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. 1,223 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


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.

1 to 50 of 1,223 << 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.