|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Carroll was a cheater in college, and Seattle leads the league in PED suspensions since he's been there. We might as well call this year's edition the Cheater Bowl.
If it were contained to the Pac NW, it wouldn't be an issue. It's when a few thousand people who could't find Seattle on a map, have never left Texas, and claim "life long" fandom when they were wearing a Brees jersey three years ago that the "haters" go buck wild. I guess never having been "good" before that has insulated y'all from the bandwagon "fans" people who live in other places are laughing at right now.
We are actually happy that life long fans finally have something to cheer for, believe it or not.
Also, considering how many Seahawk players have been caught sharing the same Adderal scrip, I'd hold of on the "cheating" talk. Seattle leads the league in PED/substance suspensions since Carroll took over. And Sherman was only able to win his appeal because of a leaky sample cup. ;-)
My wife is an Aggie, she concurs.
The Texans are fine. We're a QB, DB (Joseph isn't worth the high salary he's up for with his time in), and a run stopping MLB (Cush, I'm afraid, after two surgeries and a PED suspension - no more juicing - isn't the answer any more). We have a patient owner, Crennell where he's proven he belongs and thrives, A HC that did well using four different QBs in situations that mattered (and not just garbage time) because of injuries, and went 9-7 after a ridiculous 2-14 with a journeyman hipster with a noodle arm and too much brain, not enough instinct, much of the season. We were a play or two from the playoffs, to be frank, as well. A dropped pass here and a spectacular play by the other guy there go the other way, we had 11-5 in reach.
But, we're Houston. We'll get optimistic, get our heart's broken, then move on to the Rockets for more abuse. We're used to it.
Also, you can always at least keep it Gulf Coast and jump over to 'Nawlins. Ok, they suck too, but team shopping isn't where it's at. ;-)
captain yesterday wrote:
You guys do realize I said "outside of Washington State and northern Oregon" (i.e., the place Seattle fans should come from). Locals following a team when they get good isn't really bandwagoning, it's a team finally putting a product on the field worth watching.
It's the "Seattle" fans born and raised in Texas, and still live in Texas, and have never left Texas, for instance, that my disdain is directed toward.
Y'all are supposed to support your team! ;-)
Jason Nelson wrote:
I was talking football, but I agree. But they did have something Seattle doesn't: arguably the best player to ever play the game, so it was a little less annoying.
The funniest thing is, DeBartolo wasn't nearly as criminal as the Owner of Pilot and the Browns, Haslem, yet Haslem still gets to keep his team.
I was always kind of a Knox fan, thought he was a classy coach, so I followed the Seahawks a little in the '80s. My traditional team growing up was the Jets (and I'll go back if Johnson ever sells the team), but now it's pretty much just the Texans. Astros and Rockets in their sports, U of Texas for college (didn't graduate, but went there for a couple of years), and the Penguins, as I loved, loved, LOVED watching Mario Lemieux back in the day. If it weren't for his illness, he'd go down as the GOAT, I'm sure.
Don't worry, we Texas and East Coast fans are just as tired of all of the Seattle fans that didn't exist until a couple of years ago. The ones that couldn't pick David Krieg, Curt Warner, or Steve Largent out of a line-up, claim to be "life long" fans, and are old enough to know them. And probably have never been to Seattle in their life.
Hey, we were Cleveland playing eight more minutes of football away from the playoffs after going through all three roster QBs and a reject from last year. After a 2-14 season, we'll take that all day long!
One thing you'll learn about living in Houston is that we have low expectations for our teams and just enjoy that they're here. ;-)
There was this guy called "Irontruth" that has been posting here for a while, on threads that repeat themselves continually, and knows how the TL;DR thing works. What did you do with him, and what's the ransom so we can get him back?
The internet supports this theory. ;-)
Inflate a ball to 14.5 PSI (the minimum) in a room at 72 degrees, have them inspected inside, then take them outside into freezing weather. Let ideal gas law do its thing. "Cheating" without cheating. Voila.
Gruumash . wrote:
Seeing as he put up sick numbers with the Jets and Minnesota, I'm not so sure about that.
I don't count anyone from the pre-merge. I pretty much stick to the SB era, and, by the time Unitas made it to a SB, he was the back up. Too few teams, barely any black athletes for much of the pre-merge era, etc. Plus, that dude that went from the Rams to the Eagles, Van Brocklin, was a better QB, frankly. He just played for the Eagles most of his career, unfortunately.
As to Marino, he's an honorable mention, but his lack of playoff success after his second season, in a relatively weak AFC back then, doesn't excite me. Elway actually made it a few times without much of a team around him before Davis showed up and took him to the Promised Land, so I put him ahead of Marino.
Favre broke all of Marino's records playing mostly in really, really cold games after November, and never really had a wide receiver pair as good as Duper and Clayton. Plus, he had those scrubs Bennett and Green, who was just as unimpressive as Sammy Winder (Denver) and whatever flavor of the day Marino had behind him (he only had one RB go for 1,000 yards in his career).
Funny how that happens when your team sucks. ;-)
Jason Nelson wrote:
Let's see, four INTs from Wilson. I'd say the only reason you won is because McCarthy was too much of a wimp to go for it, twice, on fourth and goal from the one, and some idiot mishandled an on-side kick. Basically, Seattle just waited for Green Bay to implode and make their multitude of mistakes irrelevant. Green Bay kicked Seattle all over the field for 57 minutes, then got lazy. Seattle's "speed, strength, and precision" were not a factor.
Gruumash . wrote:
Sorry, but I'm not taking "I'm not biased at all" from a resident of the Boston 'burbs. ;-)
Considering the number of options in Pathfinder, and the insane number of options if the DM allows 3.5 and 3PP material, it would due madness NOT to plan your character to at least some degree. Just looking through all of the books would take a ton of time every time you leveled if you didn't have some idea what you wanted your character to look like.
GM Niles wrote:
John Elway was Jim Kelley until Terrell Davis pretty much single handedly carried the team on his back. And the Super Bowl against the Falcons was helped considerably by Eugene Robinson's inability to keep it in his pants, and the subsequent constant wave of press distraction that tore the Atlanta squad up before the game.
GM Niles wrote:
There will always be dispute. Many think Montana would have won another one or two with the Niners had he not been unceremoniously shoved out the door and forced to play for "I can't win a game in the playoffs even when my team makes a clinching INT" Shottenheimer.
Also, there will always be "the Tuck Rule" play that would have stopped this dynasty before it even got started, the aforementioned fumbled INT by the Chargers would have knocked the Pats out of that Super Bowl winning year, "Spygate", and a few other things the Pats have been caught doing. Plus, losing to Eli, twice, puts a little damper in the GOAT debate.
Montana just beat all comers for a long time, no rules interpretations or mistakes by the opposition that could have sealed the game to help.
Now, I personally think Brady is Top Five all time (with Bradshaw, Favre, P. Manning, and Montana), just edging out Marino.
Sorry, had to edit "Niners". I originally put "Saints" because of your post. ;-)
They'll get a fine and lose some draft picks.
Underinflated balls didn't cause Indy to not show up, after all.
Heroes are kind of irrelevant to the survival of the Realms. Playing an FR campaign takes a bit of a MERP attitude, I think. Players, generally speaking, will stamp out the smaller fires while the cadre of Mary Sues wipe up the big stuff.
I love FR, mostly for the lore and whatnot, but I generally only run a game there if I am with players as into the setting as I am, and who kinda get that their story might not be THE story of the setting.
I have my homebrew with only a few ex-characters in NPC roles (and they're generally absorbed in their own stuff, running kingdoms and thieves' guilds and the like) for the players who want to really drive the setting and become the Biggest Heroes Ever[™].
You can do that with FR, and I've had fun in those games, but I guess I'm too much of a fan of the place to want to mess it up too much when I am running stuff in it.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Right on :-)
Well, I guess we know how many quarters they'll be beating Pathfinder in anything other than English.
Yep. Well, I think we could do with less creepers and the like, but then, my tolerance only extends so far.
Dude, I bake like a champ. But I was referencing Lilith's specialty.
And I think the point about gender inequality in the way some groups treat outsiders isn't that everything should be evenly distributed, it's that if a woman wants to pursue a career in something that has been traditionally male, she deserves to be judged solely by her output, work ethic, and ability to handle the work, period.
It's weird, but the older I get, a lot of the problems identified above, coupled with some "old school/new school" expectations of play issues, has made me less likely to seek out new gamers. I guess the older I get, the less tolerance for nonsense I develop.
Awesome anecdote. Thanks :-)
Try to find a cool group? I've never had a problem with women in games I've run (other than with one idiot that, I am ashamed to admit, I specifically targeted at a PFS game just to get him off the table to stop him from creeping out the females), and only a few times at others' tables (one of whom is/was a regular poster here and I agree with her perception 100%).
Now, just because I haven't had much issue doesn't mean there aren't issues, but sometimes it might take time to find a good group. Also, nothing is keeping women from running their own games without cretins being at the table.
Let morons live in their own little headspace and find compatible people. If you a social activist person that is sensitive to obliviousness or unintended offense, don't play with people who aren't thoughtful. You're not going to change them, and if your outlook prevents them from playing something they find fun (no matter how juvenile or graphic), you're just ruining it for them like they did for you.
The bottom line is, no one really owes it to anyone to include them at their specific table. It's on the person wanting to enjoy the hobby to find people they can play with.
Because? Not everyone has to like everything. My wife loves Investigation Discovery and The Bachelor, she doesn't really care if I do. She has some interest in trying out my hobbies (she'll give gaming a shot if I can find the time to start a new game, and is interested in learning pinochle), but if she doesn't wind up finding them fun, I'm not going to worry too much about it
Inclusiveness is fine, but it doesn't have to be forced.
Like I said, YMMV. My games are a little deeper than that as well, lots of politics and such, but I just don't see the entertainment value of having rape and stuff in a game. And, what I meant about the characters' gender identity or orientation was basically why should anyone care that a character is like that? My games are asexual, in that I'm not going to really get into that side of the characters' lives in session much (I don't center plots around it, so why bother).
I hope it didn't come off as dismissive of diverse back stories and characteristics.
Honestly, I could never understand why people would want to put such real world issues like rape and stuff in their games anyway. I mean, YMMV and all, but I play games to escape from reality for a bit and enjoy worlds where Good(™) and Evil(™) exist in some PG, relatively innocent fantasy setting. I get enough in real life with the adult stuff, I don't need to know who my friend's paladin is attracted to or what gender the hobbit thinks he or she should have been born as, I just want to know that both want to save the world from Orcus or something.
I'm not saying that the characters cannot or should not have such back stories, I'm just saying I don't play RPGs to sort out social issues, I play it to kill orcs and save the village.
I can dig that, but I think that telling kids that you always win, when life is most definitely not like that, isn't the best message, and can lead to some issues when reality does meet self-esteem.
I agree with being raised by whom we were raised by to a degree. I was raised by dysfunctional parents who were also in the hippy culture, so I learned a lot of tolerance of others coupled with horrible lessons on how to deal with stress and function in society (hence the prison sentence). Depending on where and who you were born (to), some of those old ideals were already being challenged by your parents, so it's a mixed bag, I guess.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Which is why you always have an Epipen handy.
The father of a daughter with a fairly hard core peanut allergy.
We were the last generation to not have those, I think. I was referencing the "no score" soccer leagues and such that started popping up in the '90s.