|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
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 ;-)
Kirth Gersen wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
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).
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
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.
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).
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.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Well, to be fair, my role playing cancelled out my optimization quite a bit ;-)
Kirth Gersen wrote:
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.
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. :)
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
He used to some to my elementary school and sing songs and chat with us. He was a cool guy.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
So, um, Runequest? ;-)
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.
I did miss a bit of that point, sorry for being ACA specific.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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".
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 ;-)
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.
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. ;-)
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.
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).
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.