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. 9,266 posts (9,568 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

"Seems to find"? When you generate it yourself, it didn't "find" you.

Let the battle of the cheaters commence!

Liberty's Edge

Muad'Dib wrote:

Having gone to Sonics game with more people in the audience wearing Lakers or Bulls jerseys than Sonics I can understand the frustration. (funny how you never see Bulls jerseys anymore).

What can I say, the Hawks have a lot of players with Attention Deficit Disorder...

Carroll must have a pharmacy that travels with him from team to team.

-MD

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.

Liberty's Edge

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. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aberzombie wrote:

I tried to watch the Pro-bowl last night, but found it...boring.

What's wrong with me?

** spoiler omitted **

The only thing wrong with you is you tuned in to the Pro Bowl and expected it to be anything but boring. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

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. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Been watching sports since the Seventies, and I've never seen a bandwagon fill so quickly in my life.

yeah Jason has you here,

I myself have always been a fan of the Seahawks and the Sonics (R.I.P.) i worked at Seahawks stadium when it first opened (as a security guard, and when it was actually called Seahawks Stadium) my daughter was born in Seattle.
I've seen some pretty s@*@ty weather as a Seahawks fan, its nice to finally see some sun, so i'm going to soak it up:-D

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! ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Jason Nelson wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Been watching sports since the Seventies, and I've never seen a bandwagon fill so quickly in my life.
No bandwagon will EVER fill up as quickly as the Chicago Bulls bandwagon in the early 90s.

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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

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.

Been watching sports since the Seventies, and I've never seen a bandwagon fill so quickly in my life.

OK. You get a gold star just for Steve Largent.

Now there lives one of the "most underappreciated Seattle players EVER!"

My wife and I also hand-contructed a fabulous "clipboard Jesus" for my brother, just before they traded poor Charlie away.

And I have to love my POOR brother! He used to love going to an empty stadium for an enjoyable afternoon of hilariously-atrocious hijinks. Now he actually has to deal with football. He's not sure whether to be delighted or disgusted...

EDIT: And just for "full disclosure", I was a die-hard 49er fan through the 70's and 80's 'til they forced out DeBartolo, browbeat Montana into leaving, and generally destroyed the organization from the top down.
I still hate Steve Young for taking advantage of it all. Feh on his HoF career, I say. Feh! Now, where did I put my onions...?

EDIT2: So really, all I root for these days is for the Raiders to finally finish a perfect 0-16, and for Dallas to get humiliated one more time. Old rivalries die hard...

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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Been watching sports since the Seventies, and I've never seen a bandwagon fill so quickly in my life.

Liberty's Edge

Aberzombie wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:


I haven't much paid attention to football this year

Funny how that happens when your team sucks. ;-)

*ducks*

Houston (since I live here now)? Yep, the blew other goats.

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. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
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.
Quota achieved, since this point has been made on every page of this thread I believe.

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?

;-)

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Terquem wrote:
What I can't seem to figure out, is how it is that when it comes to "planning" players are zealous in creating characters and disinterested in any other sort of planning that might come their way. Heck, in most of my games I can hardly even get the players to talk to each other, let alone hope they will come up with a plan, even to open a door.
Because PF is a character building game with an annoying interactive part bolted on. :)

The internet supports this theory. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

NobodysHome wrote:

Well, it's getting more interesting...

- A Yahoo! sports hack, er, "writer" tested ball deflation and claims it made a measurable difference in his performance.

- I was wrong in my previous statement that "each team uses the same balls". Turns out only the New England offense used those balls.

So I'll repeat: I fundamentally do not believe that the ball-underinflation had an impact on the game result. But it's too prevalent (11 of 12 balls), too consistent (-2 PSI each), and too consistent with Belichick's history of pushing the boundaries of the rules to claim it's unintentional.

So yet again the Pats have been caught intentionally tampering. Yet again it's the appearance of impropriety that's important.

I find that I am now fascinated in watching how this plays out...

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.

Liberty's Edge

Gruumash . wrote:

Ah but I still think Marino was the reason they are considered good receivers. I would say Brett Favre needed better weapons around him to make him great.

I would agree Pete does deserve to be in the HoF. But you can't separate baseball from football on that level? I mean the whole voting is different. I am not sure how many players who are in the HoF don't deserve to be there. While I agree there maybe some who are not in there who should be.

Seeing as he put up sick numbers with the Jets and Minnesota, I'm not so sure about that.

Liberty's Edge

There are plenty of good players not in the HoF, and plenty that didn't deserve to be there inducted. HoF in any sport means nothing to me as long as Pete Rose isn't in Cooperstown ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Duper and Clayton were the first pair of WRs to both collect 1,000 yards in the same season on the same team in a much run happier league. And they did it on a team everyone played permanent nickel against, since the running game was a joke easily contained by a four man front. Say what?

;-)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aberzombie wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:

I think Marino should be on the list before Favre.

I can totally see this. And everyone always forgets about Johnny U. He was pretty bad ass.

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).

Liberty's Edge

Aberzombie wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
I'm a firm believer in maintaining the "illusion of integrity".
This, to me, is another aspect of it. Whether or not this is a real controversy, it reflects badly on the game as a whole. Part of that is the media's fault, methinks. They blow stuff out of proportion way to often.

So how come the Illusion of Integrity of the game was not called into question when Aaron Rodgers admitted to over inflating the his balls? Seems a bit of a double standard as well as a mountain being created from a mole hill in this case because of the animosity the media has against Bill and the patriots because he does not like to talk to the media. Again my own humble opinion. I did not want to get into this but they keep pulling me back in :)

So if the Patriots lose draft picks shouldn't Green Bay also lose them by that argument? A fine I get but draft picks seems over board and how many other teams have been doing this? Because if you tell me Green bay and New England are the only ones I think you are lying to yourself or are naïve.

I haven't much paid attention to football this year

Funny how that happens when your team sucks. ;-)

*ducks*

Liberty's Edge

Jason Nelson wrote:

I know some QBs have strong feelings on the ball inflation, but I doubt that it had much impact in a 45-7 blowout.

As a Seahawks fan, I look forward to the game; it should be a good one. Some commentators say the Seahawks won't be able to match up with the Pats because they don't know what's coming, whether NE will pass, run, or come out in some crazy formation. That's okay by us. What has made the Seahawks successful lately has been playing their own game as well as they can and betting that the opponent can't make enough successful plays against a relatively simple system executed with speed, strength, and precision, and without making mistakes that allow the Seahawks to pounce with an explosive play.

Will it work in the Superbowl? We'll see...

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.

Liberty's Edge

Gruumash . wrote:

I think it is hard to put Peyton manning in the GOAT conversation due to his lack ability to win the big one, he only won one. Elway won 2 and Brett Favre ... Well his Int to TD ratio is not the best.

Comparing Brady to Montana is hard because they played in completely different eras and Montana certainly had more weapons than Brady did. The time they played in there was not really a salary cap and the Niners could hold onto their good players without much trouble. As for the "Tuck Rule" and other things about Brady's play you could go into a whole bunch of circumstances which could have go another way for other quarterbacks that helped them at the time. In Super Bowl XXIII the Cincinnati Bengals lost their best blocking back and short yardage back the night before because he did cocaine. Might have been a different game and Montana might have lost that game. But he did not. they played the game and he won. The world is full of what ifs. The "Tuck Rule" was a rule and it helped the Patriots have another chance to go to beat the Raiders ... but they still needed to make the plays to win the game and the rest of the games in the playoffs to get them to the Super bowl.

As for GOAT: Brady and Montana are neck and neck. then Bradshaw, Elway, Marino and Manning. Favre I would put after them in my own humble opinion.

I won't get into the deflate ball controversy. I am not biased at all and we don't know what is going on yet.

Sorry, but I'm not taking "I'm not biased at all" from a resident of the Boston 'burbs. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Liberty's Edge

GM Niles wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
GM Niles wrote:

This is only a story because people are making it one. Underinflated balls? Sounds like a bad porno title....

How about we focus on the fact that Tom Brady could become with a Superbowl win the undisputed greatest QB of all time. And Bill Belichick can probably already claim that title...

And no, I'm not a Pats fan. I'm from Louisiana and I root for the Saints...so yeah.

However, I am an alumnus of the University of Oregon, so if the Eagles make a move and get Marcus Mariota. I'm instantly an Eagles fan.

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. ;-)

"Shakes his fist!"

My top five and yours look markedly different...Favre!? Bradshaw!? Manning!?

Where the heck is John Elway!

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.

Liberty's Edge

GM Niles wrote:

This is only a story because people are making it one. Underinflated balls? Sounds like a bad porno title....

How about we focus on the fact that Tom Brady could become with a Superbowl win the undisputed greatest QB of all time. And Bill Belichick can probably already claim that title...

And no, I'm not a Pats fan. I'm from Louisiana and I root for the Saints...so yeah.

However, I am an alumnus of the University of Oregon, so if the Eagles make a move and get Marcus Mariota. I'm instantly an Eagles fan.

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. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Aberzombie wrote:

This thread did not see a lot of action this season. I partly blame myself. I hardly watched any football this year.

However, with the Superbowl coming up.....

11 of 12 game balls used by Patriots in AFC title game underinflated, report says

An interesting article. Of course, no real details. It could very well be that they filled the balls to the absolute minimum and the cold air caused the pressure to drop just under said minimum.

But, s&~&, what would be done if it was shown they did do this intentionally?

They'll get a fine and lose some draft picks.

Underinflated balls didn't cause Indy to not show up, after all.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

** spoiler omitted **

No doubt, the Gulf Coast is where it's at.
Too true. I miss Galveston.

I miss Galveston all the time. Drive right past it to a beach much further south and much cleaner ;-)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
How long after Pathfinder was released did it take to get a stable of non-English versions on the shelf? 5e is six months old or so, if it was in that time frame, I think it would fair to bring up their lack of foreign language editions. Otherwise, not so much.

Tracking down the exact answer would take a bit, but I know that we had announced French and German even before we released the English version and I believe both of those languages had their versions of the Core Rulebook out quickly. We released in August 2009, and I'm pretty sure French was out before year end, and German was pretty close to French.

(Also, I've learned that Lisa has already revealed that Chinese and Hebrew translations are in progress, and there are still others to be announced.)

Right on :-)

Well, I guess we know how many quarters they'll be beating Pathfinder in anything other than English.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Distilling all of this down: basically, just act civilized, and people will judge the hobby on its merits. People that want to play will, people that find it boring won't. Simple.

Liberty's Edge

I added that because some people are just too tolerant, and I think it does society a disservice.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
It's true that some women (maybe even most, who knows?) simply wouldn't be interested in RPGs. But that's not relevant to a discussion about removing the barriers to those who are interested.

Most likely "Most". Most likely the vast majority, in fact.

Like the vast majority of men aren't interested either.

This is a niche hobby, people.

All the more reason we shouldn't drive away anyone who might be interested.

Yep. Well, I think we could do with less creepers and the like, but then, my tolerance only extends so far.

Liberty's Edge

Shifty wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Lilith wrote:
bdub wrote:
I'm curious if women gamers prefer female or male GMs.
I prefer a GM that can tell a good story and keep the game's pace moving—gender doesn't even equate into it at all.

Cookies are good too. A DM that can provide sweet discs of lovely sweetness? Priceless.

This is a thing? Did the GM ride in on a unicorn? :)

Dude, I bake like a champ. But I was referencing Lilith's specialty.

Liberty's Edge

Lilith wrote:
bdub wrote:
I'm curious if women gamers prefer female or male GMs.
I prefer a GM that can tell a good story and keep the game's pace moving—gender doesn't even equate into it at all.

Cookies are good too. A DM that can provide sweet discs of lovely sweetness? Priceless.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

You know, it is also possible that a lot of women just had zero interest in playing TTRPGs, no matter how much they're into Game of Thrones and anime. Maybe they just think it is a level of dorky they don't want to explore.

;-)

Okay. So what about the ones that do want to play and feel excluded, hazed, and harassed by male gamers?

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.

That works well for someone who's already into the hobby and definitely knows they want to continue. If you're sufficiently hooked, you'll find away.

It doesn't work when it's someone who isn't sure about it and gets a really bad first (or early) experience.

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.

Liberty's Edge

Hitdice wrote:

Sometimes being welcoming doesn't look the way you think it would. I used to run sessions at the apartment of an all but married couple, the dude of whom played while the chick looked on and offered thoughts in general and advice in specific to the players. Eventually I said, "Look, Janine (not her name) if you want to be this involved, you're gonna have to roll up a character, okay?!"

So she did.

I was sort of scolding her when I made the offer, but she took me up on it and turned out to be a great player. We haven't kept in touch, but I hope she still games.

Awesome anecdote. Thanks :-)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with MEL, I've heard too many stories of how tech dudes treat tech chicks to even consider there is exaggeration involved. It appears that a lot of computer geeks might be a bit socially inept and oblivious, if not downright misogynistic.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

You know, it is also possible that a lot of women just had zero interest in playing TTRPGs, no matter how much they're into Game of Thrones and anime. Maybe they just think it is a level of dorky they don't want to explore.

;-)

Okay. So what about the ones that do want to play and feel excluded, hazed, and harassed by male gamers?

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.

Liberty's Edge

mechaPoet wrote:

Okie dokie, Caineach. What I'm getting from this is:

1. You and your friends interact very differently than my friends and I. So your generalizations about "this is how friends interact" aren't applicable across the board, and doesn't really address the issue of inclusivity.
2. Partly due to how you've described your friendships, and partly due to the fact that you're someone who seriously uses the phrase "I have trouble believing any woman whenever she says...", among other things, makes me strongly uninterested in playing any game with you.
3. Do you act this way in public? Would you encourage this behavior at a public game or a con?

Fergurg wrote:
I'm just going to throw this out there: the fact that gaming is a mostly male thing is not bad. The fact that any particular thing that is male is mostly male is not bad.
Why?

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.

Liberty's Edge

You know, it is also possible that a lot of women just had zero interest in playing TTRPGs, no matter how much they're into Game of Thrones and anime. Maybe they just think it is a level of dorky they don't want to explore.

;-)

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

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.

Isn't it a great thing that people like different things in their entertainment? Whether it's rpgs or movies or books or tv shows.

I don't play RPGs to sort out social issues, but I do like a bit more depth than just "kick down the door, kill the monster, take the treasure".

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.

Liberty's Edge

Thanks for the info, having two daughters has kept me from keeping up too much on the business side of all of this.

Cool, in that case, my challenge to Vic's statement is withdrawn.

Liberty's Edge

Plus, any monsters that exist in 1e that aren't in PF (or aren't the protected IP of WotC) are in the Tome of Horrors, PF edition.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Liberty's Edge

WotC released a 2e to 3e conversion thing which might help with some of your work. I'm sure it is available on their web site or something.

Liberty's Edge

How long after Pathfinder was released did it take to get a stable of non-English versions on the shelf? 5e is six months old or so, if it was in that time frame, I think it would fair to bring up their lack of foreign language editions. Otherwise, not so much.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


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.

On the other hand, we were also born in a much more sexist and racist time, to a generation where both were completely normal.

Some of the "being careful not to offend" comes from those younger generations being less willing to stand for the bull, not just from the self-esteem mentality.

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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some more posts. Baiting/insults, again, are not OK here. Challenge ideas, not others in the conversation.

C'mon, "Kiss Your Sister Alabama" was funny. :P

j/k, sorry if I raised the temperature too much.

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
But what if I have no idea what is bothering someone? If the GM says we open a door to a room where a vampire sits by the fire, with a viper on his shoulders and a dark wolf with red eyes and a glass of blood in his hand, and then someone shows me an X-card, how the hell am I supposed to know what is troubling that person? Is it the blood? The fire? The viper? The wolf? A combination of these? Should the GM throw the whole scene out?

From the X-Card rules:

If you aren't sure what was X-Carded, call for a break and talk with the person in private.

Ta da.

Lemmy wrote:
(And why would someone allergic to peanuts care if someone else eats peanut butter? Does the smell of peanuts cause some sort of allergic reaction? Honest question here. I never met anyone who is allergic to peanuts... Or at least, the subject never came up)

Although they've recently determined that this specific risk has been exaggerated, peanut allergies can be serious enough (especially in children) that airborne particles (such as on your breath) or secondary skin exposure (like you get peanut oil on your hand, then you touch the battlemap, and the allergic person touches the battlemap) can trigger a dangerous allergic reaction.

Which is why you always have an Epipen handy.

Signed,

The father of a daughter with a fairly hard core peanut allergy.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:

That may be, but given that men don't believe sexism is real even when confronted with hard evidence of its existence, that men don't notice it when it's happening in front of them,

Jessica, I agree with most of what you say. But saying "men don't" as opposed to "men often don't" is, literally, wrong.
Can we not focus on the phrasing of this, since obviously it is not intended to mean "literally all men, every last one of them," and instead focus on the actual data that talks about men not recognizing sexism and harassment?
Nope. If one side of a debate has to speak carefully as to not "offend" people who grew up getting trophies for just showing up, the other side had better be very precise in their language.

Okay, so, when I say "can we," what I meant (in polite-ese) "Let's not."

Also, I must ask you to clarify something for me: who exactly is getting trophies for "just showing up"? Showing up for what? Is this a metaphorical trophy? Can I have one? Is there any possible way this answer won't ""offend"" me? (See how I put your quotation marks in quotation marks? If it's not clear, it's because I don't appreciate or respect your putting the word offend in quotation marks.)

I'm """offended""". I showed up and didn't get one of these "trophies".

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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
#YesAllGoblins

Seriously, I drove two states in that storm and was caught by a "Damn, Ma~~$%&&s, didn't anyone tell you not to tailgate in the rain" 22 car pile up to get there. All you had to do was get off the bus.

#neverlettingitgo

;-)

1 to 50 of 9,266 << 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.