The Fifth Archdaemon

World of Dim Light's page

28 posts. Alias of Brian Adams.


RSS

Dark Archive

Amazingly, it seems that everyone not present knows exactly what is going on, and jumps to support the guy who decided to vent on a public forum, where they can expect their semi-anonymous post to get support, while insulting someone, instead of venting in private, say, to a friend, or deciding to settle things at the table, so that the only people involved in the events comment on them.

For the record, I do NOT agree with Kingbrendarr on the issue of boons. I was not asked by anyone to chase down RealAlchemy. And in person, I would be more likely to side with RealAlchemy on this issue. But RealAlchemy erred in making this an issue on a public forum, where people who know nothing of the situation see things through a distorted lens, make their own assumptions, make judgments on the people involved, and only add to the problem. And that is why he ended up hurting his own reputation with me, and prompting my comments about disappointment.

Arc, I really appreciated you organizing the special, and giving me a chance to actually play one. I had a lot of fun, but it did affect things the following day, after a lot of travel. I know that I was in a great deal of pain, and short on sleep at the session in question, and at least one of those applied to others as well. It had nothing to do with people leaving one system for another, making your post one of those that I referred to above, and was probably triggered by my comment that I had traded a PFS boon (actually the only one that I had, from GMing PFS at the only convention I had attended previously) for an SFS boon that will, by reports, be obsolete in a few months. That brought up the matter of boons in the discussion.

In general, I feel that these sorts of rants are not productive on a public forum, and I would ask that RealAlchemy consider whether it would be best to ask the moderators to remove the entire thing.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nelroy wrote:

Seems to me the current design of character creation is supposed to net generally the same stat array (from an optimal standpoint). This is probably great for 2 things:

1) Play testing

2) Pathfinder society play

and I +1 Kerobelis... you can always roll characters for a more varying ability array. Personally I prefer this... everyone getting roughly the same stats feels a bit like everyone getting participation awards... some of my favorite / memorable RP moments/characters are attributed to characters with a terrible stat and having to build and strategize around/despite that.

The problem is, define the meaning of optimal. For the power gamer, this is 'what array gets me the best stats for hurting things/rendering skill checks trivial.' For someone trying to create a certain character type, it is 'what array gets me the best emulation of my concept.' The former is, of course going to consider an 18 in their primary stat mandatory. The latter may well feel that an extra 16 is worth the cost of not having an 18, especially if their concept is a hybrid of classes, rather than being a pure class. There is still room for customization, as soon as you reject the idea that you must be super-specialized.

Dark Archive

GM Blake wrote:

To be fair, no names or locations were given in the above rant, so nobody's reputation was injured.

It appears that the poster was looking for a safe place to vent his feelings without the interpersonal drama of the physical location and the people involved and without pointing fingers. This is an acceptable thing to do. So, unless there is more being written in other public threads that publicly out or vilify the source of his frustration, you've actually chased him down to make him feel bad about his own personal feelings.

I understand why he wanted a safe place to vent, if that's the case.

Regarding the original poster's observation: this is not something that I have witnessed locally or at any of my tables at GenCon this year. I would expect it is an individual thing rather than cultural.

Except that his identity is VERY easily established, despite his anonymous handle, by anyone in our local circle. Which damages things locally.

Dark Archive

I am not the individual you are complaining about, and you can find out who I am fairly easily. I am, however, very disappointed that instead of trying to discuss this at the table, you choose to damage another's reputation in public, without making any attempt to understand the conditions that prompted his statement.

Dark Archive

Revan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
The problem that I think James Jacobs was addressing in his post is labeling real-world concepts in the game world "good" or "evil." Which is how we get into icky territory that's liable to offend people.

That is indeed correct. We gamers are the alignment systems worst enemies in this regard, I think.

As for its potential removal, that is STILL a very remote possibility. I'm pretty sure we'll keep it in the game, since it's such a useful tool for things like paladins, evil monsters, whatever... but it does get exhausting wading through the endless alignment argument threads or trying to remind folks that if we publish details on a character or group or whoever who does reprehensable things we're not actually endorsing those things.

Anathema/codes of conduct, allegiance a la d20 Modern and other such things are far more nuanced tools.

The problem is that about half those threads I have read the first post on aren't actually about Good vs Evil, they are about 'I want to do this thing without having to face the consequences of losing my class abilities, so I am going to try to weasel-word my way out of it', or the corresponding 'One of my players wanted to...'. Anathema and codes of conduct aren't going to reduce the number of those posts, because they aren't about what is good and what is evil, but rather, how do I do what I want consequence free. Nuance just gives more cracks and nooks to weasel.

Dark Archive

Ferious Thune wrote:
Christian Dragos wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:

Christian Dragos wrote:
Out of my 150 games GM'd, I've had 1 tpk (the party made some bad choices in Night March of Kalkemedes) and probably 3 or 4 PCs killed total.
** spoiler omitted **

...

** spoiler omitted **

That's just... wow.

I'd say they earned their TPK. When I run a home game on my own world, Raise Dead and Resurrection are off the table (mostly), so I tell my players that I will not cause them to die from a freak crit, or anything like that, but player stupidity voids the warranty. On that world, that would have been a TPK.

Dark Archive

Conditions usually refers to things that have the potential to kill a character over time if not treated. Poisons, diseases, bleed effects, and things like that need to be cleared up in some fashion before the end of the scenario, or the character would die in the nebulous time between scenarios. Permanent static penalties do not need to be cleared up immediately (and are not called 'conditions' for the most part), since they won't directly kill you in the short or intermediate term.

Dark Archive

The deltas for exchanging primary gunner and pilot should be taken into consideration if hitting is difficult. Lately, our pilots are dead last in priority for receiving optional computer bonuses and encouragement, unless the checks for initiative seem close, since they auto-succeed on maneuver checks. And the next potential pilot is usually much worse as a pilot without being nearly as bad of a change at gunnery, or being the only choice for engineer. Of course, our usual setup involves an Ace Pilot Operative, a Sharpshooter Soldier, and an Envoy who tends to be better than anyone but a Mechanic or Operative at Engineering. And if we do end up with a Mechanic, I'll slide down to that 6th slot I listed. Aside from my Envoy, we do tend to have fixed positions, but then our core four players are very well suited for our roles, with the Mystic actually being one of the better gunners most of the time.

Dark Archive

Took about 90 minutes. I cannot emphasize enough the critical importance of prioritizing which positions to fill. As far as my experience, the priority starts with Pilot, especially if you have a fixed big gun. Win initiative, and a good pilot can make sure that big gun is in-arc. Lose initiative, and the enemy will avoid that arc every time. Next is primary gunner, usually on the turret to ensure they are firing every round. Third is engineer. Fourth is second gunner. Fifth is science officer. Sixth is Captain, and it really helps if that Captain can do computers and engineering as well. They will then be able to become a second engineer if you take a big hit (one diverts power to shields while the other patches the glitching system), second science officer (one rebalances shields while the other gets a target lock), or. if you have three weapons in arc, and everyone is succeeding comfortably, they become a tertiary gunner.

So with the crew medtec28 is talking about, the Ace Pilot SHOULD be the pilot, Vesk as primary gunner (You can use BAB in place of piloting ranks), Ysoki as Engineer following initial scans, and Solarian as secondary gunner.

Dark Archive

Yesteryear's Truth is the ultimate SFS starship combat nightmare. That one taught the writers a lot about what not to do. I'm not looking forward to that part of the scenario when I run it this Sunday, especially since they won't have our group's A team for it. It has been fun playing starship combat with this group, but unfortunately our -701s have all leveled out. I'm just hoping that they have a decent pilot, and remember the tactical tricks we have developed.

The best thing for starship combat enjoyment is to not let that one scenario define your experience.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:

This one, I definitely like a lot. Let's hope baseline assumption are serviciable without dialing too much.

I really do hope that baseline rarity assumpion are dictated more by world building needs that fluff reason. Locking Dominate Persons behind rare because it's a plot device, I can approve. Locking armor proficiency behind a Rare tag because "grey warden fluff in golarion" it's really bad, and would imply having to retag every fluff-based restriction in every single of your homebrews settings.

The Grey Maiden armor IS world building,though. It just happens to be world building for Paizo's official campaign world.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Quote:
... you have at least SEPed them.
What does SEP mean?

Somebody Else's Problem.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Of course, libertarian gamists will cry foul, because it will limit their dumpster diving frenzy.

Speaking as a libertarian, we're all about consensus in terms of rules. As long as the group agrees most libertarians are fine with some restrictions.

Unless they're a#$%*&@s, of course. Every group has some of those.

What if is the GM? I've noticed in this thread there is a mentality of "there is no such a thing as a bad GM, only bad players".

I wouldn't say that is the general viewpoint. But there are really only two solutions to a bad GM, each applying to one of the two general classifications of bad GM. The ignorant/inexperienced GM is solved by giving them the tools to do better, whether through rules that make things easier for them, mentoring, or simply experience in the role. The willful category of GM has only one solution. Leave the table. Either they will have a change of heart when they lose players, or you have at least SEPed them.

Dark Archive

I have played/run with both a Flame Dancer Bard and a Slumber Witch. The former was a bit annoying to the GM, the latter used Slumber sparingly after the first session, mostly when it was a good thing for the mission to take a target out without killing them. I would be more likely to invite that player to my table than the FDB player.

Dark Archive

Actually, according to the text, even if you get it for GMing first, you can't get a box for playing it.

Dark Archive

nosig wrote:
World of Dim Light wrote:

With regards to the spoilered rant, that's going to depend on group and GM tendencies. As a player, I lean toward describing what I am doing to see if the GM will grant some kind of bonus, regardless of the skill being checked. As a GM, I tend to take into account anything the players tell me to determine DCs/bonuses to rolls. I am sorry if most of your experience has been with GMs who treat social skills differently from other skills, but that is not a universal thing.

One reason for why this might be a tendency is that for social skills, you can generally actually do what your character is doing at the table, whereas showing off dance moves isn't something that a crowded venue could accommodate at all. Combined with quotability of particularly memorable results, this might also result in a bit of confirmation bias.

I lean toward describing what my PC is doing... because I think it's fun to "Act it out". Actually knowing that the judge/GM is going to modify my roll depending on my descriptions will often "kill the moment" for me and put me back to just rolling the dice.

In fact, I like to roll the check first (or Take 10 if I am allowed!) not announcing the result right away, then try to role play how well I think I did.

Here's a thread that talks about that...
Go to Role-Playing-the-Roll.

Different viewpoints here. Actually, I would say that the player should give at least some impression of what their character is trying to do, then roll. The GM is the one who will truly know what the difficulty of the task is, and therefore how successful the result is.

Just yesterday, at a Starfinder table, a player rolled a '3' to hit, and said 'I miss.' Total result was 9, so he assumed it was a failure. When the GM asked for the final result, and was given the total of 9, he announced that the attack was successful. If I were describing that, I would have said that despite being a bit off balance (whatever caused the EAC to be that low) resulted in the shot striking the target.

The player trying to roleplay the roll creates a number of difficulties, starting with the player's lack of knowledge as to what the actual difficulty is. That moving speech with a roll of a 1 from the linked thread? The speech may have been moving, but some external factor caused it to fail. I would tend to encourage roleplaying the skill level, not the die roll. You know how skilled the character is. The die roll doesn't reflect skill, it reflects the random factors that influence the ultimate success or failure, one of four elements that determine the result, and one that you have no way of predicting in advance.

The four elements I just mentioned are PC skill level (always known to the player), general difficulty of the task (frequently known to the player through experience), fixed situational modifiers (sometimes known to the player, but not always - you might know that the mayor's daughter has a crush on you, and is influencing her father in your favor, or you might not), and the random elements (never known in advance). A player's actions, I feel, should be stated in terms of the known elements, then the random elements and unknown elements factored in by the GM to give the final result.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

With regards to the spoilered rant, that's going to depend on group and GM tendencies. As a player, I lean toward describing what I am doing to see if the GM will grant some kind of bonus, regardless of the skill being checked. As a GM, I tend to take into account anything the players tell me to determine DCs/bonuses to rolls. I am sorry if most of your experience has been with GMs who treat social skills differently from other skills, but that is not a universal thing.

One reason for why this might be a tendency is that for social skills, you can generally actually do what your character is doing at the table, whereas showing off dance moves isn't something that a crowded venue could accommodate at all. Combined with quotability of particularly memorable results, this might also result in a bit of confirmation bias.

Dark Archive

We're down from 2 tables with an occasional third, to one with an occasional second at my main venue. But at the same time, 5th ed seems to be suffering the same decrease. And the only times we have trouble getting a full table seem to be the Wednesdays before local cons, though I don't know how much of that is because many of the main GMs say that they will not be there that day.

Dark Archive

No. It just means people need to pay attention. Your redesign project is full of flaws, and mistaken assumptions, and will do nothing to get the people who can't be bothered to read instructions to follow your instructions.

Dark Archive

The willful inability to read and follow instructions is the only issue here.

Step 1: Hand each of the players a blank Chronicle sheet and ask
them to fll out the sections marked A–F, H, K, and O (Character
Chronicle #, player/character info and slotted faction, Starting XP,
Initial Fame, and Starting Credits). Each player should also list the
factions for which her character earned Reputation during the
adventure (V) and her current Reputation with those factions (W).

Thus, player enters current rep in the left field.

Step 3: Determine how much Fame the character earned
over the course of the scenario. A character can typically earn
a maximum of 2 Fame per scenario; 1 Fame for each success
condition completed. Enter the number of Fame earned in the
shaded Fame Gained feld (L) and initial the adjacent box. Repeat
this process [determining gain] for the character’s Reputation and update the field for the appropriate faction (X).

Bracketed part added by me. It clearly does not refer to the third sentence, as there is no adjacent box to initial, but instead refers to the first sentence.

Thus, GM enters updated total in box X

Therefore, Method 1.

Dark Archive

No. They have to be built up legally step by step, and feats can't be delayed.

Dark Archive

Sterling Jade-Marble wrote:

I'm one of those people who would enjoy lending a hand as GM, given that they seem to be needed at big events like Gen Con. But I feel totally inadequate to the task. I play Starfinder (and Pathfinder, which I have also GM'd a bit) and have read through the CRB. But there seem to be so many people (GM's and otherwise) who know so many details about these games, from the rules to the history to the detailed minutia. I mostly know about the races/classes of characters I've actually played. :)

Any advice as to how to know when you know enough to rise to the occasion and take on some GM-ing at the Con level?

Look for a local con that is asking for volunteers. Once you have a local con under your belt, it will be time to assess how you felt about doing it. I took the step at ECCC this year, and I enjoyed it. I'll probably be aiming to be in a position to volunteer for PaizoCon this next year (reporting issues have kept me from having my first star, and I could easily be 2 star and 1 or 2 nova by this time next year).

Dark Archive

pjrogers wrote:
Mekkis wrote:

PFS scenarios aren't updated when new material comes out.

If you enjoy beating the system as you so claim, more power to you. But don't claim that it's a level playing field.

This is a really critical point, and one that I hope PFS2 can address. As additional classes, archetypes, etc. come out for PF2e, there needs to be a way to update older PFS2 scenarios, similar to the revised secondary success conditions document for the earlier seasons of PFS1.

It is absolutely NOT feasible to update 20+ scenarios every time a new book gets sanctioned. It was feasible to alter 1 minor portion of a large number of scenarios when a change of campaign direction occurred, which did not involve rebalancing any encounters, but rebalancing every encounter in every scenario released, on the off chance that some min-maxing powergamer has a trick to trivialize it (which, incidentally has the effect of forcing everyone else to become min-maxers just to survive the scenario) would be a task I would like to sentence you to perform.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I disagree that core is in any way significant beyond "the core options predate the rest of the options."

I mean, a big part of the nature of shared storytelling games is that the world is mutable to fit the needs of the story. If you had wanted to, you could play a goblin PC in every single adventure path to date. Between the GM and the player working together you can fit a hero-goblin anywhere you want if you actually try. However many goblins exist in Magnimar or Westcrown or Alkenstar is up to the GM to decide, depending on the needs of the game.

Sorry, but i disagree with you.

Once again i repeat, the Advanced race guide is a clear example of this.

It directly calls out for GM approval on anything, BUT the core 7, which it already assumes you can make a PC of.

This is a wording issue that could be resolved in 2.0 in the core by calling out GM aproval on everything, which personally i find only logical, but for 1.0 what is core and what isnt have a big diference regarding races.

Honestly if goblins were still called "Featured" or something equivalent instead of "core" and had such direct call it probably wouldnt be such a thing right now.

The ARG can assume that all it wants, if the GM says no, the answer is no.

EXCEPT when the GM's hands are tied.

My opposition to goblins in the core rulebook is based entirety on my experiences and observations from running Society games, the one place where the only real way a GM can say no is by walking away from the table, and ruining several non-disruptive players' evenings. Even segregation of the goblins in the book will not avoid the sort of issues that arose with the legacy races in Starfinder Society. And there is at least one murder hobo player that has shown up a few times that I would not run a table for if they brought a goblin PC.

I have no problems with goblin PCs in general, and certainly would allow HMM to play pretty much any goblin concept she has mentioned. But I'm worried that there are a few reasons why people want to play goblins, one of which will be completely unsuitable for Society play. I would be all for the first supplement being GoG Revised, divided into parts that would support playing homicidal baby-eating Pyromaniacs for home games, and another for supporting Heroic goblins, with the first part being explicitly banned for Society play. But putting them in core could create too many issues for VOs/VCs/Tonya.

Dark Archive

Really, one should at least be polite enough to introduce them self. Unless, I suppose, they have a succubus or Pugwampi allergy.

Dark Archive

I wasn't sure, given my choice of name.

Dark Archive

If that was aimed at me, Nosferatu is the one I used the most as a ST.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

*Staggers out of thread. Straightens clothes, does best to brush off goblin-induced ashes, and assorted pugwampi-induced blemishes.*

"Well, that was an interesting experience."

*Re-enters thread*

Just spent the last week reading this thread from beginning to present. I also went through the Shattered Star pbp you started, and I'm really liking the action there. These are the type of people I feel like I would really enjoy playing with, or eventually GMing for. So if you don't mind, I'll be sticking around, and occasionally interacting here.