bugleyman's page

No. Let both majors die, DIE, DIE!!!!

Sorry, OWS v. The Tea Party would be much more interesting than watching the whores beholden to corporate America any more. And, kids, if we're honest with ourselves, the Dems and the Repubs are both owned lock stock and barrel by special interests, not their constituents...

Sad but true.

Oh, and BG, thanks for the e-mails and letter and stuff :-)

It was my pleasure. I hope you got to take the daughter out last night for some trick-or-treating. :)

Hey Congress, here's a plan: HOW ABOUT YOU FIX OUR PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF DICKING AROUND WITH OUR "NATIONAL MOTTO?"

Under the system that TCG is talking about and that many Constitutional scholars advocate, marriage would not exist as a legal construct. There would be more like a legal partnership that extends the same rights to couples and families regardless of whether that are homosexual or heterosexual, married or living together. Remember that there are many heterosexual couples that are just as discriminated against as gay couples simply because they make a choice not to go through the formality of getting married. It used to not be much of an issue because most states recognized common law marriage, but even that is only recognized in D.C. and about ten states anymore.

That makes sense. Frankly I think most of the problem stems from mixing the religious with the legal in the first place...

I dunno that I like the 'civil union' verbiage. It almost seems like we'd jsut be humoring gays. "They aren't really married, they just have a civil union." Just more divisive poison. Marriage or bust, I say.

I agree -- of course, I believe the only acceptable outcome is the former.

While my politics lean toward the left, I will point out that there is plenty of crazy on both sides -- the Republicans hardly have a monopoly on it.

[/threadjack]

Yes, I am aware. I don't believe, however, that the Democrats are currently driven by the fringe to nearly the extent that the Republicans are. YMMV.

Today the house is voting on "In God We Trust."

Really? Is that a burning issue that needs immediate resolution? If our elected officials continue fiddling, Rome will burn. I don't think they're getting the message. Yet.

Sad. Another distraction courtesy of "small government" Republicans. I wonder how many are aware that this motto dates all the way back to...*drum roll*...1956. On the other hand, take a look at where we were a hundred and fifty or so years before that:

"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

I'm a Republican too, and I don't get it either. Wasn't the whole idea of a conservative (not in a religious sense) party supposed to be about keeping our laws the heck out of people's lives? How can one reconcile that with specifically making laws that tell homosexual couples what they can do? I'll never understand...

Signed,

Another Republican for homosexual marriage.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now please go take your party back from the crazies...

Hasbro is a huge corp, who destroyed the D&D brand for me...

You had Hasbro destroy the D&D brand JUST FOR YOU? Man, that was selfish.

This is a prime example of what I am talking about. Gorbacz doesnt want JUST a reorganization of the rules, he wants a modification of the rules (based on the things we have since learned) that is a new edition of pathfinder and it is a completely different discussion then what evil lincoln is talking about.

Honestly, that would be nice too. But if we can't have that, a re-org and clean-up would be the next best thing. :)

I think there are a couple of stumbling blocks here:

(1) If redoing the book as "the exact same rules, but better organized" were so simple, presumably they would have put the rules in the organized format in the first place. So I suspect it would take a non-trivial amount of effort to do.

I do not doubt that one bit. :)

(2) Even if it were fairly straightforward to rewrite the existing rules in a more attractive format, I'm skeptical whether that would substantially increase sales of the Core Rulebook. Frankly, I don't think there's a huge untapped market of people who are refraining from buying the CRB on the sole grounds that it's disorganized.

Don't get me wrong -- I like the idea of a reorganization (e.g. no hiding important rules in the middle of a paragaph in an unrelated chapter!). But I don't really think it's a money-earner. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe that's a niche that a third-party publisher could profitably fill.

I would argue that a clear, concise core might ultimately lead to acquiring more customers, and -- perhaps more importantly -- keeping those customers around longer.

I'm not saying I can make the argument that the investment really is justified -- just that I believe the question goes beyond "does this particular SKU generate enough revenue?" The only thing I can say for sure is: I would buy it. :)

I'm not going to shell out 50 bucks for a visual re-do of existing material.

Now, if that was Pathfinder 2.0 with rules changes that would be to PF 1.0 what PF 1.0 was to 3.5 - sure, no probs.

But the beauty part is that you wouldn't have to -- none of the rules would have changed. People who want to keep using their existing CRB could, and those who wanted to get the newer revision could do so.

Not sure how to best market the darn thing, but yes, I would love a book like this. Probably would be best to just call it what it would be called if it weren't a role-playing game: Second edition. But again, NO RULES WOULD CHANGE -- just the organization and presentation. If you sold that message hard enough, and it turned out to be true, then I think it just might work. The $50 cost of a new book would be irrelevant to me -- especially if I ended up with a 384 or 448 page book to boot.

Maybe we could even take back the word "edition."

I must admit, the Condition card deck has been a very useful tool in keeping my game going with minimal rules references. I highly recommend it.

Pardon the "me too" post, but: Seconded. :)

All snark aside, that's basically it.

Sorry. Sometimes, when I bang my head repeatedly against the same wall, a little snark leaks out. I'm having it looked at. :P

The fact that this twit can meet a guy then get married and divorced in less than 6 months and I can't marry my monogamous committed partner of 5 years doesn't show inequality?

Silly Golem! All animals are equal...

Except that the only way to do that would be to completely rewrite D&D; 4E did that, and look at how well received it was. Perhaps simply recognizing that once you get access to spells above 6th level, you are already in epic play, and adjusting the expectations of those levels accordingly is what needs to happen. Instead of changing or simplifying the rules, getting away from the idea that just because the chart goes to 20, the play style must stay relatively the same all the way up to that point, and it only changes to "epic" play at 21 is what needs to happen.

Except that Evil Lincoln is saying that, for his group, changing or simplifying rules would not be required. Rather, a reorganization and revised presentation would make his game play experience much better.

...but I'm sure you know his group better than he does.

Whereas I would like to see the CRB updated to the style of the BB (the CRB is a reference manual, not a novel, thank you ve4y much), that is not of paramount importance. A re-organization and clarification is -- at least to me. In fact, the biggest reason I don't GM more often, is that every time I do, I feel like I'm fighting with the the CRB.

Every. Single. Time.

Just want to point out, this really generates the average Paizo forum poster, not the average Pathfinder Player, since I doubt that the forum is representative of the entire population of players.

Actually it doesn't even do that thanks to self-selection bias. ;-)

I don't understand why people can't just accept the fact that this product was made as an entry point. Nothing more, nothing less.

Seems rather straight-forward to me.

The motivation behind the production of the Beginner box is irrelevant. Now that people have seen it, they want that clarity and presentation in the full rules.

That seems rather straight-forward to me. ;-)

They don't actually. If I state "Honeydew tastes better than cantaloupe,"

it may be stated objectively but clearly it is subjective. Should I have to always write :In my opinion the honeydew tastes better than the cantaloupe?

Nope. But you shouldn't write "Honeydew is objectively superior to cantaloupe" in a debate about the merits of various melons -- which is what was going on here.

And it is disingenuous to equate the expectation that debaters not present opinions as facts with intellectual laziness.

I'm through going in this circle.

The handbooks seem very well put together. Lots of imagery to assist the learning process. I was amused to see the layout style, with its colored bar headings, reminded me of the 4E PHB.

I see I wasn't the only one...

But that is not what I said.

It is not the responsibility of the writer to reveal their bias. It is the responsibility of the reader to recognize it.

the writer has the responsibility of defending their position, or the consequences of any negative effects that result.

To explicitly represent one's opinion as objective truth is, at the very least, misleading. Should readers be on guard for it? Of course. But that doesn't absolve the writer of the responsibility to acknowledge his piece is an opinion. (Hint: This is why newspapers have opinion pages).

Otherwise, words like "objective" and "fact" lose their meaning, and that is bad for everyone.

GURPS is a system that doesn't work.

OMG! Has anyone told the GURPS players? :P

Recognizing bias is the job of the reader.

Then clearly this thread is a job well done.

Though the idea that writers bear not responsibility for what they've written is an...interesting one.

High school and some college. Several computer certifications that expired 12 years ago. I am planning on retaking the A+ certification and then going for the CCNA certification.

FYI A+ used to be permanent, so if you took it long enough ago, you're still certified.

bugleyman wrote:

It seems like you're trying to argue that 4E "isn't D&D" because it represented an unprecedented mechanical break from all previous editions.

This is my opinion too.

Key word being opinion. Like I said, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with opinions being called facts.

I probably wouldn't mind the semantic breakdown nearly as much if it wasn't what people resorted to every time before they even tried to look at the overall point and the context in which the words were used.

Oddly, when you make up your own definitions, people often can't understand what you're trying to say. :/

I'm not being willfully obtuse to avoid addressing your point. Rather, I have no idea what your point is. Is it that in your opinion 4E feels fundamentally different than what came before?

Technically, all they have to do is say your not welcome to protest at times when the park is closed, and then arrest them. They should not have allowed the protests to camp out in the first place though if that were the case (and it is what happened in Boston, the first night the protest moved to a part of the park they were told not to camp out in)

Yup.

Protesting? Sorry, Lou says the park is closed. Now move along before we tear gas you. :(

You guys have a right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, right?

On paper, yes. But I wonder whether the protesters who got gassed would agree.

Also, it's quite easy to eject protestors on some pretense, which is what seems to be happening a lot lately. The protestors are a health hazard, or are causing noise pollution, or are littering. You get the idea.

If you have any interest in Golarion, I suggest the Inner Sea World Guide.

Otherwise, if you're a fan of crunch, get UM and UC. The GameMastery Guide is a great book, but experienced GMs should be fine with the PDF.

If you don't want people taking issue with you claiming statements are "objective" and "neutral fact", then don't use those terms!

Crazy talk. :)

Why do you automatically assume that mechanically different has to equal "not D&D" in someone else's mind. I will admit that the thought crossed my mind, but "a different branch of D&D" would be far more accurate of a description of what my views have arrived at. By redefining the classes themselves, it set itself on a different trajectory than it's two immediate predecessors. This is by itself a neutral fact. Personally, it's not a trajectory that I want to see as the only trajectory, but I don't wish to see it killed either. I also believe that for WotC to have continued success with it and any future editions, they need to recognize that it is a new trajectory and going back to the old one at this point would be mostly counterproductive.

Did I not open my post by asking what you meant?

"Can you explicitly state the argument using a different word? Because I'm truly unclear on exactly what it is you're trying to say."

Frankly, I'm still wondering what you're trying to say. You keep using words like "fact" and "objective," but all I see is your opinion.

Edit: Perhaps you would find this useful.

In that case, put whatever word you want in it's place, and try to not focus on a single word, but rather the argument as a whole.

Can you explicitly state the argument using a different word? Because I'm truly unclear on exactly what it is you're trying to say.

It seems like you're trying to argue that 4E "isn't D&D" because it represented an unprecedented mechanical break from all previous editions. And my response to that is "liar, liar, pants on fire!" :P

On the other hand, if you're saying that you prefer pre-4E versions because 4E doesn't feel like D&D to you, then you don't need to make an argument at all -- you're entitled to your opinion.

But "argument" implies objectivity, which is where I'm losing you.

...So in this case it is possible to say objectively the feel of the game changed...

With all due respect, that is patently nonsensical. "Feel" is by definition subjective.

...even where the BB rules are the same as the CR rules, I believe the BB explains things more clearly than the CR--because I rewrote it to be so. I'm sure you could easily add other Core Rulebook rules into BB play if they were rewritten for clarity...

..If that means you don't use phrases like "possessions" when you mean "gear," or "a host of" when you mean "many," or "the number of levels in the cleric class that you possess" when you mean "your cleric level," so be it--write for clarity...

I can haz new CRB? Will pay monies. Kthxbye.

;-)

Now that I have the beginner box in my hands, I wanted to say please, please, PLEASE re-do the core rulebook with this clarity and presentation. You don't have to change a single rule -- just the way they are presented.

And while I would also like a "Pathfinder Basic," I don't think it's viable compete against oneself in that manner. What I think *might* be viable is to break out as optional at least some of the complexity left out of the Beginner Box -- an approach that would not break backward compatibility.

What I would personally find ideal is a Pathfinder 2E with a pared-down rulebook that looks a lot like the Beginner Box, just with more content: More classes, more races, more spells, more equipment, etc. I'm not expecting that any time soon, of course, but it would be freakin' amazing.

...the overall feel of the class was still there, even if the details were different.

It appears that you're trying to argue that the "feel" of the class was objectively different...

Surely ("feel" + "objective" = DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.)?

Edit: It seems self-evident that the "feel" of a class cannot be objectively measured or compared.

The state should, but it really isn't. That would be socialism, which is a dirty word that republicans will gladly use to convince the people who need it to vote against it.

I continue to find it amazing how many of the poor have been convinced to turn on each other along cultural, racial, or party lines.

Working full time, but can't afford health insurance for your family? It's those illegal immigrants!*

Not making ends meet? Well, that's the fault of the unemployed!*

Can't get a job in construction? It's those damn freedom-hating socialists!*

* Hint: The vast majority of these people are in the same boat that you are. Hmmm...

But WHATEVER you do, pay no attention to the millionaire behind the curtain. :(

Sorry if this was linked before and I missed it.

Well its just my opinion after all. Everyone would rather blame some one else then take on any type of responsibility.

Fair enough -- you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you shouldn't be surprised if you get "Hi Welcome" when you jump to the end of 17 pages of people discussing why they don't think things are that simple.

Not trolling. If people are looking for the source of thier problem they should buy a mirror. I refered to the 40s and 50s in referance to them earning what they had and not looking for others to just give them things.

Hey, don't be mad! I went back and gave you another point!

I cant get behind a movement that has no clear goal. Seriously listen to an interview. No one is down there for the same thing. The nearest I can see as a unified message is " You make more money then me so give me some!"

They are entitled children that dont want to do anything and get free things for it. Those huge companys didnt start out making billions of dollars. They where started by a person or people with an idea and the drive to make it what is it. Stop trying to shame them into giving you free stuff and follow thier lead.

These people are blaming the government and big business for all thier problem when they should be looking at themselves. Ya , you lost your home , but do you know why and whos to blame. SPOILER ALERT , its your fault. The bank offered you a loan with rediculous term and you signed it. They didnt tie you to the chiar. They didnt put a gun to your childs head. You freely signed a piece of paper that said your getting a 300,000 dollar loan to pay for a property thats worth half that. Then on top of all of that , You didnt put any money down and agreed to a have they payment to go $2500 a month after three years.

The american population is general are whiney , entitled babies looking for a handout ( yes I am american as well. thats why it pisses me off so much) . What the hell happened to the ideals of the older generations. I miss the 40s and 50s.

3/5

You got the entitlement meme, but you really didn't highlight the jealousy angle all that well. Bonus point for rose-colored glasses view of the 40s and 50s, though. Miss-spelling ridiculous was another nice touch.

If, on the other hand, you were being serious, I plead Poe's law.

Unfortunately logic is useless in the persuasion of the irrational. Even talking slowly doesn't help. :P

Of the 8 people who regularly play in my gaming group, we have

3 PhD's (Chemistry, Sociology, and Chemical Engineering
1 MA (Astrophysics)
and 4 BA/BS's (Chemical Engineering, 2 Computer Science, Electrical Engineering)

Playing a hard sci-fi game with that group would either be really funny -- or totally impossible. :P

Well I don't have any certificates yet, since in my country things work a bit different than US and omfg am I having such a hard time getting a job because of it.

:(

Hope it turns around for you.

Average monthly shower? Yeah, that's about right. :P

Seriously, I'm probably right around 30. I bathe almost every day*, and occasionally twice.

* I have been known to fall asleep readying in bed from time to time.

Two Bachelors (Anthropology and Computer Information Systems) half way through a Master's in Systems Architecture, and a CISSP (a high level computer security cert).

My goal is to be an expert in computer security.

A laudable goal...and a commitment to lifelong learning. Whatever you do, don't go on record as considering yourself an expert, though! ;)

my mother has one of those.

A fork-lift operator? ;-)

I've been told more than once that I have a PhD in asshattery...does that count? :P

B.A. in sociology, law degree, working on my masters of law.

Nice! But what does a master's on top of a J.D. get you?