|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Crown of the Kobold King
1. What's our key selling point for the next D&D movie?
1. Oh no, my darling, I would never let that happen.
Indeed. In more modern times, Marx lived off a stipend, which put him in exactly the same position.
Freehold DM wrote:
While that's quite understandable, I think it's quite enough to know that you would if you could. Heck, I take medications which make me ineligible, so I can't do it either. See, having those in the body increases the risk of fainting while donating blood, so they don't want it. Otherwise, I would. Fainting is also a risk I am quite willing to take, so I find it pretty pointless. I have a hard time seeing myself as less of a human being than if I did donate blood, though.
Indeed, my comment was a reference to the exchange between Davor and TOZ.
I still don't follow why claiming that PF can be used very well for more restricted flavours of game has anything to do with death panels, understood as an example of opposing a bill because of something that is not included in that bill. I remain unconvinced, and will treat suggestions that you must use other systems than PF if you want to play anything but anything-goes games. There are perfectly good reasons to prefer PF to the thousand other fantasy RPGs out there, considering the familiarity of the system, freely available rules, expansive materials available, support, and so on and so forth.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Heh. This thread is acquiring a rather classic, slightly hypnotic tinge of "We'll just keep beating one another over the head with the same arguments, even if they're becoming rather stale by now". Seriously, there are different ways to GM. People value different things. But: These things come with other implications. Just as some are not interested in a setting where they can't play their undead houri minotaur, their optimus prime, their genestealer or their half-fiend gelatinous cube, some are not interested in a setting where "My undead houri minotaur got thrown through a portal" is an acceptable backstory.
I do object, however, to the idea that has been thrown about here several times that you should only play kitchen-sink games that accomodate every possible character that could be made with the rules in Pathfinder, and that anyone wanting to play anything else should use some other system. That just comes off as a rather primitive territorial argument. The truth is that it's perfectly fine to play different styles of game within the Pathfinder framework, from gonzo mythic campaigns, to everyone playing commoners, and everything in between, without one iota of change. If you are changing things, it all depends on what gets changed. Tearing out the WBL and CR systems as well as cheap healing, and you should be able to make a rather functioning gritty ruleset. Add in more on diplomacy and such and you should be able to do intrigue. And guess what? If the GM does this, and one of the players say "Pathfinder doesn't work for this", the proper response is:
MAKE. IT. WORK.
Ebola fails in an INDUSTRIALIZED country as a weapon. See? And you know, fear is ALWAYS useful to get the sheeple to give the government more power.
It's not surprising that the US has this reputation, after all it has done to deserve it, wouldn't you say? I suppose it's a cost factored into government decisions by now... but trust is a rare commodity in politics. As someone says: Once they stop trusting you, it doesn't matter what you do. And yet we get moronic policies that compound the problem all the time. Wasn't it pretty recently that the vaccination groups cried foul about government intrusion ruining their credibility?
Granted! You become the GREATEST of goblin gods. Most of the other gobbos start praying to you. This, of course, change nothing about you, but the other gobbo gods die from neglect, losing gobbos the place they had in the world. The Licktoad swamp becomes a parking lot.
I wish gibbering mouthers were real and far away from me.
It is pretty annoying when you try to make a character that you want to fit in, so since the GM says "I'll make it work", you decide on something pretty simple. Only to discover your character is beyond useless in the campaign, and apart from the one opportunity you got to fly a spaceship/gamble/make public speeches/lead people/make difficult sniper shots/whatever, the rest of the campaign deals only with bog standard level-appropriate melee combats.
Policy is made by those who show up. Whatever anyone thinks of it. So... if it's so easy to make all the changes required for the campaign to be a good fit for all six or seven players involved... I wish the one willing to make all those changes the best of times as the GM of that game. If that sounds like "pay up, or shut up", then so be it.
If someone suggested a generic, kitchen sink campaign where they did not intend to make a coherent plotline, deal with NPCs, keep track of combat, etc, I would be solidly uninterested in playing in that game. I would quite honestly get so much more out of playing WOW, Diablo 3, Guild Wars 2, or any computer "rpg". Sure, I would get the chance to play a psionic elf cyberninja catgirl if that was what I wanted... but what for? Rolling the dice to kill one level-appropriate encounter after the other? Watching my PECC increase in levels, so she can take on slightly tougher (but still level-appropriate) encounters? Sorry. No harsh words if anyone gets their jollies from that, but it isn't for me anymore. I want a chance to play a character who learns, interacts, has emotions and relationships to people, and so on. Stats are necessary, but need to be held from consuming all the play time.
It is not a crime to make your character fit the campaign. If you don't want to do that, well, maybe you are more comfortable settling the campaign viewpoints of a group wanting to play a human tourist, a space marine, a my little pony, a xenophobic fremen, and a flumph.
My threshold is that it's on par with what wishes can absolutely grant. Thus, since a wish can duplicate the effect of any 8th-level or lower spell, any comparable effect is reasonable without particular consideration. It is a bit more powerful than that, though, given that you can choose ANY lower spell, and it's a ninth-level spell, so the power bar SHOULD be higher. In general, it is easier to say what should NOT be possible. As a starting point:
Time travel, unless there is a good reason for it that would improve the campaign.
Stuff that can't be expressed well in the ruleset. Complete invulnerability, special unique abilities like turning stuff to gold by touch, and the like.
Stuff messing with the gods. No. It could certainly get the gods' attention, though.
Major holdings, titles, and other roleplaying- and story awards that would in effect change the opinions of a zogging lot of people. I would say it is ALWAYS easier to get these things by conventional deeds than through magic.
Barring this, there are many other things it can certainly do. Change someone's race, improve inherent bonuses to stats, get lesser magic items or get a chance at obtaining major ones, locations of hidden things, clues to major mysteries, solutions to minor ones. Temporary strange abilities. Destruction on a scale on par with major damage spells of level 8-9. Minor effects over larger areas.
There is no point in screwing players over for making wishes. If they come up with a real stinker, I'd be fine with letting them redo.
MWWG (the first edition) was more of a board game, generally well done parody of sexist crap in games. In particular, their monster table was magnificent, with Gnarlyhotep, Isaac Azathoth, Yoko Uggoth (That which screams without a voice) from the Lovecraft mythos, and Mental Midgets, Drunken Frat Boys, and so on.
1. How has the American left moved this last century?
1. No. No, I REALLY don't want to try that. Not even with hot sauce.