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. 1,249 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
But after that last...uh..green lantern...whatever it was, if that schmoe can be jordan, why can't this guy have a chance to f%## up a movie?
I really liked Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan. What I didn't like was that the directing, storyline, pacing, script, and cinematography all sucked moose dick.

Yeah. His acting (and everyone else's) was fine. It was the rest of the movie that sucked.

As for this guy, I haven't seen a single one of his movies so I can't really say one way or the other if he would be any good.

no, it really, really wasn't. It was an awful movie. It exists solely to be an example of how not to make a green lantern movie.

Yeah I really try not to bash things or even talk about things that I dont like or care for but I had a really hard time understanding how they made a movie that bad.

I mean I'm not even a Hal Jordan fan (Kyle Rayner was my Green Lantern. Just like Wally West was my Flash not Barry Allen) but the trailers got me excited and interested and hopeful. Hopes that were eventually dashed on the rocks of mediocrity and boredom...

eyes well up with tears

I thought we could be friends...

As long as you weren't part of HEAT. Those guys need to be dragged out into the street and be subjected to their own threats.
who?

[Ulr=http://www.forcesofgeek.com/2014/06/losing-heat-how-fans-took-fun-out-of.html]THIS [/URL] kinda glosses over the ugly details of the threats to Editors and Ron Marz (the writer at the time).

This event and certain elements of the RPG community was the beginning of me understanding that its okay to love your hobbies but absolutely DESPISE the fandom. Which for the most part is how I feel even today.


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

What really got me reading DC books initally were Wolfman & Perez New Teen Titans, Mike Barr's Batman and the Outsiders, Mike Grell's Warlord and Levit's Legion of Super-Heroes.

Then Crisis happened and was AWESOME. Then Byrne's (who I was a HUGE fan of at the time) Man of Steel / Superman / Action Comics run. Then George Perez on Wonder Woman and then Giffen/Bierbaums on Legion of...

In my case: Then Crisis happened and was AWESOME and screwed everything up. The Titans went into decline, partly flailing around with Wonder Girl who'd never known Wonder Woman. The Legion kind of imploded, again with the loss of Superboy. Both Infinity Inc & the All Star Squadron fizzled with the loss of Earth 2.

The new Wonder Woman was really good. The Giffen/Bierbaum Legion was good, but uneven and ultimately doomed.

Crisis originally hooked me on DC and simultaneously trashed much of what it had led me to love about DC. I'm still bitter. :)

That's funny because while I'd read Legion before the 'FIVE YEARS LATER' run I felt like I was getting in on the ground floor and so because of that I feel like that was MY Legion. Uneven yes, but the story of the Legion vs. the Dominiators is probably my favorite Legion story.

There was definitely some good stuff in there, but the drastic change in tone hurt and it was also hurt by another reboot (or two? The whole Glorith/Mordru thing. All still dealing with the fallout from losing Superboy.)

It tried to hard to be dark and edgy and though parts of it worked, parts of it really didn't. The Giffen stuff generally better than the Bierbaum's IMO. There was also apparently a lot of editorial interference and changes in plans - both for the reboots and for the outcome of the SW6 plotline. Even at the time it all seemed very confused to me. Like they couldn't keep track of where it was all going.

Yeah I totally hear where you're coming from. At the time when I was reading it I had NO IDEA what was going on behind the scenes. Only afterwards in interviews with Mark Waid, Giffen and a few others did I find out about all of the stuff with Superboy.

I was reading it with almost no previous bias. I mean there was some stuff that wasnst seamless but I chalked that stuff up to me not being aware of some continuity based detail(s) and shrugged it off.


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

What really got me reading DC books initally were Wolfman & Perez New Teen Titans, Mike Barr's Batman and the Outsiders, Mike Grell's Warlord and Levit's Legion of Super-Heroes.

Then Crisis happened and was AWESOME. Then Byrne's (who I was a HUGE fan of at the time) Man of Steel / Superman / Action Comics run. Then George Perez on Wonder Woman and then Giffen/Bierbaums on Legion of...

In my case: Then Crisis happened and was AWESOME and screwed everything up. The Titans went into decline, partly flailing around with Wonder Girl who'd never known Wonder Woman. The Legion kind of imploded, again with the loss of Superboy. Both Infinity Inc & the All Star Squadron fizzled with the loss of Earth 2.

The new Wonder Woman was really good. The Giffen/Bierbaum Legion was good, but uneven and ultimately doomed.

Crisis originally hooked me on DC and simultaneously trashed much of what it had led me to love about DC. I'm still bitter. :)

That's funny because while I'd read Legion before the 'FIVE YEARS LATER' run I felt like I was getting in on the ground floor and so because of that I feel like that was MY Legion. Uneven yes, but the story of the Legion vs. the Dominiators is probably my favorite Legion story.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grey Lensman wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
But after that last...uh..green lantern...whatever it was, if that schmoe can be jordan, why can't this guy have a chance to f%## up a movie?
I really liked Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan. What I didn't like was that the directing, storyline, pacing, script, and cinematography all sucked moose dick.

Yeah. His acting (and everyone else's) was fine. It was the rest of the movie that sucked.

As for this guy, I haven't seen a single one of his movies so I can't really say one way or the other if he would be any good.

no, it really, really wasn't. It was an awful movie. It exists solely to be an example of how not to make a green lantern movie.

Yeah I really try not to bash things or even talk about things that I dont like or care for but I had a really hard time understanding how they made a movie that bad.

I mean I'm not even a Hal Jordan fan (Kyle Rayner was my Green Lantern. Just like Wally West was my Flash not Barry Allen) but the trailers got me excited and interested and hopeful. Hopes that were eventually dashed on the rocks of mediocrity and boredom...

eyes well up with tears

I thought we could be friends...

As long as you weren't part of HEAT. Those guys need to be dragged out into the street and be subjected to their own threats.

Yeah admittedly that's part of why I was pissed about Hal jordan coming back. I feel like they felt that they were vindicated in threatening the lives of both Ron Marz and his child. I hate those HEAT people more than any part of fandom and I HATE fandom in general.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
But after that last...uh..green lantern...whatever it was, if that schmoe can be jordan, why can't this guy have a chance to f%## up a movie?
I really liked Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan. What I didn't like was that the directing, storyline, pacing, script, and cinematography all sucked moose dick.

Yeah. His acting (and everyone else's) was fine. It was the rest of the movie that sucked.

As for this guy, I haven't seen a single one of his movies so I can't really say one way or the other if he would be any good.

no, it really, really wasn't. It was an awful movie. It exists solely to be an example of how not to make a green lantern movie.

Yeah I really try not to bash things or even talk about things that I dont like or care for but I had a really hard time understanding how they made a movie that bad.

I mean I'm not even a Hal Jordan fan (Kyle Rayner was my Green Lantern. Just like Wally West was my Flash not Barry Allen) but the trailers got me excited and interested and hopeful. Hopes that were eventually dashed on the rocks of mediocrity and boredom...

eyes well up with tears

I thought we could be friends...

I started reading GREEN LANTERN with Emerald Twilight so yeah, Kyle for the win. I think that I still have almost that entire run of Green Lantern. For the most part the main DC characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Lantern) were all kind of boring and unrelatebale to me. What really got me reading DC books initally were Wolfman & Perez New Teen Titans, Mike Barr's Batman and the Outsiders, Mike Grell's Warlord and Levit's Legion of Super-Heroes.

Then Crisis happened and was AWESOME. Then Byrne's (who I was a HUGE fan of at the time) Man of Steel / Superman / Action Comics run. Then George Perez on Wonder Woman and then Giffen/Bierbaums on Legion of Super-Heroes.

I NEVER liked Hal Jordan or Barry Allen. In fact when Geoff Johns went on his silver age tear to bring these characters BACK that was the beginning of the end for me and DC. New 52 only served as the definitive Jumping off point for me. The only comic that I purchase regularly from DC now is ASTRO CITY and that's not part of the DC universe so I'm fine with it.

But Hal Jordan? Meh.


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

So I suppose I'm one of the few that actually enjoyed the Green Lantern movie?

I also enjoyed the Green Lantern animated show which I think was by Bruce Timm.

The Green Lantern Animated show was actually good though. I liked it quite a bit. I mean it was no YOUNG JUSTICE but it didnt have to be.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
But after that last...uh..green lantern...whatever it was, if that schmoe can be jordan, why can't this guy have a chance to f%## up a movie?
I really liked Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan. What I didn't like was that the directing, storyline, pacing, script, and cinematography all sucked moose dick.

Yeah. His acting (and everyone else's) was fine. It was the rest of the movie that sucked.

As for this guy, I haven't seen a single one of his movies so I can't really say one way or the other if he would be any good.

no, it really, really wasn't. It was an awful movie. It exists solely to be an example of how not to make a green lantern movie.

Yeah I really try not to bash things or even talk about things that I dont like or care for but I had a really hard time understanding how they made a movie that bad.

I mean I'm not even a Hal Jordan fan (Kyle Rayner was my Green Lantern. Just like Wally West was my Flash not Barry Allen) but the trailers got me excited and interested and hopeful. Hopes that were eventually dashed on the rocks of mediocrity and boredom...


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

And they could have gotten Idris Elba.

I don't think that Tyrese can pull off John Stewart. Doesn't have the acting chops.

Granted, Tyrese doesn't have the resume but then again super hero movies are not Shakespeare (maybe with the exception of the THOR movies...).

As for not having the acting chops? See John Singleton's BABY BOY (2011) and ANNAPOLIS (2006) where he plays a Naval Officer who clashes with James Franco's trainee character.

Does he have what it take to play a hard nosed military type? Absolutely. Hell I think his character in the movie was Marine before he came to Annapolis. I might be misremembering thought so dont quote me on that one.

Honestly i'm fine with Tyrese as that would bring some name recognition to the movie. While Idris Elba is well known, MILLIONS of people know who Tyrese is because of the Fast and Furious movies.

My pic though would probably be THIS d00d: NATE PARKER

While he hasnt been in anything of note, he has the presence and the acting chops (particualrly in BEYOND THE LIGHTS and RED TAILS).


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

I've read that he has said that he would rather win a Grammy than an Oscar.

I'm not sure he has to worry about winning either. :P

Well being that he started out as a singer and has already been Grammy nominated I'd say his chances of winning that Grammy one day is actually pretty good. He has pipes and can definitely more than carry a tune.


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

I don't promote things very often, but this was too good to pass up. My wallet is already hurting, but you all need to jump on this.

Behold Ma'al Drakar, the Dracopocalypse:

Party annihilation

SWEET JESUS IN A JUMPED UP SIDECAR.

I had no interest in this Kickstarter (I have three full utility drawers of unpainted BONES 1 & 2 miniatures. When I say that between the both of those kickstarters I spent well over $600? I'm not even exaggerating.).

BUT I MUST HAVE THAT..."MINI".


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
I assumed Microverse and Underworld were entailed in the FF license or complicated by the old Micronauts license.

YUP. Marvel no longer has the Micronauts license, in fact I think IDW may have recently picked it up so nope Marvel had to rename thiers the Quantum Realm...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:
WOW. We're totally at almost opposite ends of the spectrum then because THE RAID (and by extension THE RAID 2: BERENDAL) is one of the finest action films ever made IMHO. Sometimes a streamlined story without much convolution is just what's needed. You didn't watch the movie all the way through so you probably missed Rama's big complication and one of the best two on one fights in any movie in a LONG time. The Raid DID have a story and it DID have characters. Just none that you were interested in and that's fair. But to me objectively they're both good but as much as I like Winter Soldier? The Raid is much, MUCH better on the action front.

My girlfriend and friends were crazy excited to see The Raid so we all set down to do so. At some point I got up from the couch and helped our host with making dinner. After that I took the occasional glance at the screen, enough to get the story, and I DID watch that endless 2 on 1 fight. Endless is the best word I have to describe it because that's how it felt. At some point my brain went completely numb because it was like watching a dance (another activity I was never able to connect with) - there were well executed motions and all, but nothing that happened mattered. They were just pounding each other into slow, agonizing submission.

Not that I take offense at a long action scene - I really loved the corridor one-shot scene from Daredevil, for example - but it has to be dynamic and constantly on the move. That scene was just the same thing over and over and over again with no side gaining a noticeable advantage on the other until it was sort of over.

A good action scene is like a good story compressed to a few minutes. "Bob was getting the upper hand, when suddenly Alice drew a knife! Terrified, Bob tries to run but Alice is too fast. They struggle, Bob giving everything he has, but Alice still manages a slash across his chest, drawing blood. With a surge of heightened strength Bob knocks the knife out of her hands...". Had I written a...

Again...WOW. There absolutely was a story being told in that fight and it definitely wasnt the same thing over and over again but I'm not even going to bother to try to argue the point. I get it you didn't like it.

That being said, I'll just leave this quote here and walk away from this discussion on action films:

"The Russo brothers were big fan of The Raid, Joe admitted they studied the action scenes in that movie: “Our DVD players and apple tvs live at quarter speed.” The Raid inspired them to have more hard hitting action in the film, "

Excerpted from this article...


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


Its difficult to say "I don't like the way you play the game, I think it is silly and I have no interest in playing it that way," without coming across with a negative tone.

My thing is, does that even need to be said at all? Even in a conversation about gaming, a simple "Your gaming style and mine aren't really compatible. But hey as long as you're having fun it's all good." establishes more good will than the above statement.

You say the first thing to me and my first thought is "Well I'm glad that I don't play with you because you obviously have the social graces of a complete and utter sociopath. DUECES."

The second shows that you're an actual human being with empathy and while I might not want to play Pathfinder or AD&D with you there's a remote probability that I might play something else with you.

EDIT: Let me be clear - by "You" I mean the person who would say something like that and not necessarily Tormsskull. Unless Tormsskull WOULD actually say something like that. Then...Yeah I'm talking about you.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
and Winter Soldier is one of the best action movies I've ever seem.
I'm only being partially serious here and dont get me wrong, WINTER SOLDIER is my FAVORITE of the Marvel movies and it's a great action movie but if the above is true? You need to see more movies.

Always true :)

I liked Winter Soldier for a tense and exciting story with one huge twists and many smaller ones, for very solid characters, and for big visceral action scenes that relied on practical effects to make each blow feel real.

But... I suspect I might not be a very good action enthusiast. For example, The Raid, much praised as one of the best action movies ever, I was too bored to watch all the way through. I just can't care about an action scene if I don't care enough about the story and characters to want to know who wins. The Raid has neither, while The Winter Soldier is strong on both fronts.

WOW. We're totally at almost opposite ends of the spectrum then because THE RAID (and by extension THE RAID 2: BERENDAL) is one of the finest action films ever made IMHO. Sometimes a streamlined story without much convolution is just what's needed. You didn't watch the movie all the way through so you probably missed Rama's big complication and one of the best two on one fights in any movie in a LONG time. The Raid DID have a story and it DID have characters. Just none that you were interested in and that's fair. But to me objectively they're both good but as much as I like Winter Soldier? The Raid is much, MUCH better on the action front.

I'm a big fan of fight choreography and an even bigger proponent of cleanly and coherently shot action and for the most part it seems like most American action directors are incapable of shooting decent action.

I was actually surprised at how well done the set pieces were in WINTER SOLDIER. As good as the final attack on the Insight Carriers was for my money the best sequence in the film was the attack on the freeway that leads into the first fight between Steve and Winter Soldier. The Russos did a FANTASTIC JOB staging all of that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
and Winter Soldier is one of the best action movies I've ever seem.

I'm only being partially serious here and dont get me wrong, WINTER SOLDIER is my FAVORITE of the Marvel movies and it's a great action movie but if the above is true? You need to see more movies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Decent compared to what? sure there are worse movies, but if I take my rose colored Marvel glasses off for a minute, I quickly come to realize some of these movies, well, haven't won Oscars... for a reason...

If the Oscars is your barometer for quality then I'd say that your barometer is broken. There are some excellent films / actors who were not nominated nor have won Oscars. This does not mean that they aren't excellent films / actors.

Marvel hasnt hit a home run out of the gate each and every time. I'm personally not a fan of Iron Man 3 (even though it has grown on me a bit with repeated viewings) and Age of Ultron is definitely a weaker entry. But more often than not when plunk down my $14 -$20 to see a Marvel movie I can expect to be entertained.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
I don't think it's so much having large ensemble casts which is the problem, its having large ensemble casts + big fight scenes + laying ground work for various future movies. There just isn't much room to breath.

Yeah agreed for the most part. The first two things aren anything that hasnt been done before and done fairly well. Its that last thing that Marvel did really clunkily in AOU. I've seen it twice and will probably watch it a few more times but I remember even on first viewing it felt like there were parts that were just missing.

Then Whedon revealed that there was something like 45min cut out of the movie I was like "AH. So that's what happened."

Dont get me wrong I dont think it's a bad movie. You walk into something like AOU and expect spectacle and not you know REMAINS OF THE DAY or even LONE STAR. But it felt like an advertisement for upcoming movies and an incomplete advertisement at that. There was a much better way to get the exposition on the Infinity Stones to us, the viewer, rather than through a last minute Thor data dump.

This new characterization of Ultron bothered me greatly. The change in characterizations for many of the Marvel characters havent bothered me all that much but the Villians have been pretty much who they have been in the comics (with a few exceptions of course, Looks over at IRON MAN 3...). Ultron is a BIG BAD. You're supposed to be AFRAID when Ultron shows up. ULTRON, KANG/IMMORTUS and THANOS (with special mention of Michael Korvac) are THE GUYS. Or at least that's what I explained to my 13y old son. He thought his old man was a kook until I let him read the Ultron Unlimited story arc from Busiek & Perez's run on THE AVENGERS.

Then he was like: "Dad, he killed an entire country then raised the people as an undead cyborg army. THAT'S CRAZY!! The movie Ultron was WEAK compared to the comics ULTRON."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For me it's not as much as team movie vs. smaller movie. My favorite MCU film is WINTER SOLDIER and that one has Cap, Black Widow, Winter Soldier and Falcon. It's smaller is scope than say the two Avengers movies but the stakes (both for the world and for Cap personally) are pretty damn high. It has a one HUGE action set piece at the end but by that time it's taken enough time to define the characters that we give a crap about them. I really think that we learn more about Natasha in this movie than in any other of her appearances and she might be the one character who has the most important arc in the movie.

Filmakers have been making ensemble films FOREVER, from even before Kurasawa's SHICHININ NO SAMURAI to THE DIRTY DOZEN, KELLY'S HEROES, to John Sayles films like CITY OF HOPE, MATAWAN and LONE STAR. These are GOOD films with LARGE casts so it can be done. And I think that theyre going to need to find a away to do it well by the time the first INFINITY WAR movie comes out. I trust the Russos (more so than I trust Whedon and I'm not a Whedon hater I just think that AOU was a subpar Marvel movie on almost all fronts. I STILL enjoyed it but...) to have it figured out before filming starts. With them doing CIVIL WAR then going right into INFINITY WAR it's going to be one hell of a slog for them...


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

I saw it Thursday night and I pretty much think that it's a better movie than AGE OF ULTRON. Not in term of spectacle but in terms of craft and not being a constant advertisement for other Marvel films.

I'm a big MCU fan but the farther away I get from AOU the less I like it because of the constant need to set up the future and not getting us to invest in the story that's being told NOW.

Age of Ultron certainly has some structural issues, but they do balance out with the payoff this lumbering structure is built to support - you get to see all the Avengers fighting and working together as a team. That's some seerious payoff, and despite Antman being a more than decent execution of its core premise, that just can't compete with Age of Ultron. In my objectively correct opinion, of course.

AOU has a disjointed narrative and the fact that I didnt really care about what was going to happen to ANYONE was an issue. The fact that ULTRON, one of the AVENGERS deadliest enemies came across like a snarky petulant child and not the threat that he should actually be. The fact that it was basically the first movie all over again without much of the fun and "OH S**T!* moments of the first movie.

Also?

Movie plot spoiler:
Quicksilver got killed by bullets. OUICKSILVER. Not only that, but ULTRON killed him not personally but by strafing him in a Quinjet. WHAT?!?

Yes I understand that he was just strafing either innocent civilians at that point but C'mon! If they were determined to kill Quicksilver they could have come up with a more meaningful way to do it.

Coulson's death (even though it was later undone) was perfect. It was up close, personal and quite honestly kinda brutal. It was also a character that had been around since the first MCU movie so we LIKED him. This death? MEH.


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

I saw it Thursday night and I pretty much think that it's a better movie than AGE OF ULTRON. Not in term of spectacle but in terms of craft and not being a constant advertisement for other Marvel films.

I'm a big MCU fan but the farther away I get from AOU the less I like it because of the constant need to set up the future and not getting us to invest in the story that's being told NOW.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Meh, if Evil Dead hadn't stood out from it's contemporaries, then Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness would ever have been made. It'd also zap Bruce Campbell, Sam Raimi, and Rob Tapert back into obscurity.

EXACTLY.

There had been nothing quite like EVIL DEAD at that time. I mean when there's pretty much another movie paying homage to the genre that created in it's title (CABIN IN THE WOODS) it had to have done SOMETHING right.

Also as to it's low budget, for what was done with it's obvious budget constraints and still to have turned out a movie that is referenced 30 years later? That's an achievement.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Readerbreeder wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Hama wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
IMO, DC still has to prove that they can make one decent movie before I get excited about anything. And trailer aside, there are a lot of signs that this movie will be a mess.
Such as?
The fact it has six superheroes featured in it, with three coming into conflict for some reason, along with Lex Luthor, backstory on Batman, and more. It takes the main cast of Man of Steel (Clark, Lois, Perry, Ma Kent) and keeps those but adds over well over half-a-dozen new characters.

Except for the fact that the group movie is coming before some of the stand-alones, swap out a couple of names and you've just described The Avengers.

This is an honest question, so please don't read it in the tone of an outraged fanboy, but why does everyone seem to be so convinced that DC (and therefore any attempt at an extended universe) is going to crash and burn? Is it the grimdark thing? Because I don't see that as a deal breaker (or a permanent tone).

The big difference is they need to establish the characters. They need to present Aquaman and Green Lantern and Flash and Cyborg and make us care about them despite each character getting only a small amount of screen time.

Marvel gave most of its heroes their own movie, so people walked into the Avengers caring about Iron Man and Thor and Captain America. People are going to walk into SvsB and think of Wonder Woman by way of the Linda Carter TV show. And see Aquaman through the lenses of Superfriends (at best). There's so much less time to give the character a motivation, a backstory, character growth, and a reason for the audience to give a s***.

DC really seems to be rushing things. They're jumping right to the mega-connected franchise rather than slowly building to it like Marvel Studios did. Sony tried the same thing with Spider-man and that didn't work well. So far, most attempts to purposely build a movie

...

It's funny that you should mention the X-men movies as July 14th was the 15th anniversary of the release of the first movie. I know this because July 14th is also my 15th wedding anniversary. And yes, I did attempt to cajole my Best Man into getting to an early showing of X-Men.

His reply?

"Listen, if anything goes wrong and I dont get you to your wedding on time? She'll Kill you. But she'll Kill AND torture ME. So no we'll go another time."

Back on topic though, the first X-men movie wasn't very good either. And yes it had a bunch of characters to introduce and set up but basically it was the WOLVERINE & THE X-MEN movie. The core story was centered around Wolverine and Rogue's relationship. Everyone else aside from the Professor and Magneto was kinda just THERE. Jean served more as a romantic object than a character. and Cyclops and Storm? eh.
Not a fan of that first movie. There are good parts (the stand off at the train station between Xavier and Magneto) and some good lines ("How do I know it's you?" "Youre a DICK." *beat* "OKAY") but it wasnt what I'd call a GOOD movie.

Now X-2...


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

But it has a chance of being good, so long as it is *nothing* like Man of Steel. We'll see.

Being that it's being made by almost the exact same crew? I'm guessing more so the same than not.


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

The thing that sticks in my craw about the DC movie universe is this:

They had the chance years ago to go toe to toe with Marvel in terms of creating their own cinematic universe but they had NO faith in their own ability to do so.

They HAD Joss Whedon working on a WONDER WOMAN movie for them. And they scuttled it. It was him being off THAT project that allowed for Marvel to scoop him up to do the first AVENGERS movie.

They HAD George Miller working on a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie for them. But they didnt have enough faith in what he was doing or didnt want to shoulder the cost so they scuttled that. While not as financially successful MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is easily the best movie I've seen this summer and shows that Miller DEFINITELY had the chops to put together an entertaining action movie.

You know what lit the fire under DC/Warner? That first weekend box office tally for THE AVENGERS. When word of mouth came in and those box offfice records started to shatter? I'm pretty certain that execs at DC/Warner got REAMED.

That's why I don't have much faith in DC/Warner. Because they didnt have faith in themselves and they are most certainly playing catch up and playing it poorly. For the record I LIKED Man of Steel. Was it the most perfect representation of Superman? Nope. Still liked it and would have eagerly gone to see a straight up sequel. But no, instead we're getting BATMAN V. SUPERMAN. With Wonder Woman, Aquaman and (rumored Cyborg).

When that DC/Warner exec derided Marvel movies as being fun and that the dark tone of the DC movies represented something more "Realistic" It just made my decision to not take them seriously all the more valid.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


I'm not a fan of ARMY OF DARKNESS

...

I...see...

I think it's grossly overrated as a piece of entertainment and avoid it like the plague. Let me put it like this of Sam Raimi's filmography I'm more likely to sit through Spider-Man 3 again than I am Army of Darkness. I don't begrudge anyone else's love of it but yeah not a fan.


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

I'm a fan of the original EVIL DEAD. I like EVIL DEAD 2 but see it more like a comedy remake of the first movie (which is pretty deadly serious). I think that most people when they think of Evil Dead as a comedy are thinking of the 2nd movie.

I'm not a fan of ARMY OF DARKNESS.

But THIS actually looks good and seems to hit all of the right notes. I'm interested in seeing how this goes.


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

That's a good point. But then, if you were a considerate human being you wouldn't talk at the theater, text at the theater, play games on your phone during the dark parts of the film, talk on the phone, turn off your ringer, scream things at the screen, stomp on people, bang seats, and do all the entertaining things that go on in everyday life at the theater that aren't kid related.

I agree, if you can get a sitter or do not bring your children to such things. But let's not say that it's those darn kids and their parents that are the only cause of distractions and disruptions. A lot of time, it's what people are willing to overlook or disregard. People are less willing to forgive other people's kids (I left mine at home, I didn't come out to hear kids, I hate kids, etc) than adults doing the same or worse.

I think if you look at my post upthread you'll see that I'm not willing to overlook or disregard anyone complicating my movie going experience.


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

Here's the thing, if you are at all a considerate human being, you wont do that to other people. When we had our son, unless we had a babysitter we either went to the movies separately or not at all.

Bringing a child to an intense R rated or loud action movie is kind of an irresponsible and selfish thing to do. If you can afford the price of the movie tickets and possibly dinner you should factor the price of a decent sitter in there somewhere.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

SPOILER:
If it's a solid slug and not coated in teflon (which in the case of a shotgun slug would be kinda stupid)? Maybe. but you're still looking at the pure kinetic force of the impact possibly breaking a few ribs and causing some internal damage.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Then the problem isnt the kids, IT'S THE PARENTS.

And the thing is if the kids are being disruptive in all likelihood you're not the only person who's being disturbed by the behavior so call the parents on it. DIRECTLY.

I have no problem making other people uncomfortable who are ruining things for a larger group. We didnt start taking my son to the movies until we were sure that he could sit still for them. The average price for a movie ticket in NY is about $12-13. You better believe I'm gonna say something.

I've called out teenagers and adults before. And like I said by the time I've said something it hasn't been a disruption that bothers only me so OTHER people in the theater have had my back. Enough with the passive agressiveness, just deal with the issue firmly but directly.


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


The Trank stuff is based on gossip behind the production. Admittably, it might be exaggerated and could still turn out good. But on set reports said that Trank was often distant and not actively involved as he should have been in the production, causing other staff to leap in. Supposably this led to Disney deciding to pass on him for directing one of the Star Wars standalones.

You really, REALLY cant trust the gossip you hear about the behind the scenes stuff and especially how and if it impacts the finished product. There are some pretty damn good movies out there that had very difficult shoots because of the directors / stars whatever.

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is a recent example of a film whose budget was spiraling out of control and the two leads (Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron) who did not exactly get along.

We can go back to the rumors about James Cameron shooting the Abyss with Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio who pretty much said that they never wanted to work with Cameron again after that.

TITANIC won all the awardz and praise but almost no one remembers that movie's budget spiraling out of control and cast and crew members saying that Cameron was out of control and that is was going to be a disaster. All of the Entertainment rags picked that up and ran with it until the day of it's release: and then?

CRICKETS.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

DOG SOLDIERS came out on BluRay this week and I'd just posted on my FB page that while I liked Dog Soldiers that THE HOWLING is my favorite werewolf movie...


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

VII, VIII and IX are my favourites, in that order. Well, actually Final Fantasy Tactics probably is my absolute favourite, but for main series it's those three. They're all pretty close together on the list, I think it's mainly just because that's the order I played them in that I even have favourites.

Each of those three has it's own strength though that really makes me love it. For VII it's the dark industrial aesthetic of it. VIII I love the story. IX it's the characters, they were all so well done (especially Vivi, and his implied ending just broke my heart).

Holy Crap How could I have forgotten about Tactics? That was an AMAZING game. Frustratingly difficult at times but great amazing nonetheless.


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

VII is one of the FF games, along with VIII, the MMO ones, and XIII, that I simply couldn't get interested in, despite knowing a LOT of people who swear it's one of if not the best game ever. I have the Steam re-release and I still haven't managed to get through the starting cutscene. The remake is unlikely to change that.

Likewise I've heard good things about the Shenmue series but never managed to get anywhere toward trying it out.

despite his love for 9, this guy...this guy gets it.

I liked VII but my favorite Final Fantasy games will always be IV and VI. Really didnt care for VIII or XI and pretty much stopped playing them after that. I like my games to be GAMES not cut scenes interrupted by occasional gameplay. IF I want to watch a movie, I'll do that. To me the perfect blend of game play and pushing forward a narrative with a cut scene are the Uncharted games.


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

If you can remember the movie that would be wonderful. I've been looking for it for 20 years, if not more.

If it helps, treachery brought one of them down, an explosive tip was put in one of their weapons, killing one of them during a training exercise.

HAHA I know EXACTLY what movie that was and it WAS the movie I was thinking about initially. That's MAGNIFICENT RUFFIANS one of Chang Cheh's best with Kuo Chui, Cheng Sheng, Lo Mang and Lu Feng. The Main Bad Guy (Lu Feng) uses a golden Guan Dao against his foes.

When it was shown here in the US on Drive in Movie here in NY specifically it was called THE DESTROYERS but MAGNIFICENT RUFFIANS is the actual name of the movie. Again I have the Region 3 remaster of it and I think there's a Region 1 bootleg available under the name The Destroyers with the English dub on Ebay and or Amazon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nah but I dont think you're far off the mark. That sounds like another Chang Cheh (who did direct Blood Brothers) flick that came later but the name escapes me at the moment.

EDIT: Nope. Still dont remember the name of the movie but the more I think about it it's not the Chang Cheh movie I was thinking about...


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

My favorite movie as a kid, that I used to watch on "Kung Fu Theatre" on Sundays, involved a guy who fought with a 3-section staff. He belonged to some evil group of kung fu guys, but quit when they killed some chick. He ended up teaming up with her husband (who fought with a pair of knives) to take out the evil group.

I haven't seen this in like 35 years and I totally want to see it again, but I don't even know the title. Can anyone help?

That's Avenging Eagles (1978) with Alexander Fu Sheng and Ti Lung.

I actually have both the Celestial R3 DVD from years ago and the Dragon Dynasty DVD that came after. Both were struck from the remastered prints which are gorgeous, the Dragon Dynasty is Region 1 and will play in DVD players made in the US and Canada and also has the dub.

The R3 might be a little hard to find and is LONG out of print. The Dragon Dynasty one you should be able to find on Amazon.com.

The Region 3 DVD

Here's Avenging Eagles Region 1 DVD as a double feature with another Shaw Brothers classic Blood Brothers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Until the Hulk slammed him around like a rag doll. "Puny God."

And, again, he wasn't really injured so much as shocked and a little bruised by that.

When he's fighting Thor, he first has Odin's spear, Gugnir, and then later the Infinity Stone scepter. That "puny god" scene likely ends differently if Loki's got either and just blasts the Hulk into next week or the next county. Either weapon has that kind of power.

Hilarious moment, granted, but ... played for laughs and not indicative of how a battle between the two might go, were Loki armed. Thor did all the hard work by disarming him.

Loki receives a full on bull rush from the Hulk at the 2hr mark. Hulk slams him around like a rag doll in that SAME minute.

Loki is still trying to SLOWLY crawl away at 9min later and he's in obvious pain.

I dont think that he's just shocked. He's HURT.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I just saw Expendables 3, and Ronda Rousey stole the movie. She's surrounded by former top A-list male Hollywood tough-guy stars -- Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Ford, Gibson, Snipes, Statham, et al. -- all playing ridiculously tough guys... and it's abundantly clear that, irl, she can kick all their asses without breaking a sweat, in a matter of seconds. So she'd be my top pick.

I don't doubt her skill I've seen her fight and she's incredibly dangerous. That being said I'll agree that she'll be able to take almost everyone that you mentioned above with the exception of Snipes and maybe Jason Statham. Snipes is actually a trained marital artist. I dont know how well he's kept up with his training but he used to have pretty fast hands which Rousey and most MMA fighters really DONT have.

I know Statham trains kickboxing and some BJJ as well.

There's also the small matter of catching a full force punch by someone above your weight class. Rousey eating punches from other women in her weight class is one thing. Eating a punch from a guy who may or may not be bigger and stronger than her? I dont know. I know people want to prop her up as being the greatest thing ever and even she makes to make claims about kicking guys assess but even she has said that she's not for women fighting men in the UFC.

Also her acting chops in Furious 7 and Expendables 3 didnt do much for me. Now I'm not saying that she has to be Olivier in Hamlet but yeeeeeeesh.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
thejeff wrote:
IIRC for most of Winter Soldier he was using the old outfit from the museum.
NOPE. Only for the final assault on the Oversight Helicarriers...
He wore the SHIELD one for the initial action scenes, but ditched when he escaped from SHIELD/HYDRA the first time. You're right that he didn't get the old outfit til later, but he was in it or civvies for his fights with Bucky. Except for the first chase.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me and it's really kind of minor at this point but CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER runs 2hrs and 16 min (roughly 7 - 8 minutes of that is closing credits). In that time we first see Cap in his original suit at around the 1hr 34 min mark right before the final big action set piece of the film. The last time we see him in it he's laying on the side of the river bank after being dragged out by you know who at the 2hr 1min mark. So his screen time in the suit is less than half an hour in a movie that's over 2hrs.

Aaaaaaaaaaand I think that I've filled my anal retentive quota for like THE REST OF THE YEAR at this point. Apologies...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
IIRC for most of Winter Soldier he was using the old outfit from the museum.

NOPE. Only for the final assault on the Oversight Helicarriers...


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


As others said, the invulnerability through the shield is part of the core premise for Captain America, as well as extremely high toughness, stamina, dexterity and strength. Surviving direct impact of supposedly lethal weapons without so much as a wound to show for it is not. During the entire "The Winter Soldier", the cap never took even a single bullet, for example.

Cap gets shot SEVERAL times by Bucky in the climax of the THE WINTER SOLDIER. At least three time, the last of which is through the back with a clear huge bloodstain on the front of his uniform. Which means that the uniform offered little to no protection to Cap. The uniform, at least during THE WINTER SOLDIER, is NOT bulletproof.


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.

1 to 50 of 1,249 << 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.