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

knightnday's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,664 posts. 40 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,664 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Zombie Ninja wrote:

Actually I liked TOEE. Yes is was insanely buggy, and the story line was nearly non-existent, but I love the turn based combat, weird companion characters, and the game drastically improved when you got into the temple. Funny thing is there are people who still actively make mods for that game. I downloaded one last December, it was pretty good.

Anyway I would love to see an actually pathfinder rpg, not the upcoming mmorpg, that I have no interest in.

I liked ToEE after the Circle of 8 modded it. I'd prefer a game like that to a giant multi-player game to be honest. Bonus points for something I can play and not have to log into a @#%#$^#$ server every time I want to play would be lovely.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I've found on the Paizo boards*: there isn't anything that is not arguable.

*See also: Internet in general.


Tensor wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Post anonymously on a number of sources where criminal elements might hang out that this house has a lot of things to steal, or that the master is of a race/creed/religion that they hate. Unlock the doors when they approach, preferably while he sleeps. Lock up after the deed is done.
Interesting ploy. Not even sure if investigators would check why *your* doors were unlocked?

If I can adjust my own logs then they'd have no evidence that the doors were opened. They'd have to figure out how the criminals got in. If I'm REALLY lucky, they'd be destructive on the way in or out, albeit quietly destructive, and break in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Technology can be quite useful if you have experienced players or those who don't need hands-on help or a close eye. I've had a few players over the years that I'd prefer to keep an eye on when they are working out their characters, especially if we are rolling stats instead of using point buy. Their "miraculous" rolls are a little less miraculous if there are witnesses I've found.
Why are those people even in your game?

The majority aren't anymore. Others are friends/spouses/children of other players and drop kicking them would cause more drama than necessary; me watching and correcting them along the way is a small price to pay not to have problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Post anonymously on a number of sources where criminal elements might hang out that this house has a lot of things to steal, or that the master is of a race/creed/religion that they hate. Unlock the doors when they approach, preferably while he sleeps. Lock up after the deed is done.


Technology can be quite useful if you have experienced players or those who don't need hands-on help or a close eye. I've had a few players over the years that I'd prefer to keep an eye on when they are working out their characters, especially if we are rolling stats instead of using point buy. Their "miraculous" rolls are a little less miraculous if there are witnesses I've found.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it is a secret so much .. although it could be mentioned more thoroughly in RPG products .. but more that it seems to have fallen out of favor in some corners of the gaming community.

If you look over posts on these boards and others you'll find some strong push back against the idea. Not so much that there should be a Session 0, mind, but that the GM should put constraints on the player's creativity. There are those that like the idea that they should go where their muse takes them and it is the responsibility of the GM and other players to coordinate their efforts to make the whole cohesive.

Likewise you'll find those that are strongly against house rules, restrictions to builds, or both. I've seen all too often "I'd just walk if X is not allowed/is allowed/other."

The game is supposed to be cooperative, and Session 0, in my mind, is a good way to start working on that. The GM showing up and just announcing that you're doing a political thriller may not sit with players who aren't really into that, and the players telling the GM that he's running an intense pirate game could be in for a disappointment when they find that the only thing their GM hates more than cat people is Jack Sparrow.

I am a strong proponent of Session 0, and am reluctant to accept people making characters in a vacuum to the point that I and my players balk when someone wants to join the game late and has created a character without any idea of what is going on. The last time I didn't have some sort of Session 0 along with a players document was sometime in the early '80s.


HWalsh wrote:
knightnday wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Paladin story here.

The entire battle was dictated, more or less, by the code. That is a pretty darn impactful thing to happen.

And that worked for that character. But truth be told, I have seen similar results come from straight RP of a code without the reinforcement of "Do this or fall!". A variety over the years of warriors who refused to back down from combat due to honor, of marines and solos that wouldn't leave anyone behind, characters who wouldn't lie for any reason, and so on.

The code is a good guide for being a "good" person, for a given value of good. But those aspects aren't unique to the paladin, nor are there any less interesting aspects that come along with other alignments.

You don't seem to realize that there is a huge difference between *can* and *must.*

Yes, you *can* follow similar tenets without being a Paladin. You *must* follow them if you are a Paladin.

No, I realize it quite well. Doing good without being forced to should have merit too.


What I'd like to see is something that ties into the game, along the lines of using the new characters, classes, races and so on that have or are coming out.

Another line of thought might be to have the module use races that aren't normally allowed in PFS, which does double duty of showing "We're not just humans and elves and dwarves" as well as making a number of people in PFS currently happy that they can, even for a day, play a favorite race.


HWalsh wrote:

Paladin story here.

The entire battle was dictated, more or less, by the code. That is a pretty darn impactful thing to happen.

And that worked for that character. But truth be told, I have seen similar results come from straight RP of a code without the reinforcement of "Do this or fall!". A variety over the years of warriors who refused to back down from combat due to honor, of marines and solos that wouldn't leave anyone behind, characters who wouldn't lie for any reason, and so on.

The code is a good guide for being a "good" person, for a given value of good. But those aspects aren't unique to the paladin, nor are there any less interesting aspects that come along with other alignments.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Didn't people have a holy fit about the lashunta having different stats for females and males? Within the last month or so I want to say.

A couple of vocal posters on a message board that attracts the vocal is not the same as "people".

As someone who's read ERB novels and comic books based on the same, the gender dimorphism of the Lashunta is severely diluted compared to the material that inspired it.

I just remember that there was a kerfluffle, just not how many there were. But yes, given the source material it was a lot over nothing.


Didn't people have a holy fit about the lashunta having different stats for females and males? Within the last month or so I want to say.

Gygax's views on women's strength aside, if the bevy of alternative classes for people who want to play a divine warrior of different alignments exists, why does the paladin need to exist? I mean, if the others are so great and the paladin is so crappy, why bother having it?

Something else that interests me is the idea of keeping the class as is for tradition reasons, but not returning it to its roots. High stat requirements, heavy limitations on who you can deal with and how much gear and money you can have and so on. No one interested in that for tradition's sake?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Hey folks! Thank you for posting your feedback about the selection for this year's Free RPG Day. I think it might be a better venue, though, to post any ideas about alternate adventures to our Pathfinder Modules subforum. Our product discussion threads really need to be centered on the specific product being discussed, and there are definitely nuggets of good discussion to be had here that I'm not sure quite fit.

Done! Divert your traffic and attention HERE!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Per Chris's suggestion I'm going to toss this out here for people to post ideas about what they'd rather have for Free RPG Day modules. This year's is We B4 Goblins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:

An important point to remember is that one of the goals of Free RPG Day is to draw in new audiences to game stores. One gamer might be tired of goblins...but the next person that walks in the door might never have played a roleplaying game before, and might very well be intrigued by the idea of playing a pyromaniac goblin riding a pig to impress their friends.

We all begin gaming somewhere, and we should remember that just because we might not want a thing, doesn't mean somebody else doesn't, and that thing might bring in a new gamer into the fold. And then another. And another. Gaming is bigger than one person's set of desires.

I absolutely understand that, and appreciate that, but if I don't say anything at all, then how will you know.

I was respectful and stated my opinion.

I agree with the Captain. It was a neat joke the first time, cute the second, tolerable the third, and now, well, it doesn't really evoke a smile. While I appreciate the idea of bringing in new people, there aren't other things we can intrigue them with in our game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I remember those days. The "lore" was mostly "because". The same reason was used for giving females lower strength as well.

The reason wasn't "because"

The reason was actually that because the other races lived longer lives they had a lack of motivation to improve to truly exceptional levels that required more than simple training but a specific obsessive dedication that was granted to the humans (lore-wise) by the Gods of Grayhawk in honor of their willingness to burn more brightly due to their much shorter time on this plane.

The lifespan issue was very problematic as there were many monsters that, when striking a player, could age them 1, 5, or even 10 years. Also spells like Haste and Wish drained years off of the caster.

Quote:
As I recall, level limits were one of the many things that were house ruled out as many people find "because" less than a great reason.

Hardly. More like many people didn't bother to read the lore.

Quote:
As for losing things you care about .. you don't. You don't lose anything unless and until squads are deployed from the game companies to force you to play in a certain way. So far I've been lucky and avoided the assassins sent out by Wizards, Paizo, and TSR before them.

Unless we play in PFS, or the RPGA, or join a new group.

These things being in the main rules allow us to be fairly confident in what we can and cannot expect.

Mmm. Except not everyone played Greyhawk, so that bit works about as well as saying something is because of how it is on Golarion .. which people commonly dismiss as the rules should be setting neutral.

People read the lore. People understood that there was a manufactured reason that they didn't agree with. People didn't agree with the limits on female strength as well, and I don't recall much in the lore about that.

If you play at another table, or PFS, or RPGA (does that still exist?) then you accept table variation. That's been a truism since games began.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember those days. The "lore" was mostly "because". The same reason was used for giving females lower strength as well.

As I recall, level limits were one of the many things that were house ruled out as many people find "because" less than a great reason.

As for losing things you care about .. you don't. You don't lose anything unless and until squads are deployed from the game companies to force you to play in a certain way. So far I've been lucky and avoided the assassins sent out by Wizards, Paizo, and TSR before them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, silly. Much like the conversations over changing anything in the game, or discussing what people would like or dislike.


You must be mistaking me for someone else. I haven't asked Paizo to do anything. I've managed quite admirably for years to adjust this and other games for my needs.

Additionally, I've yet to see myself or anyone else ask for cheers over it. People are discussing it and others seem hellbent to jump up and down to decry any change to the base paladin, as if allowing something similar in other alignments will hurt the paladin's feelings in some way.


Aelryinth wrote:

If it doesn'T DO anything, then it shouldn't matter that you cannot have it. Play a warpriest, it's why they were made.

For some of us, it really does do something, and it does matter. I know the current video game mindset is to simply grant powers and to heck with good, evil, holy or unholy, what and why and how and who gets them.

But this ain't a video game. Paladins are fine staying LG. If you don't like it, play some of the many and even 'better' options.

No, if I don't like it I have the power to change it. You see, the book isn't some divine mandate that doesn't permit change. If I, or someone else, wants Neutral Paladins or LE paladins or CG paladins or whatever else .. you can have them.

It doesn't matter what I, you, them or anyone else thinks. These discussions on the boards are entertaining ways to pass time but they don't have any ability to stop people from wanting things and indeed having them. See also caster-martial problems, different fighters, things PFS won't let you have and more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Horse crap.

It doesn't DO anything. If anything, it expands the flavor and consistency of the world rather than sticking to an arbitrary ruling that was created 30+ years ago for one version of the game and that hasn't advanced with the times.


There's going to be disagreement about it, some of which boils down to a gamer (or even regular person) not liking to be told that their version is incorrect.

It seems, if I am reading some of the arguments correctly, revolve mostly around the idea that one is role playing if they engage in minimally interpreting the dice (I hit, 20 damage. I intimidate the guard) or if one is role playing if they are fully engaged (player gives 3 paragraph oratory quotation from Goodfellows to intimidate the guard).

Yes. And any middle ground too. Role playing is what you make of it and telling folks that they are doing is "wrong" just leads to bad feelings.


Jiggy wrote:
knightnday wrote:
So a degree of acting was certainly suggested.

Nobody was suggesting that acting was not included, just that first-person speech is not the entirety of what roleplaying means.

Anyway, were there any headings or anything to suggest that the excerpt you provided (thanks, by the way) was an explanation of what it is to "roleplay"? It refers to the other players as "fellow role players", but that doesn't really mean much in the context of the question at hand.

Assuming for a moment that this is that book's "definition" of roleplaying, there's quite a lot of stuff included beyond in-character speech: drinking/gambling (i.e., non-speech social interaction), adventuring (that's gonna include a lot of dice!) and even combat. It even describes the acquisition of gold and gear as part of the process of "becoming" your character.

No particular headings were given; this all takes place in the Introduction to the book with that brief commentary on roleplaying along with a note in the Foreward to "get into the spirit of the game and use your persona to play with a special personality all its own."

The rest of the material tends towards what is expected of the DM and how to have a successful party before getting into the meat of character generation. Even the adventuring chapter deals more with how to have a successful team and how to make the most out of being in dungeons.


Let's see, AD&D Player's Handbook page 7 under "The Game" tells us the following:

Quote:
You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god-given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by-and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

So a degree of acting was certainly suggested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
knightnday wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.

Alignment isn't the primary balance factor with Paladins.

The STRICT rules and the codes are an issue.

Like I said, a Lawful Good can lie, a Paladin can't.

Any class or alignment can have strict rules and code. I think that you are overselling the importance of this being unique to the paladin. The alignment being LG isn't a NEED for this class.

The same sort of codes and rules could be applied, with some modifications, to any alignment. You could easily remove "can't lie" from paladins and they would remain unchanged. The code can vary between deities and not change what this class is.

Actually, the biggest problem in the line is this:

I don't have to defend Paladins needing to be LG. That isn't something I have to prove there is a need for.

You have to prove that there is a need for TN Paladins. If you can't prove a need, then all you are saying is something you want that isn't necessary.

Um, no, you are wrong there. Neither I nor anyone else have to prove anything to you or you to us. I think that is where you're getting confused in all this.

There is as much, or as little, need for paladins as there is for an anti-paladin, a neutral paladin, a green paladin, a holy warrior or anything else. There is a want for such things .. see also articles in the Dragon numerous times, third party products and threads like these where people suggest that they'd like to see a "holy champion sort of like a paladin" for other alignments.

Now, you are free to not like people wanting that. You are free to suggest that the only true paladin is the One True Paladin Accept No Substitute. But that doesn't change anyone's desire for something different.

Finally, for someone who doesn't have to defend paladins needing to be LG you have expended a great deal of time in a number of threads doing just that, extolling that they MUST be LG or else .. what? The world ends? Or they lose some of the mystique that has been built around them and they are just another class like any other?


HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.

Alignment isn't the primary balance factor with Paladins.

The STRICT rules and the codes are an issue.

Like I said, a Lawful Good can lie, a Paladin can't.

Any class or alignment can have strict rules and code. I think that you are overselling the importance of this being unique to the paladin. The alignment being LG isn't a NEED for this class.

The same sort of codes and rules could be applied, with some modifications, to any alignment. You could easily remove "can't lie" from paladins and they would remain unchanged. The code can vary between deities and not change what this class is.


Nifty


GreyWolfLord wrote:
knightnday wrote:

How .. are these forums doing anything to your home group? I mean, it is words on a screen. Why do you or they or anyone give them any more weight than "Some person somewhere said something?"

Maybe they and others want to play 5E because it is the new kid on the block? Something different and perhaps more interesting than the game they've been playing?

I don't think it is because people are somehow being meanies online and that is driving people away, or else everywhere else on the internet where people are so much worse would see people moving to other things in droves.

tl;dr: Your group changed. Don't blame the boards.

Edit to add: And for the love of every god, it's an internet maxim not to read the comments. If you and yours do not want the information on the forums here or elsewhere, don't read them. This is basic self-defense.

Long story...but overall, them and others relate things back to Pathfinder memes that you only see on these boards typically.

It started prior to that with other things, but later one of them ventured here...and that started the landslide from the various and myriad reasons they've given for not wanting to play PF in favor of other game systems.

On the bright side, even if I dislike 5e, they do look favorably towards Dragon Age with is a pretty cool system and play that occasionally now.

Ah, so it was a problem looking for an excuse and found one in a argument here. Well, that is sort of sad but that seems a local issue and not one that is tied to the forums or Pathfinder in particular.

With luck, you and yours will find things to do that you enjoy.


HWalsh wrote:
A lot of words that sum up to I REALLY like LG paladins!

My question for this all is .. how do they deal with clerics? They may or may not totally act in the exact way a deity desires .. for that matter paladins (the LG variety) don't always act how their deity wants; this is why atonement spells exist, no?

The idea that every anti-paladin is some mustache twirling stereotypical idea of evil is ludicrous. They know where they draw power from just as much as their LG counterpart does. Why wouldn't Rovagug grant an anti-paladin power? What do you think they'll do that is against their master's desires, build houses and plant flowers?

A neutral "paladin" might not be the best word for what people are thinking of; that said, why wouldn't a neutral deity have some sort of champion? Why wouldn't any of the alignments? I mean, one can see the merits given what is going on with Lawful Good. Do we think that the others just say "Aw shucks!" and go mope in the corner?


Shifty wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


However to be more politically correct, I can say it like this:

"People want the mechanical benefits of the Paladin without the mechanical penalties of the Paladin."

Pretty much sums it up.

All the perks, none of the costs.

Perhaps. Or at least some people want different perks and different costs. You don't have to follow the format of the paladin exactly but rather the idea it represents.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

How .. are these forums doing anything to your home group? I mean, it is words on a screen. Why do you or they or anyone give them any more weight than "Some person somewhere said something?"

Maybe they and others want to play 5E because it is the new kid on the block? Something different and perhaps more interesting than the game they've been playing?

I don't think it is because people are somehow being meanies online and that is driving people away, or else everywhere else on the internet where people are so much worse would see people moving to other things in droves.

tl;dr: Your group changed. Don't blame the boards.

Edit to add: And for the love of every god, it's an internet maxim not to read the comments. If you and yours do not want the information on the forums here or elsewhere, don't read them. This is basic self-defense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will politely disagree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me scrape some of Kullen's sarcasm off the screen before remarking.

Yeah, yeah, Oberoni. That said, I'm always in favor of the rules being modified at some point as well as house rules being used to fix the problems. I've never been one to sit around and hope and pray that the Dev Gods will make X work the way I want. Usually X works the way SOMEONE wants, maybe just not me. Usually the devs.


Abraham spalding wrote:
There are several divination spells work across the planes and are not blocked. It also does not prevent location of the spell itself. So while it helps some against initial probes its like turning off beacons on your wifi and thinking it is some sort of defense.

True. I meant to elaborate and was distracted by small people in my house. In any case, it still bugs. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is one of those spells that, again, I see more often "abused" online than I have in actual play.

The majority of my players have an objection to being trapped in whatever the space is that the rope trick creates, with at least one player remarking they'd rather take their chances nailing a door shut than being trapped at the end of a rope.

Beyond that, I find the spell one I have some questions and problems with as a GM. I dislike everything about

Rope trick says wrote:
"The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extradimensional space that is outside the usual multiverse of extradimensional spaces. Creatures in the extradimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes."

This is a second level spell that effectively shuts down an entire school of magic? It may as well just be called "Base" and remove the whole rope part of it.

The few times it has been cast in my games it was used to hide for things like breaking into places to steal things, not to hide and sleep.

This one doesn't have any assumption of use by my players and is on my list to likely be removed from play. I never bothered because people used it for the above mentioned reasons and that was OK, tho the divination bit is under review.


HWalsh wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the CRB says that a paladin falls for willing committing an evil act, not a dishonorable one.
Your code says you have to act with honour. Which means, no dishonorable stuff.
I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly curious about your opinion. Can you imagine a circumstance where a paladin leaves one order because she believes the order is dishonorable in whatever way and joins another without falling? That is, the paladin changes her behavior and the code she follows, but maintains a LG alignment throughout the process, and never falls.

Nope.

The individual codes DO NOT replace the code in the core book. It very clearly states they ADD TO they do not REPLACE so, for example, dishonorable behavior is dishonorable.

I'm, honestly, more sad that people don't really seem to be able to agree on what is honorable.

Killing an enemy in their sleep... People can argue that it is not evil, I disagree, strongly... Okay... Though I can't see how anyone can think that is honorable.

Considering one of the notes about honorable is the disuse of poison.

You can't use poison because it is dishonorable... But you can stab an enemy who is asleep, helpless, and unaware and it is fine. It just... Honestly as a person it causes me pain.

If they add to it and don't replace then the example I've given numerous times of Torag causes some major problems.

The code is very basic and requires more information and both GMs and players with the ability to work it out, or else your paladin falls for buying the bar a round of drinks (alcohol is a poison).

The core information is a starting point, not an ending point.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
I would never get away with this at a convention, but in a home game I had a character just,"My character passes out from the stress of the attempted mind control." If he failed the save he would be doing something he wouldn't do. He just had a nervous breakdown.
Yeah, I'm rather surprised your GM allowed that. I certainly wouldn't have.
I agree with Orthos here. I'd ask you to step away from the table a bit and have a talk with me if this came up; yes, it sucks to be mind controlled but this is tantamount to flipping the table in my opinion. You're basically saying that if the results come out in a way you don't care for, you won't play.
Is that actually what he was saying? I read it as a roleplaying choice he made regardless of the success of the roll.

It's a choice, I suppose. Is it one that if the situation were reversed that players would be less than amused at? You try to charm the merchant, he takes a nap. You go to dominate the barbarian bad guy, he falls over and refuses to accept commands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My wife: "Are you done talking to him?"
Me: "Um .. why?"
My wife" "Because he's a jerk, arrogant, and he's dripping mud onto the bed sheets." <<Excessive damage followed>>

Context:
An evil bad guy was floating above our bed monologuing and my wife, often called the Demon Queen, was annoyed about being woken up. I managed to get out of the bed before the fires consumed it and a large portion of the room.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
I would never get away with this at a convention, but in a home game I had a character just,"My character passes out from the stress of the attempted mind control." If he failed the save he would be doing something he wouldn't do. He just had a nervous breakdown.
Yeah, I'm rather surprised your GM allowed that. I certainly wouldn't have.

I agree with Orthos here. I'd ask you to step away from the table a bit and have a talk with me if this came up; yes, it sucks to be mind controlled but this is tantamount to flipping the table in my opinion. You're basically saying that if the results come out in a way you don't care for, you won't play.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Old Guy GM wrote:
The people in these discussions who tend to think like Terquem and myself all tend to be older.

Another old grognard here, but one who totally disagrees with your approach. Winging results because there weren't any rules for a lot of stuff was, in my opinion, detrimental to the game, not advantageous to it. It meant that I, as DM, was being encouraged to subconsciously make my personal storyline come true, at the expense of the players' volition.

"Oh, he wants to do X? I never thought of that! Well, it probably won't work. Now he wants to do Y? Yeah, that's what I was expecting. OK, it works!"

Obviously no one would do this on purpose, but we have no way of assuring anyone that our subconscious minds didn't.

Having clear-cut rules, in the open, means that now I'm running an actual game instead of dictating a story hour. I vastly prefer that, both as a player and as a DM.

Lemme turn up my hearing aid.

The clear cut rules are a nice change from the old days; that said, there are still areas that aren't fully covered just as then and I'm more than willing to let random charts and dice cover that. I didn't think of it and they wanted to do what? Gimme a second to hammer out some mods and then roll .. er .. yeah, that.

Sure, my "subconscious" can still jigger the results when I make the modifiers or I can keep an open mind and let fate/the dice decide things. While I am not the biggest fan of always saying yes, I am a fan of taking a breath and giving some ideas a chance.

That is what being a "grognard" means to me, really, is just having some experience under your belt in a variety of systems and hundreds of games to be able to GM with a napkin and an idea and roll with the punches. The rules give a nice safety net.


Phobias are nice because they give the character a disadvantage -- something that many players aren't willing to have, or try to limit to things like "fear of the flag of Montana." Yes, even on Golarion. Some people.

No, I was speaking more of the mental illnesses that only exist for the most part in the minds of players that see too many movies/TV shows and get the fun ones that leave them totally competent but with extra abilities and a proclivity towards the sort of violence that would make the Hulk say "Whoa, calm down buddy." And that way you can not take responsibility for what you do.

Mutter mutter gesticulate angrily.

This might be a subset of the Joke or Misanthrope or something.


Irontruth wrote:
Kullen wrote:


We should burning Gygax in effigy, the racist bastard! And Tolkien! DOWN WITH TOLKIEN! DOWN WITH GYGAX! DOWN WITH D&D!

Can you quote the person who said any of this (or something similar) in this thread before your post?

If not, can you put your imaginary argument in PM's to yourself or something?

Ah! Irontruth, thank you for reminding me of a character type I'd love to see vanish from games!

People with mental disorders.

If I had a dime for every character that has multiple personalities I could own my own state. If it isn't that it is one of a hundred other mental disorders, most often done very very wrong, which are used in the inevitable "I'm JUST playing my character!"

This is one that I've seen done right less than a handful of times. The rest were dumpster fires.


thejeff wrote:

Honestly, I'm still pretty much fine with "The monsters are attacking. Go and deal with it." I like a little more depth, but it doesn't actually bother me. Especially if it's a hook into something more.

It's only "There are people over there. They've probably got loot. It's okay to kill them because they're just monsters." that really bothers me. And honestly, those were always pretty rare as published module. The Keep is the only one that really comes to mind. A few "Loot the ancient ruin" ones, but if it's all traps & undead, it's not quite the same. Even Against the Giants had a "They were causing trouble" excuse built in, eventually blamed on the Drow.
I'll admit to the occasional cringe watching a movie or show I used to like. Or even reading old books. Usually longer ago than just pre-2000s. I think most people, even most socially aware types, make allowances for "The way things were back then", unless it hits them personally or it's a really egregious example.

It's always the Drow. It's like using Nazis or Zombies as a foe -- people feel free to hate them.

And yes, depth would be nice. I went back over some modules some years ago and realized I'd have to put in almost as much work to update the to what I wanted to do than to just create something from scratch. Some were really just stat blocks and XP awards with a story that was lighter than the theme of a sitcom.

As far as cringing goes, I once had the opportunity some 15 years or so ago to watch All in the Family with people who had never seen it who were much younger than myself. They were flabbergasted and asked me how this ever got on the air. Three's Company got a similar reaction coming from the other direction as well. It made for an interesting night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Oh, the detector sometimes goes off when it senses words that are often-used as catchy but meaningless and oft-outright-misunderstood titles deriding controversial political movements.

It's not like "political correctness" is ever used shallowly or to take potshots, though. Like I said, the dang thing's on the fritz.

In all seriousness, though, this issue has nothing to do with "political correctness". Bringing the term in is just an excuse for a tired political jab. I'm not sure why you did.

Ah. Well, it wasn't for a political jab although this certainly has a feeling of the same tired "must be doing things in X way" that I've come to class together with political correctness. The same look you get when you mention movies from a less enlightened era (Pre-2000 usually) where someone uses a term or language that isn't considered correct by today's standards.

Maybe it isn't a PC thing. But it was easier and politer to say that than "Oh please tell me this isn't going to be something about how we're using green people to make a statement about how we are subjugating X people/culture/idea in today's world."

Maybe we're just fighting monsters for treasure and not attempting to play out today's world in the game? It was likely a response to what I considered (at the time) of thejeff's "that kind of game" comment that he has since explained. One gets a little gun shy when everything has to be filtered through a lens of what might be causing the latest kerfluffle.

You know, whether or not I'm trying to make a "statement about how we are subjugating X people/culture/idea in today's world", I don't like games where we just go kill the green people to take their stuff. Especially if we're pretending to be good people. I certainly wouldn't have a specific parallel in mind, just that's a s~%~ty thing to do.

But even without that, it doesn't interest me. I want characters with motivation. Heroes, preferably. Anti-heroes, maybe. Even villains, if they're grand villains. Killing some people, so we can get loot, that we spend on gear so we can kill richer people more efficiently, so we can get more loot and more gear, etc. It bores me. Without motivation, without mystery and real enemies that you can come to hate and hopefully respect at the same time, I'm not interested.

And I've never seen anyone run a "kill the green people for their money" game that gave me anything of what I wanted. At least not for more than a couple of sessions at a time.
Some people are far more into the tactical challenge than I am or otherwise find enjoyment in aspects that I don't care about.

And really, maybe my natural bent is just different, but I rarely seem to run into these politically correct traps that everyone seems to have to be so careful to avoid.

Motivation in adventures is great and something that I enjoy as well. That said, 30 years ago the modules were a little less nuanced than we might get today. And that's the games that they put out, and there was nothing wrong with it. Monsters were attacking and you went and dealt with it.

These days, both here and elsewhere, there is an urge to .. I'm not sure .. be ashamed of a movie or song or perhaps module from the past. As if we are tainting ourselves by saying that we may have partaken and enjoyed it.

To be clear here, I am not accusing thejeff of that. I'm speaking in general terms.

That was what I was reacting and responding to. I've run across this sort of argument online at least six times in the last two days, so it was likely on my mind when this all came up here and reacted as if I were in one of those conversations. For that, I apologize.

This is the sort of thing that makes it harder when race and culture are a part of the game -- people can have issues with it, especially in light of the sort of reactions we see everyday online -- or maybe just some of the sites I frequent (no, not THOSE sites!) There are people that are prepared to be upset about anything, which is why I often, if annoyingly, preach communication at the table to puzzle out who you are sitting with and what the table wants and will tolerate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Oh, the detector sometimes goes off when it senses words that are often-used as catchy but meaningless and oft-outright-misunderstood titles deriding controversial political movements.

It's not like "political correctness" is ever used shallowly or to take potshots, though. Like I said, the dang thing's on the fritz.

In all seriousness, though, this issue has nothing to do with "political correctness". Bringing the term in is just an excuse for a tired political jab. I'm not sure why you did.

Ah. Well, it wasn't for a political jab although this certainly has a feeling of the same tired "must be doing things in X way" that I've come to class together with political correctness. The same look you get when you mention movies from a less enlightened era (Pre-2000 usually) where someone uses a term or language that isn't considered correct by today's standards.

Maybe it isn't a PC thing. But it was easier and politer to say that than "Oh please tell me this isn't going to be something about how we're using green people to make a statement about how we are subjugating X people/culture/idea in today's world."

Maybe we're just fighting monsters for treasure and not attempting to play out today's world in the game? It was likely a response to what I considered (at the time) of thejeff's "that kind of game" comment that he has since explained. One gets a little gun shy when everything has to be filtered through a lens of what might be causing the latest kerfluffle.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
knightnday wrote:

..what?

Wait, what just happened? We're not allowed to like The Keep on the Borderlands because of politically correct reasons or something? You aren't alone in liking the older modules nor in feeling, perhaps, that that we've gone a little too far being PC.

*BZZAAPPTT*

Whoa! Sorry, buzzword detector must be on the fritz or something.

Sorry, not sure what you are trying to say here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Characters who are racist against other PC races are still a potential problem.

Meh. In the home game, I always felt it added verisimilitude not to have all PC races automatically love and trust each other, and treat each other as equals in all things. We have hill dwarves who resent the incursions into their territory, and turn to banditry in response; one PBP character was in fact a former bandit. We had houstonderek's high elf noble who was so caught up in his people's long life spans and arcane skills that he thought of Jess Door's half-elf/halfling/whatever as his familiar. And we had Cadogan, a human kid who was laughing up his sleeve at the haughty elves all the way to the bank.

As long as the players were willing to make the party work together somehow, I don't feel as if any of this destroyed the game or should make us pariahs from the community, if the characters initially had some trust issues.

Right. If the players are willing to deal with the idea of racism, or sexism, or ism-ism and no one feels that the game is somehow being used as a way to attack them then all is well.

thejeff wrote:

Anything is still permissible. It's just not the default that every RP question has to be referenced to.

If you're playing that kind of game, characters who are racist against that kind of creature are just fine. Characters who are racist against other PC races are still a potential problem.

What is the default, though? Is there one?

As for being racist against PC races .. eh. See above. I'm not sold that all the PCs have to love all the races, or if we look at the Inner Sea that we shouldn't have cultural problems just because the PCs may be from Taldor or Cheliax or whatever. If handled by -- dare I say it -- mature players willing to communicate then it usually works out fine.

Edit to add: Sorry, but when I saw "that kind of game" in the above comment, it just comes across as sort of judgey to me, which is why I asked the question.


Dunno. I mean, it's a nice mini but it isn't something that I'd die without. At the rate they are selling out I'm going to look into selling mine off and putting my kids through school!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kullen wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Kullen wrote:

So, wait, I'm trying to understand something.

How does one square the "racist characters bad!" sentiment in this thread -- that goes far beyond the article the OP cited -- with "Ooh! A goblin tribe! Let's slaughter them and steal their stuff!"?

Those of us who don't do the latter have no need to square it with the former.

Quote:
Or has the International Tribune of the One Right and True Way to Game...
Says the guy who presents the slaughter of goblins as something so universal to the gaming experience that surely he's now caught all these anti-racists red-handed in their hypocrisy?

I'm well aware that adventures like "Against the Giants" and so on are no longer universal; I just hadn't realized that they're no longer even permissible.

I'm trying to point out that, if slaughtering goblins has been abandoned in favor of some kind of Carebear kumbayah in which we're all best friends, we should be cognizant that we've left the game's foundations totally behind.

Let me be clear that there's nothing wrong with abandoning old stuff -- I sure as hell don't miss the "weapon vs. armor type" tables, either, and I'm fine with "elf" not being a class.

But as someone who grew up with The Keep on the Borderlands, it's hard to accept that not only is there no place for modules of that type anymore, but that I'm now considered to be an objectively bad person to have ever enjoyed playing it.

..what?

Wait, what just happened? We're not allowed to like The Keep on the Borderlands because of politically correct reasons or something? You aren't alone in liking the older modules nor in feeling, perhaps, that that we've gone a little too far being PC.

That last might just be me though. Also, I sort of liked weapon speed, although the weapon vs armor type was a little too much for me.


Got the two I wanted from the new sale, although I think we crashed the site doing it. It was a nervy few minutes as I waited for the email that everything worked while the site spun and spun and spun.

1 to 50 of 1,664 << 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.