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

houstonderek's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 8,885 posts (9,172 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,885 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Stuff

So, everyone who sees the world differently is a "lunatic"? You have 100% of the answers, no one else can be right?

Nah, they're not crazy, you're just "right".

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Either someone wants to play a game with story elements, or someone wants to tell a story with game elements.

The first doesn't mind character death because it's part of the game they're playing. The second does mind because they're not really playing a game, they're enjoying a session of cooperative story making.

Either way is fine, but the two groups do not mix well.

For the record, I like games. I'm not looking for a story with dice rolling that means little. So I don't seek out that type for my table.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get it. Are those pics supposed to be weird or something?

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
My favorite sort of game revolves around outmaneuvering the BBEG to try and tilt the odds -- if you charge right in, the chance of TPK is like 90%, but if you ruthlessly exploit every advantage, deny him resources, and keep him on the defensive at every turn, eventually you can tilt that to more like 80% in your favor.
Are any of the AP's written that way? Or is it something you have to add in as GM?

The APs are written to give a 15 point buy party a moderately "challenging" experience. Or something. A 20 point buy party of guys that can optimize halfway decently will probably never be truly challenged in an unmodified AP.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
I don't care what word a person uses. We are here to have fun, not be terminology pedants. Besides, if I were a real stickler like, say, Hama, most of you would be kicked out of the game for using 'GM' instead of 'DM' ;)

Why? "DM" is a protected term owned by the Hasbro subsidiary WotC. I do not currently play a game that has a "DM", as I am not currently playing anything published by TSR, WotC, or Hasbro. "GM" has been a term for someone running a non-D&D game since the '70s. If I'm playing D&D, the guy running it is a "DM". If I'm playing anything else, the guy is either a "GM" or a "Storyteller".

Find me one instance of "Dungeon Master" or "DM" in any Paizo rulebook ;-)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I'd say personally speaking I don't want to get into a fight I have less than an 80% chance of winning.
I've played in campaigns in which everyone's chance of "just barely" winning every fight was always 100%, because the DM would selectively add/subtract hp, fudge rolls, etc. to make that happen. I presonally hated it, because I felt like it took all the fun out of things, but some people love it.

Yep. Live or die by my choices and the dice. I get that the modern game is more about the story than being a game, but I can't play like that. I love the story, but it shouldn't exist because of DM fudging, not for me, anyway. I find that games where death is either never an issue, or scripted for "dramatic effect on the story" bore me to tears.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:

As I think about it... I think the people who feel upset by it... based on what's been said here... is they feel that they and their hobby is being disrespected.

It's not probably what the speaker intends, but they hear a phrase that in the context they are familiar with ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit" for example), the semantic connection they make is they and their hobby is accused of being something two-dimensional and childish.

It's not a logical reaction--it's the kind of immediate reaction one gets from context, before logic can be applied. It is what it is.

Just arm-chair psychoanalyzing why in this case the knee-jerk reaction is often a negative one. (And the negative reaction is reinforced when they are told they are being laughed at for having a negative reaction--shaming and humiliating someone is only going to reinforce the sense of being disrespected and encourage a non-civil, conflagrationary discussion. If one didn't care, of course, one would say nothing.)

So the more people behave respectfully when they use whatever words of choice they want to use (yeah, I know, respectful gamers, ha ha), the more likely it will probably become accepted over time.

Nah, couldn't care less about the hobby being "disrespected". I do care about sharing a table with people incompatible with me. Using "toon", dropping the ends off of words "amaze" "totes", upspeak, all pretty much tell me being in that person's company will probably be incredibly annoying. Plus, they'll probably cry like a three year old if their character dies.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep. My problem with paying taxes right now is too much of that money is going to billionaires who should be getting indicted instead in the form of tax exemptions, subsidies, bail-outs, and a host of other "entitlements" those billionaire welfare queens are greedily sucking out of the vitality of the American working class. Then those billionaires break off a taste (or a job) for the criminal "public servant" that voted for the bill that put that money in his or her pocket.

If that money were going to the American working class and poor to improve their lives, I'd be quite happy with my tax contribution.

Andoran

The penalty kicks in for 2014, so the only people who have to start paying the penalty now are people who have to file quarterly (self employed or anyone getting a 1099, I guess). Anyone else will be on the hook for the April 15, 2015 tax day. I think they extended the enrollment deadline, but I'm sure September is past it still, so I'd have to kick in the $95 to be compliant.

Andoran

If money = free speech, why does it cost money? Can one have "more" 'free speech' than someone else?

Andoran

Well, since the Supreme Court calls it a "tax" (and had to or throw the whole thing out), it is now a "tax", and not a "penalty", so not paying it, even if you break even or own a little, could be construed as "evading" it, which opens up a whole different can of headache.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I just think the ACA is bad law. But, since I have zero interest in buying in, I'll pay the $95 penalty, get on my gf's insurance in September (open enrollment isn't until then) and go on my merry way.

The ACA is just a handjob for the insurance industry. They should have grew a pair and pushed single payer. I'd rather pay a little more in tax and just cover the people that need it (and let people with insurance keep that if that's their thing, and allow companies to offer it as a benefit if that's their thing) than force everyone to pay a private for-profit entity for coverage. Sticking poor people with plans that have deductibles and co-pays they still cannot afford, even with subsidies and the like, is basically giving them nothing and making them pay for it. 85% of people had coverage before this. It would have made more sense to just cover the portion of the 15% left over not getting Medicare or other assistance as a stopgap until we could grow up and just implement single payer.

Andoran

"Medicinal".

*gurgle*

Andoran

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Should I repost my email?
Probably a good idea; I can never seem to keep track of them!

Should I repost mine?

And send me a link to get a hard copy printed, I am getting a game together and using these rules, and having a hard copy would make teaching easier. The players are all 3.5 vets with no Pathfinder experience (been out of gaming for a bit).

Andoran

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.

The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.

Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.
For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?

They already do this. No welfare, no food stamps, no public housing, no federally guaranteed student loans if you'd had them before your arrest, no federal education grants, no quite a few things except V.A. and Social Security disability if you qualify. And it is pretty much for life.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
TOZ, it never fails. You chime in and what you say; it MAKES me see you as your icon. I picture you IRL looking like Chevy Chase in Fletch and literally not giving a F about anything at the gaming table, grinning the whole way. Oh, and for some reason you're in a smoking jacket. Is that weird?

TOZ doesn't physically resemble Chevy Chase, but he can do the deadpan zinger like Fletch (more book Fletch than movie Fletch).

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:


We're paying for the healthcare for a lot of citizens. They are LEAVING the workforce in record droves. Two or three times the number of people drop out of the work force (Unemployed, but Quit Looking for Work) per month, than those who find a job (now days, typically a part time job that doesn't offer employer benefits). As those numbers aren't counted in the unemployment statistics, it gives the appearance of an economic recovery. Point is, Medicaid is given to more than 50 million Americans. If getting healthcare is supposed to help you "get back to work" and be productive, why are people instead not going back to work?

Because no one is hiring people with gaps in their resume. Unemployment is so high there are at least 5 applicants for every job, and employers HATE seeing downtime on a resume.

Also, if you've had a serious injury or illness, chances are pretty good you can't go back to doing your previous occupation which means you effectively have no experience, out of date qualifications, AND gaps in your resume. No one wants to hire you, and after going through all that muck you probably don't have the resources to start your own business (4/5 of which will leave you bankrupt anyway)

New york states idea of worker re training is to show people how to use microsoft word.. oOOOoooOOo that'll get you paid!

Yeah, having a seven and a half year gap on the resume does wonders for the callback to submission ratio. The reason for that gap also negates a lot of the experience advantages I have in the positions I go for. Any kind of black mark is poison in a buyer's market.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
You do realize that you had to use Ted Williams and Ben Franklin as your examples and that they are two hundred years apart.
Actually, those were my absurd examples. My real examples were the grocery store checkout clerk, and also almost everyone I ever regularly played with.

Well, to be fair, my role playing cancelled out my optimization quite a bit ;-)

Andoran

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
So, um, Runequest? ;-)
Never played it. Worth checking out?

It's the BRP system now, d6, but you'll find a bunch of good stuff (similar to quality of the 007 stuff you appropriated for KF). Look at some GURPS stuff, too, as they do classless, skill based well, also. Again, d6, so the math would have to be hashed out a bit.

Andoran

DrDeth wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:


Monsters criting for more hit points than players have even when fully healed. We have had multiple character obliterated by x3 crit weapons. I've never in all my years seems character die as much as I have in this game.

Player optimization is way out of hand. This ties into the magic item shop but the system itself points players down paths of optimization. The power gap between those who optimize and those who do not is vast.

Two simple cures: 1 All Monster have only X2 crits, give wider crit ranges as needed. Replace Greataxes with falchoins.

2. Limit sources- esp don't allow without careful review things they may have found on line or are in sourcebooks other than what they are/have been thru. Blood Money should be restricted to PC who find it in RotRL.

Yep. The great thing about being a DM is you can change what you want in a published adventure. I'm pretty sure the various RotRL authors won't be insulted if you tone down the deadly a little bit. Trust me, the authors of that AP were well steeped in the traditions of AD&D and didn't fear killing characters.

I used to have to cut a ton of treasure out of the AD&D published material, both do avoid the christmas tree effect and to keep level progression normal (1gp = 1xp back then).

Once you unwrap (or unzip, depending) the adventure, it is yours, regardless of who wrote it. :)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Hama wrote:
What's so strange about that? More than 50% of my country doesn't know our current national anthem (which is one of the stupidest anthems ever), some 10% still think that the Yugoslavian anthem is still our anthem. And too bat that it isn't. It was pretty awesome.

Nothing is strange about it, just that the "All together now" part might come off a little thin, unless they've got a Pete-Seeger-I-teach-you-the-words-line-by-line-right-before-we-sing-them type.

(Can't find any good illustrative videos, alas.)

He used to some to my elementary school and sing songs and chat with us. He was a cool guy.

Andoran

Kirth Gersen wrote:

And a shift in focus: Once I get these last few edits and anomalies cleaned up and mail out the latest version, I'm done with "Kirthfinder." So the April-May 2014 version will be the final rules for the foreseeable future.

Instead, I sort of want to turn my attention to a simplified d20-compatible game with two big design goals:

1. Classless, skill-based character construction
2. Fewer numerical modifiers, so that we're not constantly swamping the RNG.

So, um, Runequest? ;-)

Andoran

EvilTwinSkippy wrote:
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
EvilTwinSkippy wrote:
Karl Hammarhand wrote:

If you're saying, "Brian the Black leaps forward clashing his axe to his shield roaring, 'Lamh-laidir abu. Let those omadhauns come! None shall pass the ax of this Dalcassian prince without tasting the whetted steel! Come, a ripe feast for the crows you'll be.'" You're doing it with the essence of old AD&D

If you say, "I'll move my character here to block the bridge it should slow any creature larger than small size unless they make a throw vs acrobatics to get past me. I'll brace my shield for defense. I should get a +3 to resist an contests of strength. You'll still have to watch for the reach weapons but since they'll be on a corner most won't be able to pass through the square." You're not in fact doing it with the old school essence of D&D.

So the essence of AD&D was a bunch of hullabaloo?

It's a cute example, but it's a bit of a straw man. In the latter example, there's no way the player would need to go into such detail. Most GMs already know how acrobatics or reach weapons work. The player would simply need to move into position and announce any further actions (draw a weapon, ready an action, etc.). Any additional explanation is optional.

Likewise, in the first example, the player moves into position and ...well, nothing! If the passage is wide enough, I'm not sure there was anything in the old AD&D rules that would allow Brian the Black to stop a foe or even take a swipe at them as they ran past. Although colourful, the player's description doesn't really accomplish much of anything in the game. Once again, any additional explanation is optional.

Yes, there were DMs who would allow a detailed description to translate into real game effects, and of course they'd be more inclined to do so if the description were colourful and in character. Or if they were friends with the DM. Or if they had brought the pizza. Or if they were a girl and wore something tight or low-cut. Or if they were

...

This is hilarious in a game based on miniatures war gaming. There were a ton of rules for minis in the DMG (including facing and flanking), most people either just didn't use them or didn't know they were there (the 1e DMG is a nice example of poor organization).

Another hallmark of 1e is how many people made house rules for things already covered, because they didn't find the rules, or, like the grappling rules, the system was just too opaque and cumbersome for speedy game play.

Edit: Seriously, it seemed every other issue of Dragon back then had new grappling rules, and even Gygax said he used a completely different system in his home game.

Andoran

meatrace wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I think what he is objecting to is having to pay for parts of a policy he didn't have to before. Having to pay extra monthly to cover pap smears and mammograms, which he will never get, because all health plans have to COVER them, regardless of need, is like having to get motorcycle coverage with your auto insurance even though you don't own a motorcycle.

And, no, before Obamacare, insurance companies were not selling pap smear and mammogram add-ons to men, the plans were tailored to individuals. They weren't selling prostate exam co-pay coverage to women, they weren't making single, childless people pay for pediatrician plans, etc.

You misunderstand my point. Insurance companies charge you a rate based on the market value of healthcare and the actuarial value of your healthcare, i.e. a risk premium. When you pay your premium, the money doesn't go into a sequestered account to be used only for your healthcare, it goes into a giant pile (into which healthcare CEOs do swan dives) which gets doled out when claims are made.

It's just moving money around. The insurance company doesn't care if your risk is ovarian cancer or lung cancer if the risk has the same value. People who are a low risk will ALWAYS pay more than the actuarial value of their insurance, and people who are a high risk (or have a pre-existing condition) will ALWAYS pay less than the actuarial value of their insurance. If you are healthy and have insurance, you are de facto, subsidizing someone's healthcare who is unhealthy. Usually the elderly, who account for the vast majority of medical spending in the US.

Similarly, if you pay for car insurance and never get in an accident even once, you're being fleeced, and if you have a policy for one month and get in a head-on collision, you're getting a steal.

I did miss a bit of that point, sorry for being ACA specific.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
And millions of women can't get prostate cancer and yet their premiums help pay for your healthcare should you get it, because that's exactly how insurance does and has always worked. All these people up in arms about the government making you pay to offset others' problems, when that's precisely what the insurance industry does with your cash.

I think what he is objecting to is having to pay for parts of a policy he didn't have to before. Having to pay extra monthly to cover pap smears and mammograms, which he will never get, because all health plans have to COVER them, regardless of need, is like having to get motorcycle coverage with your auto insurance even though you don't own a motorcycle.

And, no, before Obamacare, insurance companies were not selling pap smear and mammogram add-ons to men, the plans were tailored to individuals. They weren't selling prostate exam co-pay coverage to women, they weren't making single, childless people pay for pediatrician plans, etc.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no overzealous nationalist pride. I hate my nation dearly.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, if it takes more than a few seconds to figure out all of the conditional modifiers, there's too much going on that takes you out of the moment for anything to feel epic in the moment. Once it's over and the retelling starts, that's where the "epic" comes in for me in any 3x based game. There were a lot more full immersion moments in 1e than any version of 3x, if only because the combats didn't take twenty minutes (or more) a round, even at high level.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GregH wrote:
The smitter wrote:
As a production Brewer at a microbrewery I am offended by this talk of America beer being sub par. I have drank beer from all over the world and would put American craft beer against in beer in the world. I well not sign this until I get a fall apology.
I' m sorry you are offended. However while you may be a craftsman you live under the shadow of Bud, and Pabst and other so-called "beers". You must clean your own house first, then we will discuss terms of the treaty at the first "Molson Summit".

Any nation that bottles moose urine and exports it as "beer" should be careful when attacking their southern neighbors' also nasty if it's commercially brewed beer. Trust me, Molson and LaBatts aren't all that.

;-)

P.S. Molson is owned by Coors, LaBatts by Anheuser-Busch.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hama wrote:
Hurray for socialism...
Yeah. Free market really doesn't apply when you have a hunk of metal piercing your eyeball or a searing pain in your gut.

Before companies invented health care as a benefit (to combat the inability to attract workers with higher wages due to a wage freeze during the Depression), and the government got involved, the free market actually worked pretty well for health care.

People use the term "free market" to mean whatever system we have here (which is capitalism, defined, by the guy who made up the term, as a collusion between government and business to screw people). The guy that invented the term knew capitalism wasn't a "free market". He probably wouldn't have had much of an issue with a free market, actually.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
I wish to avoid playing with those types of people at all costs—not because there's anything wrong with it, but because I find it incredibly irritating. That's personal preference, not overt condemnation of style.
Ok, but you're missing out on some pretty epic fight scenes...
Oh, I find that epic fight scenes are more about characters than powers, Mark.

Amen. Some of my 1e games had quite a bit of "epic". Those "epic" combats just took up WAY less time looking stuff up and adding a zillion modifiers (stuff that is decidedly not "epic", quite draggy and boring, actually).

Andoran

Kthulhu wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
rando1000 wrote:
EvilTwinSkippy wrote:
It's ridiculous how cumbersome and counter-intuitive this system was. People forget that even THACO was a massive improvement.
I found the exact opposite was true. Cross-referencing charts is just eye-coordination; no math necessary.

People think "Thac0" was some kind of innovation. It was the number from your class/level in the chart. Period. They started putting it in modules in the 1e era to make things a little quicker for DMs who might not have an official screen with the charts on them. That's it. Your "to hit" number was exactly the same.

So, if looking at your character sheet and doing some math is an improvement over just looking at a number on the chart, no math, wow, we have low standards over what a "massive improvement" consists of.

Well, it did allow you to make a reference on your character sheet that didn't take up anywhere near the amount of room as putting the chart.

If you consider that a "massive" improvement (considering the DM didn't normally give out AC info on the enemies), and you still had to ask if you hit (as opposed to just rolling the dice, adding str + magic bonus, and asking the same exact question), you have low standards.

Andoran

Freehold DM wrote:
Tordek Rumnaheim wrote:
Freehold, PM sent to you. Tordek
reply sent.

Call a mofo :-)

Andoran

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Overturning the Myth of Valley Girl Speak

Ok, so the researcher basically said everyone in SoCal talks like an idiot. Because, unless the person speaking happens to be from SoCal, NO ONE around here speaks in "upspeak".

Andoran

Actually, Zappa INVENTED the joke, including inventing "gag me with a spoon". He was making the silly slang his daughter's friends were using and made it even more ridiculous. There was no "Val" thing before Zappa invented it. He also hated that his joke became the reality for a faddish bit.

Andoran

Yeah, the problem was seeing WAY more of both after UA came out, since it wasn't impossible to qualify any more (optional stat rolling with up to 9 dice for a "prime requisite" score. Queso puro).

Powerful is great if it is rare, if it is every other cheater on the table, it is an issue.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:

Oracle and Sorcerer are cheesy?

Elven Fighter/Magic Users or Human Dual Classed characters werent a thing in 1e AD&D?

You have a strange way of looking at the world.

An elvish F/MU was less powerful than a pure fighter or magic user of equal experience (points), just more flexible. If you want to find the cheese in AD&D, you need to get the first "splatbook", Unearthed Arcana.

There is far more cheese since 2e S&P came out than at any time prior, and S&P was basically the bridge between AD&D and WotC D&D. In order to get the level of cheese in a typical 3x/PF game in original (1e) AD&D, you'd basically have to cheat and ignore a ton of character creation rules. Or use Unearthed Arcana with the optional wealth and ability score generation rules.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
rando1000 wrote:
EvilTwinSkippy wrote:
It's ridiculous how cumbersome and counter-intuitive this system was. People forget that even THACO was a massive improvement.
I found the exact opposite was true. Cross-referencing charts is just eye-coordination; no math necessary.

People think "Thac0" was some kind of innovation. It was the number from your class/level in the chart. Period. They started putting it in modules in the 1e era to make things a little quicker for DMs who might not have an official screen with the charts on them. That's it. Your "to hit" number was exactly the same.

So, if looking at your character sheet and doing some math is an improvement over just looking at a number on the chart, no math, wow, we have low standards over what a "massive improvement" consists of.

Andoran

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
The 90's just called they want their subculture back.

Early Eighties here.

Andoran

Jaelithe wrote:
thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

The other thing you'd need to recapture the essence of AD&D, and this is the hardest part, are players willing to be among the ones that were "never to be seen again" that preceded the party that achieved the goal. That is, less moping when a character dies. Part of the fun of AD&D was actually playing a game, and not creating a narrative. At its core, AD&D was a tactical "individual as a unit" cooperative war game/fantasy simulation. Failure and death were acceptable outcomes, and sometimes a character's untimely, completely random, death was entertaining or just really funny. It was, after all, just a game.

From reading these forums (and I get the PITA it is to make new characters in 3x/pf), character death is something that should be scripted, or just avoided all together. The game have evolved into more collective story telling with a game overlay from a game that you could overlay some story onto. Nothing wrong with that style, but it is the antithesis of what AD&D promoted as the standard style of play. So, the first barrier to overcome would be avoid the "character is special" thought that is the norm in modern D&D based fantasy gaming.

The second thing is almost as unpalatable to the modern role player (roll players still do it, and probably would get more out of AD&D than someone more into the narrative aspects of role playing) is that AD&D involved a lot of meta-gaming. It was more about what the player could figure out (an example is the "sea change" reference in the play example of the AD&D DMG) than what skills the character took.

If you can find a group that can get down with that kind of play, you could probably emulate some of the feel of the AD&D (at least 1e) days.

Just for a counterpoint, though I know that's commonly considered part of the AD&D style, the groups I played with never played that way. It was always plot/character driven and as low on lethality as later versions.

So that's not part of the appeal for
...

Yeah. YMMV. But I'm pretty sure most of those with a different AD&D style probably started late in the 1e era or with 2e, after the evolution from game to collective story telling started. There were community theater type groups in the early days, sure, but (if meeting people at cons and playing various places in the area) personal experience lends me to believe that the majority in the late '70s/early '80s were kicking it what is generally considered "old school".

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dragon Magazine, issue #72.

Been there, done that. ;-)

Andoran

We also played a lot of published adventures as well, though, and without DM fiat, they could be meat grinders. So, we just took that to be how the game was played.

Andoran

Well, yeah, y'all were the engine that evolved the game. But most of the players I knew had a plot, and a story, etc, but they didn't stop playing it as a game. That is, the dice did what they did, and sometimes the plot had an unexpected death because Fate was cruel.

You just started using the concept as a vehicle for collective story telling with game elements earlier than some ;-)

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The other thing you'd need to recapture the essence of AD&D, and this is the hardest part, are players willing to be among the ones that were "never to be seen again" that preceded the party that achieved the goal. That is, less moping when a character dies. Part of the fun of AD&D was actually playing a game, and not creating a narrative. At its core, AD&D was a tactical "individual as a unit" cooperative war game/fantasy simulation. Failure and death were acceptable outcomes, and sometimes a character's untimely, completely random, death was entertaining or just really funny. It was, after all, just a game.

From reading these forums (and I get the PITA it is to make new characters in 3x/pf), character death is something that should be scripted, or just avoided all together. The game have evolved into more collective story telling with a game overlay from a game that you could overlay some story onto. Nothing wrong with that style, but it is the antithesis of what AD&D promoted as the standard style of play. So, the first barrier to overcome would be avoid the "character is special" thought that is the norm in modern D&D based fantasy gaming.

The second thing is almost as unpalatable to the modern role player (roll players still do it, and probably would get more out of AD&D than someone more into the narrative aspects of role playing) is that AD&D involved a lot of meta-gaming. It was more about what the player could figure out (an example is the "sea change" reference in the play example of the AD&D DMG) than what skills the character took.

If you can find a group that can get down with that kind of play, you could probably emulate some of the feel of the AD&D (at least 1e) days.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's "Stormwind Fallacy thread #128,904,007" on the interwebs. Was there ever a point anyway? ;-)

Andoran

Actually, the biggest impact Prohibition had was change us from a mostly beer drinking culture to more of a hard liquor drinking culture (cocktail culture). The stereotypical "whiskey shot to cut the dust" in Westerns was, essentially an anachronism, and became part of Western Lore more due to the movie industry becoming huge during Prohibition than anything else.

And, sorry, we still consume at outrageous levels. We just have cleaner water, so we don't need to brew it into beer to make it drinkable. ;-)

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:

The War on Drugs is a separate thing I'm talking about and yes is a failure. Yes, our prisons are full of mostly (IIRC) people who were arrested on drug charges for things like marijuana and smaller offenses, not violent offenses. This doesn't change that there are a lot of violent crimes related to drug selling/trafficking each year.

To say it's "Draconian B.S" as if we've progressed into some more refined and civilized era of drug dealing is completely silly. When business is good for everyone, violence goes down (not away), when its down or someone wants to move up in the world, it goes up. Even if statistically violent crime has gone down that's irrelevant. If statistically, less deaths have happened to figherfighters over the last 20 years that doesn't make the job not dangerous. Its part of the occupation just like violence often is for drug dealers since you can't take someone to small claims court for stealing your meth.

Funny, replace "drugs" with "booze" and you get the Roaring Twenties. Amazing how the violence directly related to alcohol distribution completely disappeared the second it was legal again.

Cause and effect. It's everything.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To bring the Stormwind Fallacy into this thread derail: Just because someone says their doing something to protect you (roleplaying) doesn't mean they can't be screwing you at the same time (optimizing their bottom line).

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Private prisons are a multi-billion dollar a year industry. They just had a major convention close to here, most of which dealt with how to sustain growth in the industry (clue: a lot of it dealt with fighting pro-marijuana laws and immigration reform).

The best part is they are publicly held companies traded on the stock market. You can actually follow the money. You'd be surprised how many politicians' relatives (both parties) show up on the stockholder rolls.

And I think you underestimate how many people are held in private facilities. There are over 200k available bunks in private facilities, about ten percent of the overall prison population. Also, they do not count INS detainees into the criminal figures, as most have served their sentences and are awaiting deportation. A deportation that can take up to two years for some reason ($$$ if you aren't paying attention).

Andoran

Rynjin wrote:
No offense, but I'm not going to take a drug dealer's word for it.

No worries. I don't expect you to.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:
Its like saying drug dealers are often violent criminals and then someone says to defend drug dealers: Drug dealer fallacy! You can deal drugs and not be violent! Well obviously that statement is deductively true. It still says nothing about the reality we live in.

Funny, the reality I lived in as a drug dealer revealed that your reality was a construct used by the press and the government to justify some seriously draconian BS. The reality I lived in was that violence was pretty rare, actually. And I was thick in the middle of it on a pretty large level. That is, domestically. The problems in Mexico are a completely different situation with much deeper roots than mere drug trafficking.

So, if you're going to try to deflate a fallacy, I'd recommend you don't commit the "I have no idea what I'm talking about" fallacy.

1 to 50 of 8,885 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.