|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
July 3rd... Season 2 of Knights of Sidonia comes to Netflix.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
*Squeals like a nine year old girl*
captain yesterday wrote:
I have a contrary streak in me, if a bunch of people like something I won't, just because everyone else does, I'm especially resistant to peer pressure, it has the opposite effect, in the plus side tho I've never seen Titanic or Avatar, never did anything harder than weed and got the f*!# our of the s+$*ty little town I spent my teenage years trapped in :-)
I've never even done weed -- but then, asthma is a good reason to avoid inhaling anything except fresh air. I experimented with drinks for a brief period; my drink of choice was the gin and tonic. But soon enough I realized I'd rather just have the tonic, and haven't touched alcohol since.
Yes, I enjoy tonic water in and of itself. Thanks, dad!
So to summarize the trigger warning issue: Some magazines use content-warnings as a favor to their readers, some people use 'TW' as a part of obvious jokes, and some law students are requesting TWs to maybe avoid genuine issues and maybe skip class.
Yeah, I can see how that last one could be a problem; but overall, color me unimpressed with all the gnashing of teeth over TWs. I wasn't even aware of this TW thing until someone on the internet complained about it -- and I've been through college twice -- so from where I sit all of the noise is coming from people being triggered by trigger warnings themselves. Maybe the internet needs a new TW...
Trigger Warning: The following text contains the words 'trigger warning.'
A sorcerer's magic comes from within. That's not "harnessing the outside without a source". It's literally in their blood.
For sorcerers, magic comes more-or-less naturally -- a lot like mutant powers come to mutants. For psions, magic is a discipline.* Wilders are the Wheel of Time channelers of D&D.
Anyhow, I'm not crazy about the sci-fi terminology either, but I'm happy to have psionic characters in my games. Precisely because I can simply treat psionics as magic by another name, much like 137ben. I'm actually kinda surprised that nobody -- pro or fan -- has ever gone through the spell chapter and converted each one to a psionic spell. Quite a few of them have already been done officially. (Example: psionic disintegrate.)
*Wild talents throw a wrench into the discipline theme, I guess, but I don't like those and pretend they don't exist.
...Oh right, this thread is about shunning. I SHUN thee, GTG!
HP has the unusual distinction of being a series that very noticeably changes tone as the series progresses. In #1, the protagonists are innocent kids, and the tone and conclusion are 100% rated-G. A few books later, the climax of the book is a good kid dying right before teenage-Harry's eyes. And of course #7 ends with beloved characters being killed in the very first chapter, and things don't get any softer for the protagonists as they're forced to grow up all too quickly.
And at the risk of triggering Kryzbyn...
OMG HAVE YOU READ HARRY POTTER YET, IT'S THE BEST SERIES EVAAAR?!
Confession: I know nothing about the Vigilante, or what's shun-worthy about liking or not liking it.
Simon Legrande wrote:
...Ah yes, I can see the allegory to the allegory of the cave.
Cave = Matrix
Well, I can sort of see it, I guess. What's your take on it?
Simon Legrande wrote:
I watched the first Matrix in a religion class, because the professor loves gnosticism. I think I've also been part of philosophical Matrix conversations, but I can't remember any specific themes. What are your favorites?
pH unbalanced wrote:
Mark Rosewater wrote:
Each set, R&D makes sure to design a certain number of cards for Timmy. Timmy cards, as we call them, tend to be big creatures or spells with big effects. In general, Timmy cards are exciting but not too economical.
There are no 'mysteries,' so long as you understand everything.
There's also the array.
The "Deep Space Nine is by far the best series" assertion is extremely common among people who never really liked the franchise, and consider it "the most realistic" of the shows. It was once probably as common in certain circles as "Firefly is the best show evah!" is today.
You're half right, in my case. I can appreciate ST, but I'm not a card-carrying Trekkie. DS9 is my favorite ST series because it's the most morally gray of them.
...On second thought, there's a good argument to be made that morally gray situations and characters are more realistic than consistent everybody-wins situations and sparkly clean characters. So maybe you're totally right about me after all.
Close runner-up is The Next Generation. Starts off less than good, but improves after a while.
I don't think that TNG is nearly as compelling as fans tend to think, but there was one scene from a particular episode that's stuck with me after ~20 years. The Enterprise comes upon a planet, deserted except for an elderly human couple. There's obviously something fishy going on, and at the end of the episode Picard confronts the husband...
...who turns out to be an alien entity of deific power. (Like Q, I guess, except not irritating.) The entity tells Picard his story: There was once a human colony on the planet. He came upon the colony, took human form, fell in love with one of the women, married her and then lived as a human for some time. But then the planet was invaded by some alien army, and in the mayhem his wife was killed. (What appeared to be his wife during the episode is merely an illusion.)
"In a moment of anger, I killed the aliens." The entity tells Picard. "And then out of remorse for what I'd done, I became a hermit here."
"Well you may have overreacted, but the invaders did kill your wife. Your rage and retribution are understandable." Picard replies.
"No," the entity replies. "You don't understand; I didn't just kill the invaders. I killed all of the aliens, everywhere."
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Same here. The SW prequels, the Hobbit movies, the ST reboots -- I enjoyed them all. Not as much as the originals, mind, but I don't consider them the cinematic slop that fans often do.*
But then, I have this trick where I can compartmentalize different films. If one film is of a different quality and/or tone than another movie within the same franchise, I consider them to be alternate realities. This allows me to cleanse my palette, so to speak, so that I can enjoy what entertainment a movie can provide.
In fact, when it comes to the Abrams reboots, I like them more than the tv series. I get why ST fans find them to be a big step down from the original spirit of the franchise, but none of that bothers me.
Yup. Much like Lord Snow, I didn't even make it to the second episode of Buffy. Firefly, on the other hand, had me right from "We're too pretty to die!" (I saw the episodes in order, years after the fact.)
A few days later, I talked a reluctant friend into watching the first episode, and I saw the Fan light come on in her eyes from the very same line. I never became a Fan with a capital F, but she ended up buying the comic book that links Firefly with Serenity, as well as other paraphernalia that I've forgotten the nature of.
Oh, and I second pH unbalanced's suggestion. Dollhouse is much better than its premise sounds.
I've never read comic books, but I of course heard about superheroes from a young age. For a long time, I assumed that each superhero existed in his or her own universe -- even within the Marvel and DC franchises -- because with the exception of the mutant phenomenon which handily explains a bunch of mutant superheroes running around together, the thought of so many people having or acquiring so many different super powers within such a short span of human history is just too implausible, even within the context of a fictional universe that allows for one superhero. Right...?
Wrong, I am! I guess it's not a problem for most readers/viewers.
I enjoyed both Avengers movies, but I did so despite the added implausibility of all those characters existing within the same universe. Let alone all speaking the same language.
If the masses praise something as being super cool prior to me seeing, reading, or listenimg to it then 98% of the time I will dismiss it as dung. If someone likes something a lot then I would love to hear why they love versus "OMG, you gotta llike this because well the other sheeple do."
This kinda happened to me with Lovecraft. I read rave reviews and references to his fiction for years before reading it, and when I finally did, it was a huge letdown. I don't think I would have loved his fiction if I had never heard anything about it before, but all the talk just made me go "This is what all the hype was over?!"
(Let the shunning of TS now continue!)
I think that the more feats we have, the more people believe they need a specific feat to be able to do anything.
I wonder if a little extra text would remove this perception, in the case of feats which cover actions which would normally require a DM call. For example, if someone at Paizo (or whatever company) writes a Trick Shot feat which allows a character to ricochet arrows off of objects at a -1 to hit per object, how would fans' perceptions change if the feat text included the entry "Normal: Without this feat, ricocheting arrows off of objects imposes a -5 to hit per object." Would this make fans happy, or would they then start complaining that "Ugh, this is camouflaged game errata! Now I need to buy new splatbooks to have all the game rules! This is a travesty!!!"?
Simon Legrande wrote:
Yes, yes, even the gospel truth itself isn't objective truth. Doesn't change the fact that people who walk around preaching their own opinion without qualifiers share the responsibility for creating more uninformed opinions.
The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken. If that same guy told you it's okay to burn down your house would you still listen to him.
These are probably the same people who insist that 4e sucks, because "Everybody says so."
Sometimes the phenomenon is excusable, in the case of new players who don't know any better. But ugh, yes, people really ought to at least read something before passing judgment on it.
I recently started online DMing, and invited an old friend to play who hadn't gamed since I was DMing 3.5 ~10 years ago. One of his first questions was "Are we playing 3e or 5e?" because some guy in a game store had told him that 4e sucks. So I told him how 4e is the edition that fans either love or hate, and about the nerdrage that it's generated. So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.
(The guy also told my friend that 5e is great because humans are good. To which I told my friend, "Ah, humans have been awesome since 3e. This guy is clearly an edition warrior.")
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Was your response, as mine is right now, a blank stare eventually followed by "...So why do you hate the psion?"
I've been writing my characters on looseleaf paper and notebooks since 2e.
*Pencil & Paper Solidarity!*
Steve Geddes wrote:
Bingo! I like Paizo, I'd like to someday play or run a Paizo AP, and I've been here since the 3.5 days.
I don't even hate PF. There are things I hate about PF -- no level-based AC bonus, wizards being incapable of the humble cure light wounds spell, along with a lot of minor thematic and mechanical inconsistencies -- but these are things I also hated about 3.0-.5. Which was my favorite rpg for eight years.
So I actually like PF; I just don't run or seek out PF campaigns.
Yes, they were. I'm also pretty sure that 3.0 was the first edition to give bards their own spell list.
Agreed 100%! I'm not familiar with any particular archetypes, but PrCs, ACFs, feats, and class abilities have been a mess since 3.0. As I'm sure you're aware. (Oh, Spellthief, you were the perfect candidate for being a PrC!) By the end of my 3.5 career, I had started telling players who wanted to take most PrCs "What particular abilities do you want from this PrC? I think we can convert it into a feat..."
So, yeah, someone should get on this multiclassing problem with a new game/clone...*whistles off-key*
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I think that 3.x-style multiclassing has the potential to be the perfect marriage of class-based and point-based character creation. Assuming it's balanced, it gives DMs an immediate and accurate measure of character capability and allows players like Lee Teague to write "[class x] [level y]" on their character sheet, fill in a few pertinents, and be done with it; while also allowing players like DarkLightHitomi a degree of freedom to play the organic character which a game world ideally allows.
You may say that I'm a dreamer,
Just watched Expelled from Paradise, a post-apocalyptic mecha sci-fi in which most of humanity exists in digital form within a refuge called Deva. Angela Balzac, the protagonist, is an agent of Deva on a mission to protect it from a hacker known as Frontier Setter. This movie is a fast-paced action drama. Other than her at-your-fan-service outfit, Angela is an engaging and believable protagonist who becomes a new character by the film's end, and avoids straying into the trite tropes that I expected at the start.
I give Expelled from Paradise four stars out of five.
Edit: For a contribution to the thread - I loathe Magic: the Gathering. Despite numerous attempts (most of my gaming group is big on Magic), I've never played a round of Magic that I've actually enjoyed.
I have a love-hate relationship with MtG. It truly is a novel and creative game, and I can have a lot of fun playing it, but it'll always be chained by its roots. In some ways -- if you play the Standard format exclusively, at least -- it becomes a new game every 2(?) years; but there are certain assumptions and legacy quirks that never go away. Somewhat like D&D.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Ah, gotcha. There are songs where I love one half but hate the other half, so...right, there's no accounting for taste.
Simon Legrande wrote:
In regards to Imagine, it's just a matter of preference for me. I don't like John Lennon for the same reason I don't like Katy Perry, The Mamas and the Poppas, System of a Down, Beyonce, Dave Matthews Band, Chuck Berry or Cannibal Corpse. Sometimes the message has nothing to do with it.
Okay, cool. It's all about the melody/tune/whatever for me, so no judgments here. Though I have no idea what all of those artists have in common.
To defuse the political aspects, maybe people aren't "offended" by any particular message, but just don't like that touchy-feely hippy dippy crap?
Hm, possibly, but that might be a touchy subject too.
Just last month I was griping to a couple of guys about a paper I had to write, and how the professor wasn't being overly helpful -- it was an advanced course, to be fair -- when one of them exclaimed "Oh yeah, I hate professor whatshisname, and his hippy dippy crap!" And my thought was "Whoa, dude, you just took this from first gear straight into fifth!" I didn't question the guy, but the following questions did cross my mind:
1. What do demanding professors have to do with hippy dippy crap?
I'm sure there are answers, but I'm somewhat of a second-generation hippy myself, so this attitude is always bizarre to me when it crops up.
If you're of the libertarian bent, this might be what you don't like:
John Lennon wrote:
Of course, now that I'm rereading the full lyrics, there are other themes that I'm sure plenty of folks object to. There's the anti-religious theme to offend religious folks, and the 'no countries' theme to offend extreme patriots and racists who want to 'Keep those people out of our country!'
Anyhow, this is running the risk of straying deep into the political, so I think I'll stop here.
It's not the tune because I've heard/read filks of the song using the melody and had no problems, so it's got to be something in the lyrics.
You aren't perchance an escapee from a totalitarian communist regime, are you? Or a libertarian? ;)
I actually hated Imagine when I was a kid...it was something about the tune/melody/whatever. But at some point I started loving it, the way that most people go from hating to loving onions. Which I still can't stand, despite enjoying onion flavor.
DM waz up? wrote:
Oy, yes, I remember the friend who introduced me to tabletop gaming telling me "Chaotic Neutral is basically crazy." Of course, this was back in 2e, when CN really was described as clinically insane.
WotC really improved the definitions, but I've yet to see a happy balance between 'Alignment sticking its nose in all kinds of places it doesn't belong' (2e, 3.x) and 'Alignment is 99% fluff' (4e, 5e). Ah well, c'est la vie.
Ah, gotcha. Same here. :)
The Indescribable wrote:
Top of the list is adding some kind of level-related bonus to AC instead of the traditional suite of AC-booster items, and relatively balanced MCing that doesn't require patch-on rules like xp penalties or favored class bonuses. That second one is somewhat of a holy grail for me, and would almost be enough of a draw for me to buy any game even if the rest of it were garbage.
There's also like a thousand pet peeves I have with the D&D traditionalisms that are still holding out. I'd like point buy to be standard, and to replace the 3-18 stat range with a simple range of modifiers. (Also eliminate other random elements in chargen, as you might guess.) I'd like to see all alignment restrictions dropped, except cleric-like restrictions for divine classes, if the game wanted to retain a hint of traditionalism. (Paladins would look something like this.)
And spells...well, spells are the primary reason that casters are so crazy. So I'd like to see the spell chapter gone through with a fine-tooth comb. For example, I'd like to stop beating around the bush with spells like rope trick; instead of adding cute provisos like "the rope can't be removed or hidden," just say that spell slots can't be regained in extra-dimensional spaces! 'Extra-dimensional spaces are filled with discordant energy that prevents gainful rest,' whatever. If invisibility can have an obviously metagame proviso like "ends if you attack," it's perfectly reasonable to add fluff-justified provisos to other spells in the interest of balance.
Oh, and move healing spells back into Necormancy!
Really though, I could go on and on, and still forget some of the things I'd like to see. The bottom line is that I need to finish the fantasy heartbreaker I've been working on, and then play it. ;)
I wish Paizo would radically change Pathfinder despite the fact that I probably still wouldn't buy it.
Hm, why not?
I actually might be interested in a radically changed PF. But to be honest, I'm looking for pretty particular things, and the odds of seeing those things in PF is virtually zero unless I were to win the lottery, buy Paizo, and then head the PF 2.0 project myself. :p
Hm, that's odd. In the 2e DMG, I remember mention that some things are insta-kill, with a collapsing room trap mentioned as an example. But then TSR-era D&D was even more inconsistent than WotC D&D.
Smarmy? Chill out where is your sense of humour? I was joking.
Lol, I was joking too. Couldn't you tell?
Hit points is not a disassociative mechanic.
Which is why I called it a dissociative rule, which is a much older problem than some edition warrior's peculiarly selective term for rationalizing what he didn't like about 4e. Which is why gamers have been having issues with dissociative rules since day 1 of D&D.
Someone attacks you, you have less hit points, cure spells heal damage. Is it realistic? No, but its still a simulation, in the context of a heroic fantasy setting.
So is non-magical healing. But hey, feel free to tell yourself whatever you want.
My OP stated that there aren't any mechanics in the Pathfinder (3.75) system that implies hit points is anything other than meat points, which is in fact true.
So you're okay with meat points because the PF rulebook tells you that that's what hp are. Cool, that's all I was looking for.
That... that looks exactly like what I was saying, though, which is why I'm surprised; I thought you were talking about hit points?
I'd rather that defensive skill be represented by some sort of by-level bonus[es], but yes, without house rules hit points are [sadly] the only candidate for representing get-better-just-for-surviving defensive skill.
I think I'm missing something that you're saying... but okay.
Yeah, there's something I've been missing from every one of your posts on this topic. It's like, I understand what each of your words mean individually, but we're on different wavelengths so I can't put them together in a completely coherent message.
I really do giving Blue Rose and Star Wars d20 a look, though, if only to get an idea of what they're like.
I've played the latter, but not the former. Not likely to unless I stumble upon a Blue Rose fan.
Smarmy much? As I recall, this whole discussion originally began in the other thread with you not being able to handle non-magical healing because it's 'dissociative.' Well, cry me a river. This is D&D/PF we're talking about; I've been gaming with dissociative rules for ~20 years. Hit points are the poster boy of dissociative rules, but there are plenty more!
How you can imagine that fantasy physics works fantastically for the purpose of wounds (meat points), while being incapable of (or unwilling to) imagining healing without overt finger-wiggling magic is beyond me. But by all means, reach for those tissues.
In my D&D 3.5e days I used something called a Class Defense Bonus. We abandoned it when we crossed over to Pathfinder as it was too much work for the GM. And it changed too many other things in the game...the dreaded butterfly effect.
You tell me that the CDB variant is too much work, and then you go ahead and post it? Good thing I'm perfectly capable of writing a better house rule myself!
... oooooorrrrrrrrrrr... make the AC scaling as part of the natural progression of the character growth instead of a function of magic items and feats.
If I were to run PF, this is exactly what I'd do. It'd probably look a lot like the house rule that you linked.
I'm not saying your grasp is wrong, but rather the underlying premise that is "hit points is a skill, where's the related one" is flawed.
Not quite. My premise is "Characters ought to get better at martial defense just by surviving adventures, just as they get better at stabbing things just by surviving adventures. Thus, there ought to be a stat to represent that.”
I'll understand if you don't agree with this premise, as we've already established that we're coming from opposite directions on this issue.
Wait, so your posts have been trying to explain how the game works, and what different mechanics mean? Er, thanks I guess, but I've been playing for about 20 years now and I have a pretty good grasp of the assumptions and various interpretations. My purpose in this thread is to find out how you make meat points work, notably in PF and D&D.
Ah, so your issue is related to mine, but coming from the opposite direction. Brando McAwesome the 20th level martial guy being as easy to stab as a dirt farmer doesn't both you, but Bartleby the Bookworm being able to punch his way through a platoon of 1st level goons just for being a 20th level wizard does. Am I off the mark?
(Point in fact, I tend to think that attacks should be skill-based, myself.)
It would certainly be more consistent, which is a big plus.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
HP is also a reflection of stamina and fatigue... Still it's too vague... That's why I like Rolemaster broken arms and legs, bleed stacks, guts spilling out. Combatants flee and surrender a few rounds into combat.
I've never played RM or any hit-location kind of game, so I can't comment on how much I like it, but I absolutely respect game designers who have the cajones to deviate from traditional D&Disms.