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

Sissyl's page

11,969 posts (13,363 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 12 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 11,969 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Nameless, lord of Torment?

*chuckles*


Dire Elf: I think I am going to need a reference on "no longer predominantly male". It would be fascinating to see actual, up to date figures, but I haven't heard of any such study.


I set fire to Pulg, spreading a huge toxic cloud of burning hair gas.


Rap is a major reason Spotify doesn't work out well for me. I just wish they had a declaration of contents, so I can avoid rap. No such luck.

Other people can like whatever, of course, and they do.


Oh yes. Incidentally, were you aware that a mere seven cubes of rooms that are a thousand rooms on a side can hold every human around? Amazing what information you figure out when devoting yourself to mega-projects!

The next poster has to share a cube room, and isn't pleased about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hurricanes to electricity would probably fry the electric grid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is, however, only so much wind energy to go around. You can only take out so much energy per area. It is marginal today, but with a massive expansion, would we notice?


The one that always get killed horribly? The shreddie/first victim?


My experience with cohorts is that since they are a minimum of two levels below their leader, they aren't all that powerful, only just powerful enough to contribute. The issues they carry are different. First, it allows characters to diversify their power into other domains, like a wizard getting a barbarian bodyguard. Not only is this not intended, it also berges into other characters' domains. Second, they allow for fine control of another character, which is a problem. Third, they bypass limits in the game like magic item creators serving the character trustily.

These require a different approach.

For the first, characters should have cohorts of their own class. For the second, the player shouldn't control the cohort. They are NPCs. Finally, to avoid other problems, the GM should make them, not the PCs.

The remaining issue is that controlling the cohort takes time from the GM. This means that it might be a good idea to limit them to one.


Exactly. Much better things to discuss about this project.


Then keep looking, TOZ. Or don't.


Possibly not. If it isn't, it's spread from America. About the best example was an episode of The Doctors that made it a huge deal that they would have a section on sex later in the show. This turned out to be statistics about how often men and women had UTIs.

I find it kind of telling that the only generally positively reviewed such product is Love and sex in the Ninth World for Numenera. In that, it is stated that, more or less, people have sex. Meh.


We had two complaints about it in the thread above.

Pie is good.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone tries to make a game about erotic fantasy, and the same things happen. People complain about the maturity of it, people say it shouldn't be done, people claim it is bad, often while their arguments clearly show they haven't even read it. Every such product is immediately likened to FATAL. The reviews go overboard with calling it "creepy". "Why would you play that game with your friends when you can have an orgy with them?" "It's not necessary!" "All that can be handwaved!" And so on. The misery never ends.

It is an American culture thing, and it bores me.

So long as the product is clear on what it is and does, I don't see the problem.

Erotic fantasy has a long history, steamy romance novels have sold well for ages (read mostly by women). Reading such a book doesn't mean you would prefer having sex.

We have been tromping around the countryside murdering stuff in our imagination since the seventies. Isn't it about time we accepted relationships and principles for dealing with them as well as killing people? Why is it not a sensible approach to say that "Combat is not necessary! If you want that, you can just handwave it! And if you want to play a game about murdering people with your friends, why wouldn't you go on a killing-spree with them instead?"

My suggestion is simply to live and let live. If you don't like a product, don't buy it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

50 shades started out as honest-to-god Twilight fanfiction, as I understand it. *shudder*

CD, I know I can come across as combative. It surprised me too to find myself writing my encouraging post here after our earlier debate.

On a different note: Knowing that what you write is wank is a trap. You may feel it is a good thing, but rest assured, it comes back to bite you. Eventually, your familiarity with the text makes you feel all of it is old hat.

What you do is: Have a plot outline, even if rough, before you begin. Then write the novel, THEN judge. Make the obvious changes. Let it rest a while, then revise. For the same reason, don't show your stuff to others before it is ready.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Badwrong fun, huh, CMP? Well, that is on you. I could just as well claim that "any player that doesn't make their character according to the GM's world is a bad player, since that is a player's job", but I don't. You know why? Because it is a matter of compromise and collective agreement. It is NOT the GM's job to serve the players' fun any more than it the players' job to serve the GM's fun. All parties need to find a style of play that works for them. And if the GM isn't having fun, there won't be a game for long no matter how actualized the players' characters are.

Further, a player who designs their character to be disruptive to the game needs to be forced into a change of that personality or kicked. It is not an area where the GM should butt out, even if the disruptive player would certainly prefer it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

17000 words is not bad. Go, CD, go! Keep at it. Considering the vocabulary and writing quality of people that DO get published, precisely everyone can do it. Get a copy of 50 Shades of Grey if you don't believe me.


Koborcs, dwagres, xvalfs, gnotyughs, and so on. Or as they are collectively called: AAAAAAAH!!!!


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Except they want to look good for description reasons, not mechanics. So it is not enough to enforce stat modifiers to cauterize this particular disease.

Are you trying to be combative? Everyone else here is able to have a reasonably civil discussion without badwrongfun

Yet you think its okay to call stat dumping a 'Disease' when its a popular style of play on these very boards.

I don't even do it and I'm finding your tone abrasive.

Not everyone who dumps is going to play an obnoxious a$*!#*@ and not everyone who doesn't isn't going to. If your player is being a dick thats a player problem not a stat one.

Sometimes people just want their character to work well mechanically. And honestly other than it being justification to be a dick is there really any problem at all with dumping?

Un-charismatic character played by charismatic player who likes roleplaying? I'd put that firmly in the not a problem category. Their roleplay doesn't define how NPCs react to them unless you do away with social skills.
The other version of this is, you can't make your character the way you want because I think it will turn you into an a#%~@~@ or you can't play the character the way you want to because his charisma stats aren't the same as yours. The latter is literally a tyranny of verisimilitude over fun.

It is just a lesson I have learned. Every time a player dumps charisma, AND claims that their character is really, really good-looking AND that their low charisma comes from being rude, the character has been an unmitigated disaster. No matter who the player is, it has turned the game into conflict-filled garbage until I have somehow removed or had that character changed. So, these days, whenever someone dumps charisma BUT their character looks good AND is rude, I tell them to make a new character or change what they have. Enforcing low charisma means bad looks is the most effective deterrent, and by doing this I have gotten a variety of great characters instead. That is why I don't buy the idea that it is a player problem.

Since you consider me combative, how about reading what I actually wrote: The disease is not stat dumping, it is dumping charisma and good looks and rude. My comment about intelligence dumping is because having a barbarian with extremely low int is another pretty recipe for disaster, in my experience: "I didn't understand that the king wouldn't like being head-butted." Again, if it leads to "But I was just playing my character", it's disruptive and stupid.


More "pro tips":

* Learn from your mistakes. If several players have done exactly the same thing and it hurts the game, stop them before it happens again.

* Every bad habit players have and try to carry into your game is not your fault as a GM.

* Some players can be perfectly good players if they get a bit of a framework, i.e. control. It isn't as simple as deciding on a limit and kicking them if they cross it. Horrible characters can be avoided with a bit of thought.


Except they want to look good for description reasons, not mechanics. So it is not enough to enforce stat modifiers to cauterize this particular disease.


Police academy has a ton of low charisma characters...


So make them look it. For some reason, dumping charisma isn't so much fun anymore then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or you could just NOT have vapid and insufferable supermodel anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PFSRD wrote:
Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

So, yes, appearance is quite literally part of charisma. Making charisma at least partly a physical stat.


The reason for not allowing dumping int is that if the charisma dumpers can't get their points from charisma, their next choice is intelligence. What you can do is seeing the stat score not as an average, but as a cap. You have a 7 charisma, your manners, looks and personality are all capped at 7. You can of course choose to have a lower component, but this gains you nothing. Voila, unsmart character with 10 intelligence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My basis is this: Allow this moronity of compensating for being literally the Worst person ever by being supremely beautiful and ending up with a 7 charisma, and you get players actively being rude. This makes the character a GM problem to solve before the group breaks down.

Better not to go there.

How to solve it? Well, if these people can't be beautiful, they reconsider, in my experience. If they do not, enforce a no dumping charisma or intelligence below 10. My solution is to make each part of charisma reflect the stat directly. Also, note that "I compensate for my lack of carrying capacity by causing extra damage and to hit with melee weapons" is an obviously stupid argument. This division of components only happens with charisma.

Also, so long as physical attractiveness is part of charisma (it is), it is at least partly physical as a stat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, another one. When someone dumps charisma, they somehow consider their 7 an average of the component parts of charisma. This means that they can look like a f#!$ing supermodel, but if so, they have to act like a belligerent troll creep on speed. This leads to them playing their wank fantasy character AND get to act like swine to the other characters. And eventually they ALL say (insert nasal whine here) "but I'm just playing my character!!!"

Yeah. No. Not at my table. A player chooses who their character is. Blaming your character is blaming yourself. And if you dump charisma, your LOOKS will suffer for it. If looks matter to you, prioritize that. And no, I don't care in the slightest what charisma a night hag has.


There are many ways that hexes mess up. There is diagonals, there is even going straight north/south (or east/west depending on map orientation), there is scaleability for areas and such, difficulty of measuring larger areas in hexes, and more. Hexes are most useful with facing, but carry a significant cost.


*hands IHIYC a present, wrapped in red paper, with a yellow ribbon*

Here you go!

*takes a step back and puts her fingers in her ears*

Why don't you open it? It's going to be a surprise! I guarantee it!

*waits*

*sees the present quietly laid at her feet*

*presses the remote for the detonator, bathing the entire area in annihilating fire, except the area shielded by the force field from the present*

*whistles*


Cool! I wanna transform people too!

*turns ADM into a corpse.


Bravo, good sir. That should keep them off your lawn.


Awww, you didn't even try my bat guano cake... *sulks*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Single female w/ great body, looking for long-term relationship with statuesque male partner. Must like veils and snakes and be willing to relocate to ruined temple in the wilderness.

Answer to I'll make you hard.


I sell GM MacShack as silicone implant filler.


The Starkiller weapon?


A couple of fertile-age humans has 80% likelihood of pregnancy within the first YEAR of sexual activity aimed at pregancy. For two years, it is 90%. Yeah. Not as much as people think.


And don't you forget it.

The next poster is confused, but has a metaexplanation that might work.


I behead ADM with a morganti vorpal blade.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

About alcohol:

It is an insidious and very unique drug. See, it is a tiny molecule, unlike many of the others. It goes through your blood brain barrier because of that and its polarity. Thus, you can get drunk from it. But worse: Since it is a liquid at room temperature, and easily forms an aerosol, it gets difficult to get away from.

See, when you drink (this is a simplified version), the alcohol receptors on your neurons trigger the complex reaction that comes down to being drunk. AND, the receptors get a bit more sluggish, so you need more alcohol next time. You also get more of them, and you start getting abstinence when you don't drink.

Then you stop drinking. The receptors start signaling a lack of alcohol. Abstinence. But it slowly grows less awful. Give it some weeks, and it is mostly manageable. The longer you go, the less it affects you. The receptors go dormant, and even though there are still a lot of them, you can be at peace as a recovering alcoholic.

But. One day you happen into a bar, or some other place where alcohol is drunk. Or you taste some. Or you clean your hands with alcohol based desinfectant. And you inhale the areosol, the fine alcohol mist. And it goes into your blood in tiny amounts, and it hits your dormant receptors. They wake up, and it's back to square one again.

TL;DR: Don't be anywhere near alcohol as a recovering alcoholic.


Oh please. I don't degrade from a mere 6d6+5 damage.

Pffft.


You want my headgear, little girl who was previously ADM?

I'd love to oblige, but it seems to be stuck.

Then again, who am I to say no to a little girl?

*headbutts ADM, spraying gore everywhere, then tears her headgear free, splattering even more over the room*

Ooops. Sorry.

*is going now*


*nerfs ADM with extreme prejudice*

ADM... I know that Commoner class seems like a step up now, but be careful. It may be a trap.


Rehashing is not a good idea. The stuff is free out there already, those who would be interested in your setting know this, and you would have to add a LOT of pages to fit in stuff people already know. If you want it to stand alone, make your own game, I'd say.

Something you should consider: Publishing a book the size of the CRB is going to be a nightmare, practically and financially. My suggestion would be to make a 32-page book with an adventure or setting info and see how it sells BEFORE you pull out all the stops. A pdf could test the waters for you beautifully, and would probably be your best bet.


Okay.

*hands John cookies*

It's a tradition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My condolences as well, Cal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:
Lutefisk. Lutefisk or 'lye fish' is a Nordic dish where they soak dried whitefish in lye to give it a gelatinous texture, then cook it after soaking it in water to remove the lye. Lutefisk is renowned for it's strong smell and the fact that it destroys sterling silver upon contact.

Correct. Except for the strong smell part. That isn't lutfisk, which smells mostly like fish. The smelly one is SURSTRÖMMING, which is fermented herring. It smells like excrements, to be clear.


Chocolate boutiq7ue in my chest? Ummmm....


Cheers to you, John. Did you get here in time to receive cookies from Lilith?


This is exactly the sort of silliness up with which I will not put.

1 to 50 of 11,969 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.