|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have edition fatigue. I have settled on the game I enjoy, and I am playing it: Pathfinder. I do not have the time, energy or money to devote to another new game I may not enjoy and may not find players for - especially when I know the main reason for it's release is that WotC need to make another round of cash out of the D&D name. Gamer-guest etiquette can be tricky. The fact that ours is a social hobby means sometimes there are problems totally outside the game, often based on expectations, and it sounds like you have run afoul of this. I am often the host of games I run and/or play in. Inf act, I'd say that's the case 90% of the time. So, I can understand what frustrations the hosts are feeling. If you were a guest at a game in my house, I would have had a talk with you at this point, but I'd have been pretty firm that you'd crossed a line, and I needed you to know you'd crossed a line. I'd also feel like I shouldn't have had to talk to you about this situation, so I'd be annoyed. As I read your post, in the past 3 game sessions in a row you a: failed to pay for pizza. Now, I'm not sure if you failed once and then didn't pay or eat pizza the next two times, or if you failed once, then skipped pizza the next two times (neither eating nor paying). If the former, then you are guilty of a minor transgression, but still a transgression. You essentially borrowed money on a promise to repay, and then have failed to do so twice. That's inconsiderate. The group did you a favor, with no forewarning they would need to, in feeding you. Once they approve you eating their pizza with a promise to repay, you have an extra duty to make sure you do so. Failure to live up to that not once, but twice, shows a serious lack of respect for the people who did you a favor. If you ate pizza three game sessions in a row and never paid for it (which as I said isn't clear to me), then you are guilty of a major transgression. You compiled all the problems I just listed above with mooching, knowing you already owed folks money, and without asking if it was okay the second two times (or else, presumably, they would have "mentioned the debt," which you say didn't happen). This is the context by which the next two points must be seen. Over the same time period you were mooching food form the group (pizza) and failing to repay it (on two subsequent occasions), you stopped bringing your own snacks. Even if you were the only person eating your donuts, you were showing a willingness to provide. I would strongly guess the perception is that since you didn't bring the snack that you normally eat, you ate more of the snacks brought by others. Whether this is true or not is immaterial, actually. Not bringing snacks isn't a transgression lacking an agreement to the contrary. Not bringing snacks when you are already mooching pizza and showing disrespect by failing to pay for the pizza-debt over the next two sessions makes this look much less like a matter of being very forgetful, and more like a conscious decision to eat other's food without bringing anything yourself (money for pizza, or snacks). Then, the milk. If you were asked not to drink the milk, and you did so anyway, you are guilty of a major transgression. You violated the rules of the host. Taken to an extreme, you stole their milk. (You took something you did not buy, and had no reasonable expectation you were welcome to). That's way beyond merely inconsiderate. It doesn't matter that it was "just" milk or that you only took it once after after you were told not to. This is not the behavior of a good guest, or even a reasonable adult. Combine these three issues, and you stopped paying for pizza, failed to repay a debt on the next two opportunities you had to do so, stopped putting in any effort to cover the group's combined food needs, and took milk you specifically had been told you were not welcome to. No one of these things is a big deal. combined, they show a pattern of disregard and disrespect. I can't speak to the swearing. I cuss like an injured sailor. My ability to moderate this around others is not as good as I'd like. Certainly if I had been warned about my language and then cussed on even two more occasions, I would totally understand if a group told me I was no longer welcome. If I was both cussing and drinking milk I had been told I was not welcome to, I'd expect to be asked to leave. That is classic "bad guest" behavior. From the sound of things, you created a tend of showing disrespect for the food (and thus labor which bought the food), and rules of your hosts. Seeing each incident as a minor transgression by itself does not give the weight of events over 3 sessions the gravity I honestly believe it deserves. I think at the very least, repayment of pizza money and an apology for violating the clearly laid-out expectations of you hosts regarding milk and cussing are in order. After that, if you care to, you could see if that bridge is permanently burned. CommandoDude wrote: hosts never reminded me about my debt or asked to collect pizza money so it slipped my mind. Same happened at my last meeting. I was never called/emailed/or talked to at any game (even by the DM) about this. Don't make other people keep track of your debts, That can generate bad feelings. I was in NYC one time--I don't remember when, pre-9/11--walking through Tribeca, when I saw Giuliani and his entourage walking down the street in my direction. As we got close, there was a homeless dude sitting on the sidewalk who yelled out "Hey, Mr. Mayor! Give me a dollar!" Giuliani looked at him and smiled but just kept walking. The bum then yelled out "I voted for Dinkins, a%%!%+~!" Hee hee!
Charlie Bell
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)
After watching Gary Kovacs' TED Talk on "Tracking the Trackers," I installed Collusion. Paizo.com doesn't report your activity to any trackers. It doesn't even show up in Collusion. And that's awesome. Thanks, Paizo.com, for doing your part to protect our online privacy. Freehold DM wrote:
I felt the same way about Loki until I realized Loki wasn't a chump; this has all been a Xanatos Gambit. Loki actually got what he wanted: access to Asgard and to the gauntlet in Odin's vault. Thanos might even have helped him set this game up and the heroes fell for it; they think they won. And yes, he played Natasha like a violin. He wanted her to know part of the plan because Hulk was the weakest point for the group, and he wanted them busy fighting each other. Hench the smirk we see when Loki hears them fighting. In the end everyone didn't worry about what Loki's real motives were. Big mistake. Thanos might not know about the gauntlet, but Loki does. Check this out: http://maskofreason.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/very-good-writing-why-loki-won -in-the-avengers/ Like a stage magician, Loki spent the movie obfuscating everything with paper thin lies, and our heroes were too dumb to question him suddenly trying to take over earth (except for Tony whom Loki immediately distracted when his line of questioning got close to the truth). Coulson and some of the others (Tony) gave hints they realized Loki wasn't serious or something fishy was up, but no one tried to find out what that was. Thor should have realized something was up, but he didn't. Loki is Marvel's consummate Xanatos Gambler. When he's wandering around acting all vulnerable, it's usually a lie. He's not known as the god of lies for no reason. He lies most of the time. Nothing he said was his goal was really his goal in this film. Thomas Long 175 wrote:
And no offense, but if sex is boring, you're doing it wrong. Like anything else it's a skill. It gets better with practice.
Patrick Curtin
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case Subscriber)
When I visited my grandfather last month he gave me his lively, if somewhat vitriolic, opinion on the fading support for the sciences, among like fifty other rants. I would type out the entirety of the conversation that I recall but half of it would disappear under the profanity filter so I’ll just give you the broad strokes. He is of the opinion that part of what changed from the great support of the 50s and 60s to the lackluster care of modern times is that back then the heights of technology where so mysterious and out of reach of the common man that they assumed an almost magical quality in the minds of the uneducated and held immense fascination. Nowadays a startling level of tech is in the hands of us rubes and we have lost our fervor for the arcane powers of science. “The damnest thing is that people never supported the sciences, not really!” He informed me. “It was merely a replacement mythology and now that the magic is gone you useless wastes of space have dropped support of it even though we are in a position to accomplish more now than ever thought possible! You kids are the worst, you have no interest in the only real thing that can unlock the secrets of the universe and change our lives for the better! I hate you all!” “I dunno grandpa, I’ve always thought science was pretty cool.” I informed him. “That’s because you’re so dumb everything is still magical to you boy! I doubt your ability to add two single, positive integers together you stupid piece of s~#$.” He declared. “I think perhaps I can prove you wrong, but first I’m going to have to Google what an integer is on my iphone.” I replied. My girlfriend has just finished a short stop motion clip featuring my Pathfinder miniatures. I was entertained by it and just thought I'd share. Cheers! Callum yellowdingo wrote: And Black Widow? I mean really? Little miss SHIELD Agent doesn't strike me as anything more than eye-candy for the 'Sexy Ninja'-loving geeks. Loki would impregnate her with a look and dump her in his harem of ex-girl friends. Think that says more about you than it does about the Avengers. yellowdingo wrote:
All the words are in a language I know but the order you put them in is foreign, and distressing. Betty White wrote:
I walked into a FLGS this afternoon and looked at the meetup board there. There was a very long advertisement posted, printed and formed to look like a handwritten scroll. One of the points listed was 'if you write or speak in l33t, don't bother'. The e-mail at the bottom was 'g33k4l1f3@yahoo.com'. -_- Aberzombie wrote:
Case and point, this gentleman's brain has the savory base typical of Midwesterners. Probably of German descent, with a touch of Italian... no... Greek. There is an acidic bite that tells me he probably drank too much caffeine. He wasn't self-medicating, but there is a hint of prescription MAOI-Inhibitors. The consistency suggests he was under a lot of stress in the months leading up to this consumption... BigNorseWolf wrote:
Or this. The causes only seem to matter to people who object to certain sexual orientations. I don't think it is at all important. Shiny wrote: All my friends are getting married and having kids. And where the f*#$ am I? Stinking drunk in my student rent apartment. I remember thinking something similar 20-25 years ago. Now, some of those people are divorced (most twice), on their second or third career, in jail, dead from drunk driving, and typically found drunk every night after work.(Others are happy and loving life.) I've been happily married for 17 years, own my own home, still enjoy my favorite hobbies, and look forward to going to work (maybe not every day, but most days). Life isn't a competition to reach "happy" or some other goal first.
"Ask not the wise man how to live- he cannot tell you.
Urizen wrote:
DRUNK HULK NOT CRY IN HIS BEER. DRUNK HULK JUST LOVE YOU, MAN Well my promotion to IT Manager became official today, on my birthday. How cool is that? Also IT Manager is misleading as I am also now the IT department. Vikingson's got a lot of good suggestions, there, although I'd hold off on logging until the ship gets into inland waters or at least close to shore, where the depth of the water is considered shallow enough to worry about grounding. As to the anchor question, though, I think there's an initial misunderstanding of what Spanky said, along with a less than kind way of wording things, that needs to be addressed. Spanky never said that the anchor would fall into the "cable box." What he said was that if the anchor were to "[drop] back down unexpectedly" then things would be bad. And, vikingson points out, that is quite true. A heavy anchor dropping to the bottom is going to give that cable a lot of velocity and if the person inside the box gets tangled up, he's going to be both crushed and ripped apart. Now, as to the concept of anchor chain, it is true that ships didn't start regularly using iron chains for anchoring until World War I. However, there are references to iron anchor chains going back to the 1400s, and references to "iron cable" going back to the ancient Greeks. These days, we require so much anchor chain (3 to 5 times the depth of the water), because it is actually the weight of the chain that holds the ship fast. The anchor's flukes dig in and help keep the chain from slipping on the bottom. For older ships that don't have as much displacement as the huge modern vessels we have. Heck, even today, a 50-foot boat with a working weight of 1,600 pounds only needs a 23-pound anchor. A galleon, whose overall length wasn't more than 150 feet, had an anchor that typically weighed about 2,000 pounds, not 1.8 tons, although most ships had two such anchors, as well as a smaller 500-pound streaming anchor. Obviously, your research on the weight of anchor chains for larger ships is pretty thorough, and a chain for raising the anchor would have to be strong, which usually translates to heavy. But as I mentioned earlier, you could also rely on the weight of the chain to hold the ship in place, allowing you to make the anchor lighter. Making such a chain isn't outside the capability of Golarion's metalworkers, either. Consider that George Washington had blacksmiths produce a chain barrier that spanned the Hudson River in 1778. The 17 smiths took six weeks to make the 1700-foot chain, and each link weighed 275 pounds. Anyway...just some additional info. Anchor chains were not at all common prior to the 19th century, but they did exist. And as such, it's not a stretch to allow them to exist in the scope of Golarion's maritime technology. It's also better on messageboards to try and be "overly polite", since direct, no-nonsense descriptions can come off as impatient or mean-spirited when a person only has your text to go by. It was on a Windjammer;
it's on page 35; I can't copy/paste This is for the OP; I'm sure there's some anachronisms to it somehow, but I thought it had a really dismal vibe to it. Sorry I'm not historically and technically accurate enough for some; I'm kinda land locked and not as big a nautical expert as.....others...... I figured, though, that in a game with flying winged horses, giant people whose hips don't shatter when they run, and corpses that walk around and suck blood for some reason and turn into bats, it wouldn't really suspend disbelief too much to have a chain locker with an actual chain instead of a cable on it on a pirate ship. I haven't looked at this thread for 5 days and there are 1000+ posts to read! I'm not sure when i'll get to that so a big Happy Mother's Day to everybody! On a personal note, I finally got a job this past week although it's a temp position but hopefully it will turn into a something more. Worst case scenario is that it will look really good on my resume when I look again. We'll see... Cory,
Plus, which is more tolerant: expressing disdain for a person's views or banning them from marrying because of their sexuality? One of these thigns is justa little less tolerant than the other. Let's see if you can figure out which. Also, civil rights are not up for popular vote. That's what makes them rights. Would you support a state that said all Christians couldn't marry? How about one that banned mixed race marriages? Would you call the people calling for such laws bigots? If so, what's the difference? If not, could you give your defnition of the word as I'm not sure it matches the one in common usage? taig wrote:
Well, Taig, I'm glad you asked...... Spoiler:
You see, in an attempt to prevent Joss from being a successful film maker, the future FreeholdDM used time travel technology to send young Whedon false dreams showing that he would destroy the world by accidentally impaling a famous actor, thus causing an international incident, followed by a quick escalation to WW III. Unfortunately, this dastardly scheme was actually what inspired Joss to become a filmmaker, and what causes him to kill so many actors via impalement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
