|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I agree that the test should be customized, but the overall theme could be consistent. Think one test for each element (fire, water, earth, and air) with a final test of spirit. Maybe the final test is that the character must be able to explain what he will be the God of, why it is important, why he/she is the best choice. If the character is convincing enough (admittedly GM fiat) then a test against an equal CR creature that best expresses the opposite of what the character wants to become God over.
Nice ideas. It would be interesting to base a campaign around a BBEG who wasn't powerful individually, but was charismatic and connected. Someone like a merchant guild leader who is running a dangerous cult. Someone who you couldn't just kill... Because the entire city either loves him or is indebted to him. Maybe the goal would be to first, find out he is a bad guy. Second, destabilize his legitimate and illegal operations (without destroying the general economy of the city), and then try to stop his minions before they wake something that will eat the entire city.
It is cool and mechanically feasible. Seems like good game design to me. Of course, I mainly GM. Still, saying a feat you don't like is poor game design is a bit much. Different feats serve different purposes in the game.
Casual Viking wrote:
You do realize how ironic you are being when you state that the developers refuse to engage with fans on a forum put up by Paizo and paid for by Paizo? The developers are on these forums constantly. They very often engage with fans about criticisms. I think you mean that you don't agree with their design choices, and, well, you have that right. I don't like every decision Paizo has made in regards to Pathfinder, but I have always found the developers to be sincere in their explanations about what they did and why they did them.As far as sucking at game design... Have you ever tried to design a game system? A hint. It is freakin hard. I have played in a lot of games in a lot of different systems for almost 40 years. Pathfinder is one of the best designed systems I have found. I do admit I think it is rules heavy and I seldom use every subsystem or rule, but the mechanics of Pathfinder work quite well.
Finally, I think that there is a big difference between "sloppy" and "not what you like". Agreed, not every rule written is perfectly balanced, but have you found a game that ISO? I haven't.
In all, I like Pathfinder. More importantly for me, I love Paizo as a company.
Clay Clouser wrote:
I think I'm alone here but if your item isn't formatted properly (no bold, italics, pieces missing such as cost or slot) I don't even read it. To me that says you didn't read the rules and submit what was asked which does not make for a good designer. Next I look to make sure that the item uses terms that actually exist in the game, after that I look for cohesive theme and symmetry. At that point I pretty much always have a winner.
I don't disagree with you, and I think following the rules is important, but I guess I personally am looking for the inspiration that makes the rules feel awesome.
I understand what you are saying, but I really think you didn't understand me. When I say "rule of cool", I am not talking about power level at all. I am looking for submissions that made me feel like I did when I was 8 years old and my brother described an ogre charging my character for the first time. I am not looking at the submissions as finished products. I am looking at them to see who can make me say "Wow". An editor can help a new designer to follow the rules. An editor cannot help a designer have an amazing imagination.How finished the submission is, is the tiebreaker for me.
Just checked your link, and I believe you missed the rest of the diagnosis from the DSM4
[The following is from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IV]
(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
(IV) There is no clinically significant general delay in language (E.G. single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)
(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood.
(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia."
Yes, but now that Aspergers I has been swallowed up by Autism in the DSM5, that broader ASD definition applies.
Sorry Wolf if I came on strong. I am just really passionate that appropriate treatment is received as soon as possible, and get nervous when people talk about how Aspergers or other ASDs isn't really any different than a gamer geek... It felt like you were belittling a disorder that can be really debilitating.
The three criteria are significant levels of:
You might see one or two of these issues in an average convention goer, but all three are less likely than you might think.
Just read the article... Lol. This is not news. One of the only things we know that helps the majority of people with ASD is early intervention. Really, the only thing new about this is that a news story actually reported about ASD without talking like the world is about to end. There are a number of studies (large scale) that back up the assertion that early intervention helps. If you are interested, check out the JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS site. They have a good search engine to find relevant articles.
Actually you are WAY off. All ASD have fairly rigid definitions. Geek doesn't fit the bill. Actually, it is kind of insulting.
As someone who has worked as a behavioral analyst for 10 years, there does seem to be a lot of misinformation spread about an "epidemic" of autism. Please understand that it wasn't until the DSM4 came out that Aspergers was classified under the autism spectrum umbrella. That meant millions more people were officially diagnosed with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorders). In addition to this, we now have a stable method of diagnosing children as early as 24 months (the MCHAT), which is about 4 years earlier than used to happen. Also, now that ASD is more well known, many families (especially from inner cities who may not have found out about their child's needs till they went to school) are seeking treatment earlier. All this leads to a larger population hat are correctly diagnosed with ASD earlier.