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

Zombieneighbours's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,893 posts (3,969 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,893 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It is, but there is no reason you cannot explore the same themes as are explored in h+ SF, in a high magic setting.


Hama wrote:
How do you approach it?

I have on and off, been working on developing some interesting fantasy societies which draw on various elements of transhumanism and connected ideas.

What does a post scarcity economy in a fantasy world look like for instance?

What does a community that has achieved functional immortality look like.

What does a magical society that takes privacy and individual liberty really seriously actually look like?

I haven't gotten very far with any of them, but it is very interesting.


LazarX wrote:
Hama wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Hama wrote:
How do you approach it?
About as much as I approach other forms of masturbation. In other words, I don't.
I'm sorry what?

I generally consider Transhumanism a fantasy trip for immature technogeeks who aren't willing to accept the fact that everything dies at some point.

It's also kind of ironic that science has killed the concept of a mind separate from the brain as mainly a religious artifact, that transhumanists have revived it without any real scientific basis for doing so, only the same primitive fear of dying.

Given current developments in a range of areas such a nanotechnology, cloning and extreme life extension, I think it is more that a little unfair to call interest in functional immortality a "fantasy trip for immature technogeeks who aren't willing to accept the fact that everything dies at some point." We have experimental gene therapy treatments which demonstrably double the lifespan of mice, and if we can find a way to take that and apply it to humans with similar effect, that is a game changer. While the prospect for seeing printed replacement clone organs within my life-time, let alone my childrens, is very good.

I don't think wanting to enjoy a long and happy life, free from suffering and imparement is "masturbation."


Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
We need to put some serious research money into developing new fallacies. Seeing the same ones pop up again and again in every thread is just getting boring. It's like people aren't trying any more.

The trouble is, basic scientific research isn't usually directly profitable to whoever funds it (it is only profitable to the engineer who makes use of the research a couple decades down the road). That's why the pure sciences are more commonly funded by governments (who aren't interested in directly profiting) than by corporations (who are more likely to fund the engineering projects to increase their profits).

Funding for research of new fallacies might need to come from the government. Which, as we all know, would make it socialist propaganda. The Job Creators are perfectly content profiting off of the old fallacies (like 'socialist propaganda'). Sure, maybe they'd like to utilize new fallacies, but only if someone else pays for the development.

You just managed to sum up one of the the major argument against anarchocapitalism :D


bugleyman wrote:
We need to put some serious research money into developing new fallacies. Seeing the same ones pop up again and again in every thread is just getting boring. It's like people aren't trying any more.

I will take that grant money!


There is also a very real and cynical propaganda effort to muddy the water.

Naomi Oreskes gives a fairly interesting talk on the efforts to talk up doubt here.


This is the print test version of the map, so all I need to do is print it, identify and correct errors, and then add in location names and the Key.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:


Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing.
It was Blazing Sadddles, and it was a horse.

I'm certain that Arnold as Conan punched out a camel.

It was glorious.

Horse or even camel are plausible. Unlikely. Glorious, if you wish.

There's a reason I used rhino as the example of superhuman, not much smaller, less armored creatures.

He actually winds up punching the camel initially while drunk (stumbles into it, punches it) then later, sees the same camel again, apologizes to it, it spits on him... and he knocks it out a second time by hammer punching it on top of it's head.

Later he knocks out a horse.

Conan is a bit of a dick, at least to animals.

Still glorious.

Trivia time: the camel from the first Conan movie actually died from getting punched by Arnold. It's why the movie lacks the usual "No animals were harmed" disclaimer.

Really?


Cerberus Seven wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

I'll give you that the black arrow shot is something which Pathfinder does poorly, but that doesn't change that both DnD and Pathfinder explicitly try to give an experience similar to reading an Appendix N

You have to be a pretty high level character to consistently and reasonably walk away from 20d6 damage(mean 110 hp damage), and as the Alexandrian points out, Aragon is a 5th level character

thejeff wrote:
Or punching rhinos to death, for that matter.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing. Regardless, just because they system lets you do a thing, doesn't mean that it is intended that you do that thing.

It is a complex system, there are always going to be emergent elements, but the ability for me to reskin a wizard as a cyberpunk inspired paramilitary sniper doesn't mean that I should do that.

20d6 actually averages out to 70 (3.5 * 20 = 7 * 10 = 70). And yes, in the very first movie I believe Conan just slugs a camel as he's running somewhere, because why not?

You, your right. My mistake. but still, that is a fair chunk of HP


Yeah, I didn't get time to get it proof read before the competition was done, and I am like super dyslexic. In answer to your question, there is a shaft leading up from room between 2 and 4. When I get around to re-polishing it, I shall have to add in some arrows to make it clearer. I thought it was pretty self explanatory, but more than just you have been confused by it, so I think it is something that needs improving on


thejeff wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Mavrickindigo wrote:

It seems to me that people like to point out Paizo employees making comments around the likes of "Martial characters can't do that, because it is physically impossible."

Has anyone ever directly addressed the big question of "why do Martial characters in a fantasy rpg have to adhere to realism?" Isn't this fantasy?

If there has been a definitive answer to this, I would love to read on it.

The simple quick answer is Genre.

In the genre that Pathfinder primerially emulates, martial characters are limited to very close to real world physics and feats of arms.

Bard shoots the black arrow with a miracle shot and takes down smaug.

He doesn't sprint along the roof tops, firing three arrows a second, each of which splits into a hail of lightning bolts which rain down on smaug.

People wish to play the former in pathfinder for the most part, and not the later.

And then they set up the mechanics so that one shot can't take down smaug.

I'm also not sure that's really true. It's not like PF style casters are common in genre. Or martials walking away from 200'+ falls or wading in lava.

I'll give you that the black arrow shot is something which Pathfinder does poorly, but that doesn't change that both DnD and Pathfinder explicitly try to give an experience similar to reading an Appendix N

You have to be a pretty high level character to consistently and reasonably walk away from 20d6 damage(mean 110 hp damage), and as the Alexandrian points out, Aragon is a 5th level character

thejeff wrote:
Or punching rhinos to death, for that matter.

Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing. Regardless, just because they system lets you do a thing, doesn't mean that it is intended that you do that thing.

It is a complex system, there are always going to be emergent elements, but the ability for me to reskin a wizard as a cyberpunk inspired paramilitary sniper doesn't mean that I should do that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mavrickindigo wrote:

It seems to me that people like to point out Paizo employees making comments around the likes of "Martial characters can't do that, because it is physically impossible."

Has anyone ever directly addressed the big question of "why do Martial characters in a fantasy rpg have to adhere to realism?" Isn't this fantasy?

If there has been a definitive answer to this, I would love to read on it.

The simple quick answer is Genre.

In the genre that Pathfinder primerially emulates, martial characters are limited to very close* to real world physics and feats of arms.

Bard shoots the black arrow with a miracle shot and takes down smaug.

He doesn't sprint along the roof tops, firing three arrows a second, each of which splits into a hail of lightning bolts which rain down on smaug.

People wish to play the former in pathfinder for the most part, and not the later.

*very close here being relative, pathfinder combat is nothing like real combat, but it is pretty close to what most people think real combat is like.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Realistically, an optimized wizard may be a bit too powerful for a cooperative play setting, so that may not be the best place to put the bar.
Are we talking optimized to a practical level or abusing Simulacrums and Planar Binding and such?
Even a practically optimized wizard can easily become a fun-ruiner if he's really built to be powerful. To toss out one example I brought up earlier, wizard starts combat by casting a Dazing Fireball. Enemies get no actions for three turns, turning the fight into a complete mop-up.

Three rounds in which casters would have to expend three spells to kill the opposition that a martial can kill in that time without using any resources.

Stopping the enemy is all well and good, but they still need to be killed


Okay.

Another map at the same scale. This is kinda old and I am not really happy with it any more but still it is kinda fun.

I entered this to the one page dungeon contest.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


B: It's very much out of theme for a martial to be using magic to accomplish things.

Damn, I guess Theseus never got the memo ;)


PIXIE DUST wrote:

To those mentioning the whole "schrodingers wizard" thing, i counter with the Arcanist....

Or the exploiter wizard. .. either or.

I'm not really up to date with the classes or the archetype. It is quite possible it always has the exact spell it needs, but honestly the archanist is from the Advanced Class Guide, so for much of the life of pathfinder to date it has not been around, and honestly the fact that creep happens is practically a law of nature when it comes to the expansion of complex game systems. As such I am more than willing to ignore it.

PIXIE DUST wrote:


Oh amd scrolls

And wands

And beads...

And bonded items....

And enchanted Staffs...

Bonded item is once per day.

All the other items here represent use of wealth by level, not class features. Martials can also use wealth by level to "get nice things"

And even then, having the right spell for the right situation is no sure thing, especially if the magic item creation rules are obeyed and any reasonable amount of care is taken in treating the acquisition of new spells via copying as a challenging activity.


Thanks


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi guys,

I thought you might like to have a look at some of the Cartography I have been doing lately.

This is a map I have been working on for an next time I run a fantasy game. It has a 1/2 mile to a hex scale


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Most PC's do not get to choose the point of combat since they are likely invading enemy territory.

But the GM does get to choose that, and probably aught to be providing varied ways to interact with the encounter.

wraithstrike wrote:


Also a caster could potentially put out the fire, and attack an enemy. Most martials can't do that.

By using a limited resource and the action that they are supposedly using to be god? Oh, and you know, the fact that they cannot possible memories all possible spells.

A martial certainly can put out fires. They have ability scores and skills, they have environmental features, they have equipment. It just takes a modicum of inventiveness to realised that breaking open the cistern full of water, or beating the flames with a wet blanket is a valid action in a combat.

wraithstrike wrote:


At the end of the day the answer basically boils down to "different people have different requirements in order to be satisfied".

And?

In my ideal world, every combat in a pathfinder game would have the risk of serious long term injuries, and would feel a little like the corridor fight form old boy. I am not out there campaigning for the game to be changed to be that. One day, I'll figure a way to house rule it to get that feel, but in the mean time, knowing how to use the game as it is written to get close to the feel I want is a useful skill.

You want martials to matter, there are ways to play the game that makes them matter, and there are ways to make them not matter. Your choice, but I am fairly certain the a change to play style is a more practical way of getting what you want than sitting around complaining about how broken the game is. (A situtation where, if you are successful, you potentially upset all the people who are perfectly happy with the system as it is.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
Because if the only mechanics-based decision I have to make during a session is who my character attacks next (because it's not like they even have the ability to be good at anything else without navigating some arcane maze of feat trees that are largely limited to individual weapons), I have no excuse not to write a bot that can make that decision for me and go on a snack run the moment combat starts.

Sounds like poor encounter design to me.

Why are you not able to push over ruined collumes to crush or trap your enemies? Why can you not deflect a stream of lava onto them, or open the flood gates, washing them away? Why are you not dropping chandeliers on your enemy?

Why are you not having to choose between attacking one of the enemy and putting out the fire that threatens the orphanage? Why arn't you dashing to get the goblet of zaranna, before that goblin can grab it.

Are you going to engage the enemy at the elevated and effective but slippery choke point, or are you going to let them through onto the even ground and help the rogue get flanking?

Varied win condition and engaging encounter environments should mean that you can't just write a script to make your combat decisions.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

People.

Anything which is a reasonable stand in for a human. Humans make the best antagonists, because their motivations are varied, hard to predict, but possible to empathize with once discovered.

Merchants are among my favourate sub group, because the ability for the profit motive to make people do the unspeakable in the real world can make for a chilling villain in game.

You know, technically every antagonist is human. That is, unless your GM is actually a dragon or an undead or etc. Monsters are just masks that let humans express their darker side.
Not always true. You should check out some of the purist trail of cthulhu scenarios by Graham Walmsley(especially the dying of st. Margarets and The Watchers in the Sky) which have antagonists with distinctly non-human mind sets, and which are written to make them non-human. The god that crawls for lamentations of the flame princess is another example of this.

My point was, if a human is running the game then every adversary is going to be human. Sure it might be a human interpretation of what an orc or a dragon or a vampire might think, but there's still a human sitting in the chair.

Now, if you could get your cat or dog to run the game, you'd see some pretty interesting results. However, I can tell you from experience that cats are great at rolling dice, but the story suffers a bit.

Only in so far as it is a human presenting it, but if that is enough involvement to assert that they are human antagonists, then traps are also human antagonists, and I think that is a rabbit hole of unusefulness of language no one is especially interested in pursuing.

Additional the examples I am giving have no human motivation, and a designed in such a way as to dehumanize them. The monster in the dying of st Margaret, doesn't get controlled by the GM. It is in many ways like an environmental effect. In the watchers, the structure of the adventure is such that the monsters behavior is intentionally fragmented and irrational, presenting the feel of an unknowable and alien motive. The crawling god, is if memory serves, run on a kind of A.I.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

People.

Anything which is a reasonable stand in for a human. Humans make the best antagonists, because their motivations are varied, hard to predict, but possible to empathize with once discovered.

Merchants are among my favourate sub group, because the ability for the profit motive to make people do the unspeakable in the real world can make for a chilling villain in game.

You know, technically every antagonist is human. That is, unless your GM is actually a dragon or an undead or etc. Monsters are just masks that let humans express their darker side.

Not always true. You should check out some of the purist trail of cthulhu scenarios by Graham Walmsley(especially the dying of st. Margarets and The Watchers in the Sky) which have antagonists with distinctly non-human mind sets, and which are written to make them non-human. The god that crawls for lamentations of the flame princess is another example of this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome point Digital Elf


Kthulhu wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Letric wrote:
I feel like PF and games like such, put way too much weight on how a character does something at a rule level, instead of just saying "I freaking hit the enemy with a barrel, and that is my ability".

Stop playing D&D derivative games. 90% of non-D&D games work more like this. Really, only D&D style games even use levels.

Letric wrote:
On the other hand, class are the problem. Class is a restrictive way of thinking.
I think level is more of a problem, but yeah, very, very few RPGs other than D&D clones have hard-classes, either (though most feature a "soft" class system that gives you some sub-package of abilities or makes you better at some task everyone can do).
And these have me doubting that you have much RPG experience outside of "D&D derivative games". There are SOME games that don't use levels or classes, but you sound like you're trying to say that they are rare outside of D&D. They aren't.

I have to say that skill based systems, to me atleast, appear vastly more common.

-BRP(CoC (edges towards class based, but it is such a light mechanic, it is really just away of choosing a skills package)
-Savage Worlds
-Storyteller
-Fate
-dog in the vineyard
-Shadowrun
-Artesia: Adventures in the known world
-The void
-Eclipse phase
-dirty world
-trail of cthulhu (edges towards classes; probably closest in this list)
-D6

In fact the closest thing things to level or class based games I regularly play outside of the DnD family tree, are WFRP(+various 40k rpgs) and CP2020. They are class based, but one of those is access to a single special skill(cp2020) in a skill based system and the other is a set of skill packages which you don't even have to complete before moving onto your next class(WFRP).

Obvious there is stuff like one ring and Apocalypse world, but neither of those are level based.


Right shameless self promotion over
Gamemaster's Journey

RPPR

Ken and Robin talk about stuff


You might find the geomorph project is useful for making dungeons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People.

Anything which is a reasonable stand in for a human. Humans make the best antagonists, because their motivations are varied, hard to predict, but possible to empathize with once discovered.

Merchants are among my favourate sub group, because the ability for the profit motive to make people do the unspeakable in the real world can make for a chilling villain in game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stormwind fallacy is often used as a strawman. It ONLY applies when a player says "you cannot optimise and roleplay well." as a generalization.

It does not apply to all criticisms of orpimisation from a roleplaying perspective, i.e. it is possible for a optimizer to make choices for purely mechanical reasons which are damaging to the fiction of the game, and/or play style of the table.

The best example of this the hypothetical guy who sits down at a table after being told that it is going to be a street level urban adventure about flawed individuals caught up by circumstance, that characters should be built so as to be naturalistic, and then builds the worlds greatest swordsman and claims that it is all good because his character is a rat catcher. Such behaviour is disruptive both because it is difficult to square a guy who mechanically is the worlds greatest swordsman with his background of being a ratcatcher, and b, because the hyperoptimised character is on a completely different power level compared to the naturalisticly built generalists.


19. Leave your profession as a rat catcher behind, travel to Nuln for a job that doesn't exist, make your way to Bogenhofen, get caught up in the dealings of the cult of the purple hand, thwart said dealing, get a boat, sail up and down the river riek for six months before a strange set of events lead you to a tumble down castle held by chaos cultists, where their is a huge chunk of warpstone, thwart that cults plans but look on in dismay as the warpstone is spirited away by skaven. Make your way on to Middenheim, get angry about taxes, party at a carnival while solving the tax thing, realize the tax thing is a plot to take over the city by the cult of the purple hand, thwart their plans with thrilling cliff via duct battle against an evil wizard. Get made Knights!


Week 11 of the Save vs Cosmic Horror, Geomorph Project..


Kusanagi Motoko wrote:
If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death.


Week 10 of the Save vs Cosmic horror, Geomorph Project..


Cool cool, thanks.


Is the damage of those weapons then halved after penetration, as per AP ammo?


I chipped in for the first time in forever last light. God it is good to be playing CP again.

However, running into a problem.

Melee weapons and cyber weapons. Do they really behave like armour peircing ammo? I.E. Half damage after armour? Or is it just that they treat some kinds of armour as half value.


Some more geomorphs from save vs Cosmic horror..


Baseraiders has become the ONLY superhero system I would ever dream of using.


More morphs


The enemy within campaign (specifically death on the riek and the power behind the throne) and Masks of Nyarlathotep. Hands down, every time. These two are the grand daddies of good adventure design, and it is a really pity 3x games have learned so little form them.


It stands for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.


Mythic Evil Lincoln, I'd say that it is more accurate to say that that it is very easy to achieve reasonable effects. While achieving the same level of quality Dyson has risen to, takes a lot of practice.


The power behind the throne form the enemy within campaign for WFRP, read it.


Not the geomorph project per say.


Week Seven of the Geomorph Project


I can't tell you why, but I can offer advice on how to take this and make it into a positive.

The player's character can no long function as a PC, so have him retire it and bring in a new character, but you keep his sheet.

Run a couple of high action, low plot adventures, play up the dangers and lack of reward of the mercenary life, and advance the time line about 5 years.

Then re-introduce that guys PC as the campaign big bad guy. He has set up the organisation, and is now vastly rich and powerful, because of the charter he stole from the PCs. They have a reason to hate him, so when other enemies of the BBEG decide they need a weapon to use against him, because they fear he is out to do something supremely stupid or dangerous, they look to the PCs as their tool


Week Six of the Geomorph Project.


It is a Laundry files joke about K-Syndrome. It is a disease suffered by sorcerers who perform mythos magic simply by running through the mathematics in their heads. If you think to hard about the underlying math, you end up openning min worm holes to other realities, where not nice things live. Those things eat out little chunks of the sorcerers brain. The disease presents like CJD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I've been thinking really hard about the implications of the church-turing proof...So I've been thinking really hard about the implications of the church-turing proof...So I've been thinking really hard about the implications of the church-turing proof...So I've been thinking really hard about the implications of the church-turing proof....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paradox can't be all that bad!


I'll look into it Goth Guru.

in the mean time, I have been shaking up my style. Check out week 5 of the geomorph project here

Edit: haing looked at the rooms, I can say that they wouldn't work as geomorphs. But they might be fun to do as dungeon tiles.

1 to 50 of 3,893 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.