structure.

I'm not trying to argue the point because again what you said is valid. I just prefer the way it is now. Over say AD&D and 2nd ED.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drejk wrote:
Is it closer to the very grim and gritty Mad Max 1 & 2, or the less grim and more... Adventurous wouldn't be the right word... Cinematic maybe, Beyond The Thunderdome?

Definitely closer to The Road Warrior than to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Is it super gory? No. But there are DEFINITELY a few wince worthy moments in this movie (I'm thinking of two in particular...)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

From what I've heard, the only CGI is the lightning storm (seen in the trailers) and some CGI/compositing for [REDACTED]'s arm.

Jalopnik: "How The Man Behind The Machines Of Mad Max Put A Hellscape On Wheels" (possible spoilers)
Youtube: "The Apocalyptic Cars of Mad Max: Fury Road"

There's also the CGI removal of wires for some of the stunt work especially the wires on the principles like Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A few issues ago (I'm at work so I don't have them in front of me right now...) Odinson comprised a list of possible women that he knew COULD be the new THOR. He eliminated *BLANK* from the list BECAUSE of her illness.

It's all right there in the book.

This is why I have issues with people who are not reading the actual source material spreading what they "hear" as opposed to actually reading what was written.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
baron arem heshvaun wrote:

Season Finale

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

HOLY FUKKK!

Will buy more Disney stock in the morning.

Yeah I mean what the hell?!? That was a GREAT Season Finale.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Llyr the Scoundrel wrote:
Transylvanian Tadpole wrote:
If we're wandering off-topic to include "movies with swords in them", anyone on these boards who's never seen old Musketeers films starring Michael York and Ollie Reed must immediately seek to rectify this shortcoming in their lives. Fantastically choreographed swashbuckling duels, a brilliant undercurrent of Pythonesque humour (plus Spike Milligan!) and a few surprisingly dark moments.
ABSOLUTELY. 'The Three Musketeers' & 'The Four Musketeers' were movies without compare in the swashbuckler genre. And what a cast! Michael York, Oliver Reed (such an underrated actor!), Richard Chamberlain, Christopher Lee, Raquel Welch, Faye Dunaway, and Charlton Heston... I'd go so far as to say these two movies were to the swashbuckler genre that the 'Avengers' are to the comic book hero genre. Great call!

*Blinks*

Has no one here seen SCARAMOUCHE? I mean I love the Salkind MUSKETEER movies as well but for my money the best sword fights / duels come at the end of ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD and SCARAMOUCHE with SCARAMOUCHE taking the lead by a country mile.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lorathorn wrote:

I know it shall elicit groans, but the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland is good, and has an excellent depiction of a Jabberwocky, though the scene was somewhat anticlimactic for my specific tastes.

I recognize Reign of Fire as a cheesy movie, but I also enjoyed it well enough for what it was.

I'd also be remiss to mention Princess Mononoke, though I'm not sure how that fits vis r vis underrated films.

John Carter was another certainly underrated movie in my book, though I'm prepared to weather the scorn that comes with that statement.

No scorn from me here. I liked John Carter and think that it was improperly maligned. Then again I loved SPEED RACER at first sight and STILL DO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hayato Ken wrote:
Wiggz wrote:

Well, the good news is that you've been getting one. A new edition that is. Its called 'Unchained' (among other things) and its being enforced via PFS, a.k.a. Paizo's canary in the coal mine.

That is complete nonsense and actually purposefully creating wrong statements. Did you even bother to look into the subject?

Doesn´t seem so.

Language clean ups, getting rid or clearing up of rules artefacts etc and simplification are most important in my eyes.
And there is a reason for that:
Old gamers are already here, but the game needs to be open and easier to understand for people who did not play previous editions.
It needs to be easier to learn and understand.
And this can be done by changing the write up of the CRB, so its easier to access.
All the environmental rules etc. A side effect is that it would get easier for new GM´s.
Strategy guide is a very good beginning there.

And something that would stress out the cooperative teamplay aspect a bit more.

Pretty much agree with everything written here. A clean up and compilation like what was done between HERO 4th and HERO 5th would be great. If you had HERO 4th books (which I did/do and ALOT OF THEM) you could STILL use them, mechanically. with a little tweaking with HERO 5th rules.

I like what Paizo has done with both the Beginner Box and the Strategy Guide and if they could put something like that together for a cleaned up 2nd edition? I'd buy that.

But pretty much a new base game with new mechanics as part of the base game and not as options? NOPE.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JonGarrett wrote:

I loved the old Mad Max movie, and Fallout which was pretty obviously spawned from it, so I'm interested in this. Even more so since Mel's not part of it. It looks more over the top and action orientated, but I'm OK with that.

My only concern is the trailers and what I know of the plot suggesting a repeat of the rape scene from Road Warrior, possibly more than once, and I'm not huge fan of that bit.

Again, I don't know where people are getting this impression from as this movie is probably one of the most pro-women / feminist action movies that I've EVER seen. There are no on-screen rapes and the women as depicted in the movie are WOMEN. Not "Strong female character" archetypes but WOMEN who have something they are trying to accomplish and do so while retaining their compassion and humanity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:

Some of the previews make it look like an apocalyptic version of "Batman and Robin" - the one with Arnie as Mr Freeze... Or perhaps something out of Boarderlands 2. Not a high standard for two of my favorite movies of all time.

I don't know, I thought what made Mad Max and the Road Warrior great was the grittiness. There was a certain plausibility to both movies that made them more then typical action movie stuff. Seeing the new trailers I worry that all that grittiness has been replaced by a Fast-and-Furious level of physics defying computer effect silliness. I just want to see crazy Australian stuntmen risking their lives, not a bunch of video game cut scenes.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's computer effect silliness from. There is ONE sequence that they clearly used CGI to generate an environmental effect but everything else is practical stunt-work.

GLORIOUS practical stunt-work.

When you see a car collision or an explosion? It's an actual collision or explosion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

Sneak preview at the Alamo.

Two words to describe the film: HOLY F*$K!!!!!

We are allowed to answer questions/say anything else on Tuesday 12th May.

<evil grin>

I just got back home from that same screening and I agree with you.

HOLY F**K INDEED.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:

Uwe Boll, Brett Ratner and Paul Anderson all make movies about franchises and subjects I like. Unfortunately, I don't like their movies.

I avoid watching movies those people direct. I am always disappointed in their version. The disappointment is made worse by the fact that I care about the subject matter their movies cover before I even see the film.

I don't scream my disappointment across the internet in every thread and board I come across that deals with any of their movies. That would be stupid. I just don't watch their movies anymore.

I find that this is what most people do when they discover they don't like something. It baffles me why Joss Whedon has this bizarre faction of people who are like anti-fans, who are just as much (if not more) engaged in his work than people who actually like him. I can't think of any other director who has that problem.

Its really weird.

Weird isn't the word that I'd use. I'd be a little less...polite.

But Whedon isnt the only director with that anti-fandom thing going on. Spielberg, Nolan and even Ridley Scott all have their anti-fans. The reason that Whedon is more known for his anti-fans is because he's had several TV shows out there for people to rabidly love\hate. Buffy was 7 seasons (basically 6-7 years) Angel was 5 seasons (4-5 years) Dollhouse 2 seasons (2 years?) Firefly 1 (1 year) and now Agents of Shield (which really isnt a Joss Whedon show, it's a Marvel show).

A director may have a movie out every two or three years or so then he/she is in and out, but that long form storytelling and the repeat / rehashing of certain tropes tends to build the kind of love/hate you see with fandom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really try to judge a movie on my enjoyment of the subject matter and the consistency and sometimes lack thereof of the world.

There are certain creators who's work I know that I don't like and so therefore I don't support their stuff. I think that knowing I dont like certain creators and yet reading / seeing their work knowing that I dont like them and complaining about it afterwards is in really bad form. So I simply dont do it.

I have my issues with Whedon but not enough where it just stops me from enjoying his output. I enjoyed Serenity and The Avengers. I had my issues with AGE OF ULTRON but it turns out the issues that I had with it? Whedon did as well.

So I really did enjoy AGE OF ULTRON although I think that I'll enjoy a lot of the action better on a small screen so that I'll be able to follow it better. The humor was the best part for me. Between Tony's commentary during the Hulk vs. Veronica battle ("I'm Sorry"), Thor ("Fortunately I am MIGHTY...") and Hawkeye ("...No one would know...") I was pretty much chuckling all through the movie.

A good mix of action, solid character bits, a good dose of humor? I'm good. It's my 3rd favorite of the Marvel Studio films with WINTER SOLIDER being no. 1 and THE AVENGERS being no. 2 but that's not a bad standing at all.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This conversation reminds me of a time here at my job where a male programmer went on and on explaining the intricacies of a few blocks of code to one of our other programmers who happened to be a woman.

The funny thing is that SHE WROTE those blocks of code and pretty much almost everything he was going on about was wrong. She's had a very different motivation and mandate for doing what she did that he presumed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

I think it would be naive to assume Ultron is gone.

Ultron had a ton of copies of himself. He could have stashed a bunch of them anywhere before the big showdown at the end of the movie.

I'm hoping that both Ultron and Arnim Zola show up again at some point. It shouldn't be that easy to destroy an AI that has internet access.

I agree with you about the Zola thing but in A:AOU the first thing that Vision did upon his initial confrontation with Ultron was cut off an escape route through the internet. So unless Ultron already had parts of himself nested out there somewhere (which is entirely possible...) he was trapped in those Ultron bodies at that location.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
"...Sorry?"

That was the part that had me laughing the hardest. Just the expression on the Hulk's face and then the cut to Tony's face from inside the armor then the beat before "...I'm sorry."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Ultron's blasts are concussive. They always have been, even in the comic books.

Game stats say "Concussion Blasters mounted in the hands capable of inflicting up to Monstrous Force damage at a 4 area range."

So that's 75 points of damage the range of more than 4 basketball courts.

A normal human has a health of 22, so 75 points would flatten him.

Captain America has a listed health of 150.

So those two blasts that he took that fight should have got him too... which system are you referencing here, by the way?

the FASERIP system of course.

Worlds greatest superhero roleplaying game system.

Suck it champions!

And now I know for a fact that you and I are MORTAL ENEMIES.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Glad I moved back to Florida.
You win the prize for creating a sentence never thought or uttered by another human being before you. Congrats!

Heh.

Seriously though, Florida may have a bad rap because of all the weird s*#$ that goes down, but the state's not a bad place to live at all.

Just like anywhere you have to filter out a lot of people you don't want to meet, but it's a nice place to call home.

Plus, we don't have as much of an alligator problem any more. Those new pythons are eating them all!

Wait...Pythons?!? How is that better?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
No, not really. Why?

I know I do.

As long as there are good cops protecting bad ones, nothing is going to change.

I've been saying this for years.

But as of late I've given up on the notion of (and up unitl recently it was a notion I held on to for a looooooong time) "good cops."

If the entire black community can be blamed for the actions of a few? Then I think, especially since the police hold the greater burden and responsibility due to their position, the same can be said of the police. As long as they stand silent and watch their brethren break the law and murder unarmed civilians they're pretty much ALL suspect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Re: The Skye Gun-Fu fight scene.

While I liked it It was nothing new or spectacuar at all. Really. Watch the club sequence in last years underrated JOHN WICK to see where they possibly took the inspiration from.

Start at about 3:11 up until 4:52


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

Shin,

The Major is the only member of Section 9 with a fully prosthetic body. Batuo and Borma have heavily augmented bodies with military grade parts. Ishikawa, Paz, and Saito are minimally augmented with police grade and civilian (although top of the line civilian) components. Togusa is, of course, unaugmented.

The Majors body is a mass produced civilian body chosen to be nondescript and forgettable and then heavily modified with military grade components and illegal civilian modifications.

That's right. the only detail that I remembered from watching the series was that of all of them Togusa still had his human body and was asked more than once by the Major and I think Batuo when he was going to take the leap and augment. I really liked Togusa and the fact that he's a pretty sharp detective, family man and fully human but can be capable enough to work with the rest of his teammates in Section 9.

God I really need to watch these series again...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

People complaining about her acting are only focusing on her recent roles I wonder? Because she's been around a while now and while not one of those actresses who disappear into the role (there are very few of those around these days though) she's fairly competent.

Ghost World, Lost in Translation, Match Point, Don Jon are all pretty solid performances by her. The girl CAN act.

All that being said while I'm not a fan of the GITS movies I think that Stand Alone Complex and Stand Alone Complex 2nd Gig are AMAZING shows. And if they strongly establish the concept of trans-humanism in the script for the movie and that the "Scarlett Johansson" body is just another shell that her ghost occupies? Then I could buy it. But if I remember correctly from the show (which I haven't watched in a while) wasn't her body as well as Batou and the rest a different grade than the standard civilian shell? More specialized and expensive? If that's the case then I wish that they'd chosen an actress closer to what Major Kusanagi looks like in the show, manga and movies. Japan, even Japan in the far future is still a fairly homogeneous place unlike America or parts of Europe.

Even with that being said if the movie turns out being good I dont care as long as it's a good movie. I mean I liked Man of Steel and Henry Cavil LOOKS alot like Kal-El but the Superman in that movie wasnt the Superman that I grew up reading in my teen years (Tail end of Pre-Crisis - Post Crisis John Byrne Superman). Still was able to enjoy that movie on a different level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wouldnt oppose a mostly compatible PF 2.0 per se. I just wouldn't support it with my money. I'd just keep playing with the MASSIVE amount of PF resources that I already have. AP's 1 - 91, all of the RPG Hardcovers, 3rd party Support (Deep Magic, Ultimate Psionics, Rappan Athuk, Slumbering Tsar, Advanced Bestiary and that's not even including the 3.5 stuff that I have)

If the more people want a PF 2.0? Let 'em have it. I dont want it and I dont think that if youre playing a home game that there's anything that wrong with the PFRPG that cant be fixed at the table between civilized and rational human beings. People that just want to argue about rules just to argue or to be right or whatever aren't people I'm interested in playing with.

Discussing rules and why they dont make sense and putting heads together to fix the rules for that group is encouraged and is normal, productive behavior. I'd prefer to spend energy doing that and playing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
I am reluctant to assume that the entire movie will be GRIMDARK!!!!! all the way through based on what little we've seen here.

That would be a fair point of view to take except that trailers aren't cut in a vacuum. If that's what they showed us that's exactly how they want the movie to be perceived. They showed us dour and grimdark!!! because that's the tone that they wanted to set and let the perspective audience know that's what this movie is.

Now personal preference aside...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
And considering a lot of Trekkies weren't too fond of those movies because they weren't very Trek-ish, I fear what he will do to SW.

I've been a huge trekkie for more than 20 years, and I know a LOT of other trekkies, and everyone I know really liked the JJ Abrams films quite a bit.

There is certainly an online vocal minority that keeps trying to perpetuate that myth, but the truth is most people liked the movies.

I'm sure, especially given that Abrams has been a massive Star Wars fan since they first came out, he's going to knock this film out of the galaxy

The only Trek series that I really liked was Deep Space 9. And the movies that I really liked were WRATH OF KHAN and UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY.

My actual favorite Trek film isn't even really a Trek film it's GALAXY QUEST.

That being said I liked the JJ Abrams STAR TREK reboot quite a bit. INTO DARKNESS? Not so much. I felt that some of the big moments in that film werent really earned and felt empty. But then again he was never much of a real Star Trek fan but he's a HUGE Star Wars fan. SO I have high hopes for the new movies now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The entirety of my 3.5 collection has seen zero use since Pathfinder released. I pray the same never happens to my Pathfinder books.

Almost the same for me although I suppose it' easier to use 3.5 stuff in your Pathfinder game from the GM side especially Spells and Monsters. Reskinning stuff from both Fiendish Codexes and The Draconomicon and before I got the Pathfinder versions of the Tome of Horrors book I used the 3.5 versions all the time.

But yeah a lot of my other 3.5 stuff went unused. I had to clear it off of my shelf to make room for the new Pathfinder stuff...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:
Where's that horse when you need it?

Dead from the beating that these boards keep giving it.

Apparently people keep spending the money to keep raising it from the dead only to beat it to death again.

Deep pockets this lot has. DEEP POCKETS.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

After seeing this trailer I now have no interest in seeing this movie. I think I might be one of the few people who is not a DC fanboy who actually liked MAN OF STEEL and was hoping for a straight sequel to that movie. I had my issues with parts of the film but nothing was problematic enough to mess with me enjoying the movie.

But this thing that they're doing here? Superman is a light a beacon of hope for humanity. This movie looks DARK. Not only visually but tonally and really while a little darkness is a good thing when used appropriately (and in the case of Kal-El , sparringly) this thing seem GRIMDARK!!! for GRIMDARK'S!!! sake.

And Batman? At this point we get it. HE'S DARK BROODING AND ANGRY. Jesus... But even in the animated series and JL and JLU he occasionally had a sense of levity (a dark one and even a self effacing one...)

I could use some air support...

Also, going right to the Dark Knight Returns Superman v. Batman in powered armor thing reeks of desperation on DC's behalf. UGH. I wanted to like it and maybe I'll give it another chance after it's release but not excited for this at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Havent they already introduced the Kree in both Guardians of the Galaxy AND Agents of Shield?

The Kree were the ones who experimented on different species with the Terrigen Mists. They've said that in the actual show itself during the most recent Lady Sif appearance. The primary antagonist of that episode WAS Kree.

Ronan the Accuser was Kree.

Between the terrigen mists, The Guardians and the appearance of the Kree on Agents of Shield I dont think that there's going to be a lot of issues with introducing Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

HERE

I think I might have teared up a little bit there at the end.

I'm actually a little more excited and hopeful now. Only time will tell though...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:

Actually I would love to see the Punisher in Daredevil using the storyline from Daredevil two part story. Where it ended up with the Punisher going to jail...because well he was the villain. I can't remember the issues number but I know it ended with Daredevil shooting Punisher.

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah that might have been Child's Play (Daredevil 183 -184, I THINK. I'm remembering one of the covers with the Punisher shooting Daredevil in the gut and the one after it has Daredevil pointing a gun at the viewer..). Where Frank was going after these dealers who were selling to and killing kids. I remember Frank cradling the dead body of a little boy he just killed "So Young..."

EDIT: The scene that I mentioned above actually takes place at the end of 182 as a prologue to the next issue. He kills the kid after he surrenders not realizing that he was so young

Kid (dropping his gun): Please--I give up...

Punisher shoots him anyway.

Punisher: This is WAR. I dont take prisoners.

Next Panel - Punisher is holding the body of the last guy he shot just now realizing that it was just a kid.

The agent who sent Punisher on this Job: Uh--Nice Work. Something Wrong?

Punisher: The last one i shot...

next panel a close up of the Punisher and the dead kid -

Punisher: A child. Just a child.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:

Actually I would love to see the Punisher in Daredevil using the storyline from Daredevil two part story. Where it ended up with the Punisher going to jail...because well he was the villain. I can't remember the issues number but I know it ended with Daredevil shooting Punisher.

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah that might have been Child's Play (Daredevil 183 -184, I THINK. I'm remembering one of the covers with the Punisher shooting Daredevil in the gut and the one after it has Daredevil pointing a gun at the viewer..). Where Frank was going after these dealers who were selling to and killing kids. I remember Frank cradling the dead body of a little boy he just killed "So Young..."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Set wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:

I'm pretty sure they died in CA 2, at least all of them except the woman that Black Widow was camouflaged as. No idea what's up with her, but it is reasonable enough to assume she died in the coup.

They died in the end there, when Pierce revealed his treachery and delivered electrical shocks through tags that he gave them earlier.

Bah, that's just the three that showed up to Pierce's meeting. We know from the Avengers movie that there were at least five of them, and one had the voice of Powers Boothe. :)

I assumed Powers Booth was Pierce's predecessor, who was probably fired after the whole "Lets nuke NYC" decision.

I think that you probably hit the nail right on the head with this one.

Pierce: If this council goes to rancor every time someone pushes us on the playing field then maybe we need someone to oversee US...

In THE AVENGERS, Fury addresses four members of the World Council but in WINTER SOLDIER there are FIVE (four and Pierce).

Of the original World Council Members in the Avengers only Jenny Agutter reprises her role in Winter Soldier. Aside from Powers Boothe the other two members were somewhat in shadow but look close enough to their replacements Chin Han and Bernard White. I wonder if Alan Dale is replacing Powers Boothe and Redford's Pierce was added to the council after the Battle of NY to provide additional over-site to Fury and Shield.

1 to 50 of 1,207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.