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

knightnday's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 876 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 876 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Uwotm8 wrote:
I'm not reading that. Sorry. *nod and smile*

If you aren't going to read what others are saying, why take part in the conversation? You can just state your opinion out loud, nod to yourself, and move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's possible new players won't come in with preconceived notions of what is and isn't broken. A lot of our veterans are dragging their baggage from the Great D&D Migration and have ideas about what is right and wrong with the game. Newer folks might not be as experienced slash jaded and have less trouble using the Core book.


bugleyman wrote:

I just grabbed a booster at the FLGS:

10 Firepelt Cougar
13 Lamashtu Thug #2
14 Shifty Noble
27 Forest Drake

An overall solid entry in the line. If you regularly buy these minis, then you won't be disappointed by this set. Definitely much better rarity and general figure choices than the last set, but there remains some room for improvement (why two boggards? The world really needs a 2nd wolf much more than it needed that second boggard). Good sculpts, generally good paint jobs (the exception being my shifty noble, who is completely faceless). The cost per figure remains relatively high, but in fairness I think that's just the price point needed to sustain the line. To warrant five stars at this price, however, I believe a set needs to be packed full of figures with a very high utility. This one is close, but not there yet.

I agree with this. I picked up a set out of curiosity this weekend and was overall happy with the way things look (although the hill giant in overalls isn't really to my tastes..) I'd love more sets like the goblins or undead one offs that can fill in for commonly fought monsters or even humanoids -- guards, brigands, random adventurer types and so on. Fae like roysier mentioned. The sets as they stand now end up with some very specific monsters that are nice for the APs, but may not see a lot of use at other times.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Oh, also, note that at least one of the leaked KKK members are a cop. Oh why am I not surprised.

This is a hard one to not respond to, but I think I'm failing a save check.

I SERIOUSLY question why anyone who is part of the KKK would be allowed to be a policeman. I would say their judgment in fairness and equality is automatically questionable.

I don't think they could be trusted to leave their feelings behind and make impartial decisions.

I would seriously be worried if I was in the area where this member was patrolling.

I would hope that it is ONLY one member of the St Louis police, and not something that is endemic to the police force there and in Ferguson.

As for the main situation, I still don't know enough of what happened to say if the police are justified, innocent or not, or if Brown was innocent or not currently.

They simply haven't released enough information for me to determine anything.

Often it isn't known that they are a member of that organization. Sometimes it is know as there are other existing members already in place in the department. I've run across that in a number of areas I've lived; it's often surprising to find out who is in what organization. Then again, not everyone is out with their affiliations, much like their likes, dislikes, kinks, and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:

My understanding is, if you were reading Sage Advice on the D&D website 10 years ago, you are not the target audience for this book.

Frankly, if you're hanging out in these forums and reading the Paizo blog, you are probably not the target audience for this book. They've been very clear that this is a guide to help beginners get started with the game.

The previewed "Cleric" spread cements my suspicion that this is not a book I will ever, ever consult ... but it's definitely one I want on my shelf to hand to any new player. It seems to be designed to be the next best thing to the way many of us (I, at least) learned to play the game: by having a veteran player sitting down next to us with the rulebook and a blank character sheet and walking us through it.

I agree for the most part on this; that said, I'm also looking forward to the book both as a teaching aide and to see how other people (in this case, the designers) design characters and what they have to say about it. An offline forum, if you will, that has ideas I may not have considered strongly. Plus, I liked Sage Advice. :)


I'll add in my two cents for talking to them. You could look to the Sparhawk series by David Eddings as an example of characters that deal primarily with the One True God and his enemies, as well as the pagan pantheons on the side. It might be what they are looking for, or towards.


I checked off that I was invited to play with an adult group. However, I first learned the game myself by reading the books and studying them. My knowledge expanded greatly once I got into a group, however, and I could see better how to apply what I learned.


Lune wrote:

He stated further upthread:

Popupjoe wrote:
Hes never said more the a few sentences to my son. He intracts more with my dog. His reaction is a lot like others on this post,as he has no idea who my son is.

Yes I saw that and it indicates one of the people, not the entire group. Unless this guy is the leader, do any of them have anything to say about what is going on or are they following his lead? The OP mentioned that half the group wasn't interested, which makes me wonder how the group is split and why. That might go a ways to answering what is up.

Ending a group or changing it in this way is hard; no matter what you do, someone is going to be disappointed/angry/not understand. Perhaps the OP can find a similarly aged group for his son to play in and/or find another group more accepting of people his age. That might satisfy everyone.


Anyway, and back on track, I'd be interested in the OP's players thoughts on the matter (which may have been entered but lost in the resulting war above.)

Whether you or I would play with a child wasn't the point; why they may not and if he could convince them otherwise was. If they are dead set against it you risk losing some or all of them for the sake of your son. If you want to strip blood out of it, would you make your group play with someone else they didn't want to?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Lune wrote:
To my mind that is better than pretending like your friends aren't bigots towards your own child. I would rather them admit their bigotry upfront so that I could make an informed decision about whether I would want to be their friend in the first place. Personally, I do not keep friends who are bigots.

Lune - you keep using that word (bigots). I do not think it means what you think it means.

There are actually valid reasons for not wanting to play with a child. I've run games for my nephews & niece, and while they mostly got it (though a bit of ADD came into play) it was in fact a very different sort of game.

The word bigot is incrediably loaded with all sorts of negative connotations, and it's one of the words which, once it's brought into play, actual debate is over. By using it, you have cast your side of the argument as the good guy, and anyone who disagrees with you is inherently the bad guy.

Heck, I don't always want to play with my own children. Sometimes they require a different sort of energy than my adult players. Sometimes I want to strangle them because they have had one of those days.

It isn't bigotry to not want to play with your own or someone else's children any more than it is bigotry to not want to play with that one guy that cannot shut up or those other people or the questionable people at the gaming store. It's just a choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Bloat/Options are what you make of it.

You have to pick your line and go from there. Incorporate only what you want and let the rest go or make a home game that uses different parts of it.

There are people who like more options, more places in the world described, different ideas written out. If you do not want that, then you have a powerful tool: your wallet. Don't buy it if you don't like it.

But it is available for those who do, and frankly for Paizo to make money from and feed themselves/their loved ones.

Worried about PFS? Don't be. You can successfully play with just the core book.

In honor of the snow today, I give you the worlds of Elsa: Let it go.

Discussion about bloat on this thread isn't solely about too many options.

It's about how new options are being presented. Sloppy codification, trap options and extreme codification creates unnecessary bloat and prevents many of these new concepts from being included in Pathfinder games.

Incorporating what you want in a game is easily said than done. I have been playing D&D and now Pathfinder with the same group of people for 20 years. And as one would expect, a GM dictating terms to players on what they can have and what they can't doesn't go down too well.

And going through every hardcover release with a fine tooth comb just to have a few options has increasingly become an impractical solution.

I want new options but I can't sacrifice campaign balance to get them.

From posts on this thread, I think many people have a similar issue.

I will humbly disagree with you. Incorporating what you want into the game is a matter of doing it. You are reading the book, right? Make notes as you go through on what you are iffy about. Discuss with your players. Repeat as necessary.

I'm not sure I understand the issue of going through each release -- don't you already do that? Heck, I don't take any of this at face value. I like Paizo and I respect the people who write the books but that doesn't mean that I just nod and take things as written. Unless I am misreading something that seems to be what you are saying.

I'll reiterate what I've said on dozens of threads on this subject: I have yet, in 37 or so years, to ever run across a perfect game that I haven't had the desire to modify -- whether to remove a rule I disliked, improved one that I found iffy, and so on. That's part of being a GM IMO. It's part of being a player for that matter -- you can run with something broken and hope someone notices, or you can bring it up and see that it gets fixed/removed in your game.

So yes, you can go over things. It's just a matter of how you'd like to allocate time. Some people play video games for hours a day, or football (fantasy or otherwise). Others prefer to work on their gaming stuff. YMMV, not valid in etc etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know when I first started out as a wee roleplayer in the old days the large majority of gamers at the rec center were adults/very late teens. I was the baby of our group at 12-14. After I had proven that I had the maturity to listen and not be annoying I was allowed to graduate to the "big table" with the adults playing adult themed games rather than the smaller tables where, frankly, people ran amok like kindergartners on crack.

My oldest kids are 10 now and they aren't quite as capable of sitting still and ramping down the enthusiasm and noise as I was at that age. We're playing a game with just family at the moment until I can be sure that they wouldn't annoy other adults (or kids!)

In any case, I've seen this from both sides. That said, this stood out for me:

Umbranus wrote:
Most adults have little time for gaming. And if a player wants to use his precious little time having fun without burdening themselves with teaching someone I can understand that. For some people that might be fun. For others it is depriving them of what they started the game for.

Does that count for teaching/dealing with other adults? Many children that are interested in gaming are quite willing to sit and listen and learn quickly. Many adults are less willing; look into the accounts of the same people not knowing what their characters do after multiple sessions or not knowing what dice to roll after years of doing this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bloat/Options are what you make of it.

You have to pick your line and go from there. Incorporate only what you want and let the rest go or make a home game that uses different parts of it.

There are people who like more options, more places in the world described, different ideas written out. If you do not want that, then you have a powerful tool: your wallet. Don't buy it if you don't like it.

But it is available for those who do, and frankly for Paizo to make money from and feed themselves/their loved ones.

Worried about PFS? Don't be. You can successfully play with just the core book.

In honor of the snow today, I give you the worlds of Elsa: Let it go.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

One less Christmas present, one more Valentine's Day present!


Communicate, communicate, communicate.

What I try to do is make notes about whatever stray thought comes through that the players should know about. There is nothing more frustrating for the GM or the players than the GM to remember "Oh yes, I was going to tell you that blah is WAY overpowered/underpowered and I wanted to change it."

Make that note when you are looking at it. I keep 3x5 and 5x8 cards handy so I can jot down notes to later transcribe into documentation for the players. I find that if I can point them to something written down, it ends a lot of arguments and communication issues.

I am a bit crazy about notes and keeping records of what is going on, what is and isn't working, and so on. That way if I determine that the rogue, for example, is overpowered and kicking everyone's butt I can look over why this is happening. Otherwise I'll forget what I was going to do.

I also encourage my players to talk to me face to face, email, text, whatever to tell me what is or isn't working or what they'd like to see or not to see. Even if I disagree, the lines of communication are open.


Maybe she was trying to distract from her voice.


I've been working with Access and Excel to make documents for my particular worlds, sorting all the various information for feats and so on. I had something like this years ago but lost them in an unfortunate computer mishap and divorce.

It is interesting to go back through them and put in useful information, page numbers and other material for quick use and then I can go back to the source if I need more information.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

They have as much or as little value as anyone else's opinions. Attempting to dismiss opinions you dislike because they don't hit the bar on "playing the game right" is trying to control the conversation.

I could say "people who try to shove their opinion of what is the right way to play shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the discussion", but that isn't my decision. This isn't my message board and it isn't my conversation to control.

Their opinions and ways of playing are valid. While you may be talking about strictly by the book RAW Pathfinder with no deviation, that doesn't seem to be the common definition.

Whether you think or care about others opinions isn't significant. It's a public message board holding a public conversation. It isn't yours to control.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Or .. we could say that everyone's definition is different and yours/theirs/ours isn't the only one. Whether you believe that someone's definition of how they play, what rules they use or do not use are the "right" ones, and so on are insignificant.

Or in shorter terms, who decides who matters? Who here has been ordained the Lord Almighty of Pathfinder to make that determination?


ShadowcatX wrote:
knightnday wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f$$%ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

flag it if you want:)

Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read the thread?
Ah, the Internet equivalent of "you can't tell me what to do!" Much easier to tell them to not read the thread than try to ramp back the hyperbole and general grar. It's like we're playing out how the Congress and Senate operate here.
So the post telling people not to post in these threads is acceptable but my post telling said person to simply not read the thread if he doesn't like these kinds of threads is unacceptable? That makes sense. . .

Go back and read it again. I believe I said that it was easier to tell them not to read any of the posts than to calm down and try not to repeat yourself, try not to get into meaningless slap fights with each other, and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would think it tells rational people "Oh look, the same sort of thing that happens in midterms, especially when whichever party has been in the White House for 6 years."

It made for an interesting election night, but will it matter in a week? 2? A year?


ShadowcatX wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f$$%ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

flag it if you want:)

Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read the thread?

Ah, the Internet equivalent of "you can't tell me what to do!" Much easier to tell them to not read the thread than try to ramp back the hyperbole and general grar. It's like we're playing out how the Congress and Senate operate here.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
knightnday wrote:
It was interesting to see that the gentleman that was interested in the woman in New Zealand actually went up and spoke with her rather than screeching something "friendly" from across the way.
This too is considered harassment by some.

Oh no doubt. But it illustrates how one might go about meeting these untouchable creatures in some other way than shouting greetings in the hopes of being noticed. Give the other thread on this, there seemed to be some concern that some men just couldn't meet women in any other way.


It was interesting to see that the gentleman that was interested in the woman in New Zealand actually went up and spoke with her rather than screeching something "friendly" from across the way.


Let him break in. Have the door rigged to close behind him with an even better lock on it. Make sure you have no windows. If you are kind, leave food and water inside but nothing else. He likes a challenge, right?


Simon Legrande wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:

If this board leans any further to the left it's going to capsize.

I suppose it's not unusual to see the standard "democrats good, republicans bad" gem that is the norm. Also, nice to see that the guy who acknowledged that the parties are nearly identical when it comes to actions gets derided.

Still, I remain amazed that people disapprove of the government because it's not doing enough rather than because it's doing too much.

It may help you if you don't equate Democrat with "left." In a true political spectrum the entirety of the U.S. is right leaning or further to the right.

Use this scale to adjust your "boat balance" and live your life free of capsizing fears. (At least to the left :D )

Tea party wing of Republican Party - extreme right, flirting with fascism.
Other Republicans - very very right, Machiavelli
"Centerist" Independents - very right, Roman Senate
Democrats - right, cautious conservatism.
"Radical Liberal" Democrat - actual political center, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Rachael Maddow.

It would be interesting to see a similar layout put forth by someone on the right. Both sides believe they are the moderates and the other guys are the extremists. Anyone who says otherwise is on one of the sides.

From what I've seen, none of the parties can even agree on what it means to be a member of their party, hence claims of DINO, RINO, centrist, left wing kook, right wing denying fire and so on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thankful that my state allowed me to vote by mail. Also thankful that the ads are done for another 18 months or so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:


Sums up exactly what she's doing. I'll go further: she's provoking a response that she knows she's going to get to further a cause; anti- sexual harrassment, a good cause to promote. She knows she's gonna get catcalls dressed like that, so she tapes herself and makes a commercial furthering her cause's agenda. End of story.

You can post that definition all you want, it doesn't absolve any action.

And one more time, just for you: just because you don't have a problem being harassed or ribbed doesn't mean others should be subject to the same behavior. If you like that, great! Go for it. These videos and anecdotal evidence and comments here and elsewhere pretty much refute that women consider it cute, necessary, or friendly.

I'm not certain why this is hard to understand, or why the counter seems to be that a right is being taken away from someone. Well, I can understand it, I'm just hoping I'm wrong because it comes across from many people as "Don't tell me what to do!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Which means precisely jack.

If someone dresses in the colors of a sports team you dislike, thereby being provocative, you have zero right to yell things at them or abuse them verbally.

What you seem to be doing is victim blaming/shaming. The way she chose to dress doesn't give you any implicit right to abuse her. Dressing like a hipster doesn't give someone the right to abuse you. Wearing an RPG shirt doesn't give someone the right to call you names.

"Her clothes made me do it, Officer" doesn't wash.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
And, predictably, legitimate discussion is silenced with hyperbole, strawman arguments, misdirection and name-calling... the true agendas are suddenly offered in stark relief, and by names that would surprise no one.
One of the favored tactics of the PDF.

I don't think of myself as the PDF. Maybe the Word .. oh, you mean Paizo Defense Force? I'm not that either. Like Paizo, don't like Paizo. I don't really care. What it appeared from the back and forth is that there is some bad blood from other threads.

Wiggz wrote:
If I was on some kind of personal warpath against Paizo, would I really be 1) a member of the PFS, 2) a subscriber for their products, 3) spending time in other threads helping people improve the Pathfinder experience and 4) voicing both my concerns about the company and my desire to buy additional products, if only they'd produce them?
Kthulhu wrote:
Exactly. I like Paizo. Admittedly, I like them much more for their adventures and their setting than for their (in my opinion) increasingly unstable system....but I do like them. I want to see them succeed. Which is why I have criticism for them. If I truly hated everything that Paizo put out, then I'd not bother to discuss/criticize it at all. That's something that the PDF doesn't seem to comprehend.

This is all really cool. But can we have one big thread called "This is why I don't like Paizo" or something instead of every third thread being a clone of each other?

Ever go to Youtube and watch a video and look at the comments? For the vast number of songs I pick, usually of classic rock, there is a raging debate about why this music is better than Bieber, folled by nuh uh then uh huh then 500 posts of badly spelled profanity.

It gets like that in these threads. X doesn't like Y and they bicker in every thread they are in. That is what I am against.

I am not against the universal you disliking Paizo or only liking X and not Y. I am against a perfectly fine thread being derailed by someone bringing in a fight from another thread (see also: monk, rogue, fighter, crossbow. etc.) This is why I say make one giant free for all thread if we cannot keep things in, you know, separate threads.


People have their concerns and are welcome to express them. That said, when they express the same concerns over and over and over and over and .. well, you get the point. It becomes less about the concerns and more about the same people have the same engagements. In fact, they battles tend not to be about whatever the current conversation is, but about something that went on six threads back (looks at this thread, in fact.)

Your rebuttal seems to be "I can express my concerns if I want to, so there!" And you can. But you see, this is why these threads get the blow back they do. It becomes the same people on the same sides saying the same thing. There are few solutions offered, it's just a Groundhog's Day of arguments playing out again and again.

To go back to your example, if you address the problem with the teacher over and over, they start to feel harassed. If you haven't given the teacher time to address the problem and/or your child time to correct the problem, further beating that horse gets you very little.

Same goes with continuing to hammer at Paizo that they are making too many things or you perceive bloat. They heard you (the universal you) the first hundred times. Unless and until someone addresses how they feed their families without selling product, your words are going to have a lot less meaning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thing is, as has been stated this topic comes up about once a week, or once a new product at the very least. Some people are concerned. Some people are not. If you are concerned, you know how to correct the issue -- don't buy more stuff, change games, reduce your workload, etc.

If you aren't concerned, then you don't really need to do anything.

The question is why we need so many threads counting noses on the same issue over and over again. Are opinions changing in the course of a week or two?

This applies to bloat, alignment, paladins, rogues, fighters, do people use the term strawman too much and so on.

There might ought be a flag for threads called "Too Soon" with a time clock on when we can have another of these delightful threads.


Lemmy wrote:
knightnday wrote:

It's more than annoying from what I've gathered from conversation with actual women. They tell me that on a good day it's moderately creepy and on a bad day it hits on triggers, inspiring fear and past bad experiences.

From what I recall from the various LGBT/homosexuality in Golarion/etc threads, just because something doesn't upset you (the universal you) or cause you grief doesn't mean it isn't upsetting to others.

True, but just because it upsets someone, it doesn't mean it's morally wrong.

knightnday wrote:

While there are some people who may have met a person via telling them they are beautiful on the street, I imagine the number of cases of that are relatively small. While you (specific Lemmy you) wouldn't be upset if someone asked you for sex, that doesn't seem to hold true for many women (at least in the sample I've taken), who claim that they would move immediately away from such an individual.

The worry isn't that they can just ignore it, or say no, or that the speaker doesn't mean harm. It's what about that guy? Or that one? Or that one? My wife tells me that she's always cautious around strange men, because she isn't aware of what will be the trigger to set them off and get her drug away by someone usually stronger or faster or meaner than her.

tl;dr: just because it wouldn't be a problem for you, it might be a problem for them.

But you see... There is a pretty big different between catcalling and "stalking/threatening/assaulting someone. The former seems to be a minor nuisance. The latter is a very serious, very evil crime, that may or may not be preceded by the first. Similarly, flipping someone off then stabbing them with a knife is evil... But just because it preceded an act of violence, flipping someone off is not as serious as the stabbing itself.

If you're reasonably sure that you won't be stabbed, then someone flipping you off is a minor nuisance at best... If you cannot be moderately sure you won't be stabbed, then that is the real issue.

If a woman lives somewhere where she is reasonably safe from being assaulted (I say "reasonably" because no one is ever 100% safe from anything), then catcalling is an obnoxious but relatively harmless behavior... If she lives in a place where she doesn't feel safe, then we have a much bigger issue here.

Do you see why I ask "What constitutes catcalling, and why is it so bad?"? Because I see a damn wide gap between someone who is rude/obnoxious and someone who is rude/obnoxious and willing to assault someone.

The problem becomes that you are never really sure that you won't be assaulted -- one only has to look at the news on any given day to see people shooting up schools or office buildings or people on the street for whatever reason. That seems to be the overriding concern for many of these women (at least the ones I speak with about the topic.)

Yes, for the most part it is obnoxious and an unnecessary part of the day. And their concern is they don't know when it will go from obnoxious to dangerous; I imagine some of the men involved wouldn't know until that point occurred for them as well.

People seem very ready to become violent or threatening at the drop of a hat. Just this week two people got into a slap fight while in line at the store for bumping one of them with a basket. I'd say it wasn't like that in the Good Old Days, but that is likely just hopeful wishes rather than reality.

I worry less about this being "Evil" or "morally wrong" and more that it is just unnecessary. If someone is looking to meet women (or men), there are easier ways to do it with a larger chance of success. If it's a matter of being friendly, then I am glad there are friendly people out there but shouldn't one also take the conversation into consideration and ramp back, review the body language of the people around you and decide that not everyone is deserving of your attention?

I think the "bad" catcallers are doing it because they can. Much like doing this on the Internet, one can say what they will on the street to a moving target that is likely unwilling or unable to deal with the problem. Some people get a charge out of making others uncomfortable or a sense of power out of getting away with it.

I'd say that most men grow out of that in their teens, but the men in the videos seem much older than that.


It's more than annoying from what I've gathered from conversation with actual women. They tell me that on a good day it's moderately creepy and on a bad day it hits on triggers, inspiring fear and past bad experiences.

From what I recall from the various LGBT/homosexuality in Golarion/etc threads, just because something doesn't upset you (the universal you) or cause you grief doesn't mean it isn't upsetting to others.

While there are some people who may have met a person via telling them they are beautiful on the street, I imagine the number of cases of that are relatively small. While you (specific Lemmy you) wouldn't be upset if someone asked you for sex, that doesn't seem to hold true for many women (at least in the sample I've taken), who claim that they would move immediately away from such an individual.

The worry isn't that they can just ignore it, or say no, or that the speaker doesn't mean harm. It's what about that guy? Or that one? Or that one? My wife tells me that she's always cautious around strange men, because she isn't aware of what will be the trigger to set them off and get her drug away by someone usually stronger or faster or meaner than her.

tl;dr: just because it wouldn't be a problem for you, it might be a problem for them.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

We are not talking about people saying stupid things on the street, Sir NDay, we are talking about sexual harassment on the street. We are talking about it, specifically, in the context of a national discussion started by an internet video gone viral by an apparently up-and-coming marketing firm that successfully employed one of the oldest racist tropes in America's long history of racist tropes.

To those of you who would prefer to discuss whether it is appropriate to say "hello" to pretty women in the street, I apologize.

Ah I see. Sorry, just was afraid this was going to turn into something a little less friendly (it was friendly?!?!?) and more in the vein of the very unfriendly and unhelpful threads on the riots and so forth. If that becomes the case I'm retreating.

Carry on. :)


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Went through Jezebel and HuffPo looking to see if any of them were at least a little worried about the racial...subtext, I guess, but it seemed pretty glaring to me...of the Hollaback video and, gotta say, couldn't find much.

Ironically enough, I found myself on Hollaback Baltimore's anti-racism page where I was assured that replacing sexism with racism was a no-no. Hmmm.

Finally found an article in something called Brooklyn Magazine which:

a) restored my faith in humanity
b) drew connections between this video and Ferguson/the Pumpkin Riots divide which I didn't make on my own (thank you, Ms. Iversen)
c) tipped me into the fact that the video is also cis- and heteronormative (if I've gotten my nomenclature correct)
d) credibly speculated as to why liberal feminists, who should know better, would employ the myth of the black rapist: to raise money

“Hey, Beautiful”: On the Racist and Classist Implications of the Catcalling Video

I have to say I am not sure where you are trying to go with all this, Doodlebug. Although, I think if you say "gentrification" once more you get a free t-shirt or sandwich or something.

Other than that, it looks sort of like changing the topic off "stupid things people say on the street" into some sort of attack on any number of elements AND tying it into the riots.

If that is your intention, I'm pretty sure that could use its own thread or even to not exist; I know we have a bunch of locked threads full of hostility on those subjects.

To be clear, regardless of what magazine or web site has decided to take up a side or agenda, all types of men engage in this behavior regardless of their color or the amount of money they have. Editing the video is not cool, but it doesn't change the base of the conversation: people saying stupid things is not a good thing.


A closer model to look at might be single comics versus trade paperbacks. I've not looked deeply into those numbers myself, but I do recall a number of conversations regarding them on various boards. From what I've seen they haven't slowed down churning out comics or trades -- but like I said, I don't keep up with comics as much as I did 10 or so years ago.

I agree with Orthos that converted material would be nice and a great surprise, but it isn't something I'm expecting in the near future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe thejeff said something similar to what I did -- although he said it better :) -- that educating people on the topic was one of the most important steps. Not blaming, not yelling and all that, just educating.

I believe someone else said something similar as well, to start early and teach your children that it isn't cool to do this sort of thing.

It isn't going to be a fast fix, despite videos on the internet or on TV about it. Like most changes, it will take more time, more conversation, more communication on the topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

It means running a game that the players and DM call "Pathfinder". What people on the forums who arent playing the game call it doesnt really matter.

Is there any confusion in the real world when someone says "I'm running a pathfinder game and here are my house rules"? Who cares if what you mean isnt what someone else on the internet means - whether it's high magic, low magic, race-restricted, anything goes, no-3PP,.... or anything else. Provided everyone at the table knows what's going on, I'm just not seeing a problem.

If you're telling some strangers "I'm running a game of pathfinder" and then surprising them when they turn up to the first session with a whole bunch of extreme houserules then you're being silly and self-defeating - but the problem isnt one of nomenclature.

I remember many, many years ago being told "Hey, we are playing D&D Sunday." We showed and the GM mentioned that he was going to swap out the mechanics for those from Battletech, or Top Secret, or whatever else tickled his fancy that week. And we played "D&D" -- the story and game was the same, really. What we rolled was different that week or few weeks, but the game was the same.

I don't think I've ever played a game where there were not house rules. Like .. ever. Maybe our first one when we were all shiny and new and only had the books for like a day. But once we'd gone over them or played a few times? House rules galore. And it was still D&D, or Pathfinder, or whatever the system was. It was implied and expected that there was some variation.


Sissyl wrote:

Humanity contains morons. In other news, water is wet. As you say, it's more if you're particularly attractive. And of course, those are the people who complain and consider themselves assaulted (!!!) because of glances.

Everyone has morons in their lives. At school, at work, in the streets outside, every single place has them. We all have to relate to them somehow. But even if the world would be better without morons, guess what, it's not going to happen. The solutions touted don't work. Considering looking at someone to be assault is monstrous, and any law to such effect would be either ridiculed to death or a travesty of justice beyond anything ever seen before. Getting other men to help call out attention to it, well, in a world where people shout "fire!" to get people to come to help deal with a burglar, people regularly get beaten and sometimes even killed because they ended up in an argument... that isn't really going to be an option. I am sure it would feel great to one of the women who got ASSAULTED by someone's looks to have some man she didn't know protest against the look and get beaten for it.

People being looked at aren't being assaulted. They are likely exaggerating. Along with that, the people that are indignant that their very rights are being infringed on because they aren't being allowed to greet every woman on the street in the hopes that they are their One True Love are probably exaggerating as well. I hope so, at least.

Perhaps if we meet in the middle, maybe not overreact to looks, maybe refrain from getting ones feelings hurt when it is suggested that people aren't interested in holding a conversation with you on the street, it might make the situation a little more bearable.


Of course, if you have an overwhelming desire to say hello to people, I hear Wal-Mart is hiring for greeters. That way you aren't harassing anyone, even by accident, you get to indulge in your pass time, and can make a few dollars to purchase the next Pathfinder book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually they do think about it. That honey and sweetie and darlin' that many waitresses call a patron often triggers conversations that they'd rather not have. I lived in Texas and most of the South, and it was common to hear a waitress call everyone that all day long.

And many of those they called that thought that "She called me honey! She WANTS me! I should say inappropriate things to her or get her number or ask her out or or or."

She isn't hitting on you. She's using an endearment to put you at ease, make things seem friendlier and get a tip and/or get you out of the way for the next guest and usually nothing more.

The difference is you are interacting as patron and waitress/cashier/service industry person. You are not random Joe on the street calling out to a stranger.

Whether or not you mean it in a certain way, the other 100 or so people that day might. It isn't a matter of shaking it off and not taking offence or ignoring it; women already do that. That's why there aren't more reports of men being pepper sprayed or tasered into the hospital. They are being tolerant of this "quaint" habit that some men have where they just cannot resist being "nice" to women they see on the street.

I'm old enough to remember the lovely commercial for Mister Microphone. The most memorable part is two guys in a car screaming over it "Hey good lookin', we'll be back to pick you up later." Thirty years later, that commercial wouldn't make it past the early rounds of development before people said "Wait. Is this offensive?"

It isn't about what you think you mean when you or they are catcalling on the streets or in the office or wherever. It isn't a dating arena, women aren't there so you can pick one out of the herd to copulate with.

I wonder if a group of big burly biker leather daddies stood on a street corner and catcalled guys if it would get the point across. They are just being friendly and saying that you look good. Does it make you feel uncomfortable? Do you enjoy it? Would you enjoy it every day, everywhere you go, every time you go some where? I somehow seriously doubt it.

My apologies to any big burly biker leather daddies. I know you guys have better taste and manners.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:


Camille Paglia has said many things over the years that I would never defend. One of the things that she said that I think was pretty spot on was that "Sexual harrassment laws are an attempt to enforce the sexual mores of the white, middle-class office culture on the rest of the population."

Hmm. I'd always thought that sexual harassment laws were about trying to change the mores of the white, middle-class office culture so that the white middle-class secretaries didn't have to put up with (or put out for) their bosses b%%*~#%@.

And that's why people complimenting each other's hair at work is now considered sexual harrassment?

After reading the minutes from the sexual harassment meeting at my wife's work it seems that it is more about protecting the company from lawsuits or being included in lawsuits. Most of these places don't actually care what you are doing or why you are doing it, they want you to not do it so that Bob or Sally doesn't come down to HR and complain about you saying "Nice hair" and you REALLY meant "I want to have your babies" to go away.

It eats up the companies time to go through each case; I know, my wife is management and routinely sits through several meetings a week on this. Some are legit. Some are just "Wah, I overheard someone saying something that offends me, fire everyone." It's taxing mentally and financially for the companies and everyone involved.

Not that anyone cares about the company mind, but this is just another perspective on it.

As far as the video the young woman put out as well as the Daily Show clip and others, I find it horrifying and amazing that people still stay in these places. The whole bit reminds me of a Chris Rock routine, where he said something to the effect of "Every time a man is interacting with a woman or being nice to her, he is offering her d&$%."

Not you of course. You saying "Hello beautiful" out of the blue or "Smile!" or whatever other interaction is supposed to come across as charming or friendly rather than creepy or filled with the potential for unwanted contact.

It's pretty simple. They aren't interested in speaking with you or you or him or them or anyone. Just trying to get through the day without getting beaten. Just trying to get to work. Just trying to survive.

I'm just amazed at the comments here and elsewhere that are basically "I was just being nice, why are they being so touchy?!"


GreyWolfLord wrote:

This is in the AP's and modules, of which are my primary interests from PAIZO. Don't get me wrong, I love PAIZO and their work, but it gets annoying that to run the AP I have to refer to almost every book they've released at times.

I would like it if they would restrict it to the CRB (maybe, and only maybe occasionally, use another book outside the CRB) and the bestiaries...and that's it.

No having to refer to such and such, the ACG, the APG, or anything else in the APs.

Have it as CRB and bestiaries only...

I think that's where it gets most annoying if I had to point to one area of concern.

For a starting GM...if they don't know how to adapt an AP accordingly, it could be crushing as they have all these books to read and learn before even trying to play the current AP's coming out.

But you don't have to have all those books. You look at the AP and see a reference to another book, or a monster that you don't recognize? Swap it out with something in a book you do have. Same with items, classes, whatever. Your players won't know unless they are reading the material as well .. and shame on them if they are!

This is advice for starting GMs or the experienced as an aside. You don't HAVE to have everything that Paizo puts out; I'm trying, but that's my own problem.

All the books do, whether hardbacks or Golarion specific, is give you more options, more lore, and more detail. You don't have to use any or all of it in your games, even if you play on Golarion. You could probably play in one area for an entire campaign and not need the rest of the material.

Bloat or options, it's all about choices. Choose what works for you and don't sweat the rest. It'll be there if you want it, and if you don't, you won't miss it.

And even if you play PFS, so what? You can certainly play and keep up with characters and races from the core book and if you happen to like something that you see someone else playing, maybe explore that book next time.


Congrats and welcome to the world of marriage!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A love letter addressed to one of the characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
2097 wrote:

It’s hard to say “If that doesn’t suit you, leave” whether as a player

or as a DM. People who have the luxury to say that must have access to
many potential players or DM:s. I don’t.
Yes, I’ve left groups. But that has never been an easy decision.

It is hard to do whether you are the GM saying it or the player. Sometimes, however, you have to make hard decisions. Kirth said somewhere upstream, perhaps eaten in the Great Purge of the Thread, something to the effect that no game is better than a bad game.

This is painfully true. I've not played for years at a stretch because I was in nowhere Texas, Mississippi and Alabama and my choices were bad and worse. Thankfully the Internet came along and crafted a solution to that, but for a while there it was not play or play in a game that either bored me to tears or made me really uncomfortable or made me dislike humanity.

That said, I'd do it again if forced into a corner. I'm older now and can find numerous ways to entertain myself; I don't need to play or run a game that makes me unhappy.


KenderKin wrote:

How does the rogue know that you even have a house?

Unless someone told him (IC) him knowing is the result of meta-gaming.

If you told him IC that you built your own bank, then it is what it is......

Good question. And how do you know that he is planning/trying to break in? Is he telling you? If so, tell him ICly that you consider that something that isn't in keeping with a party member and to knock it off or get lost.


Mention to the local criminal element that he is poaching on their territory and let them put the fear of them into him. Or the local law enforcement.

Alternately, steal all his things while he is asleep or unconscious if he manages to break into your home and let him know that it is to pay for damages.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

It this a curb your enthusiasm message?

Never meet a Japanophile that shrill yet.

Sorry, was this directed to my post? If so, no, the people in question were just LOUD and were roughly 2 feet away from each other just screaming about their game, characters, some TV shows and so on. I just stopped shopping at that particular local game store; maybe I am getting old, but I cannot stand that level of noise.

1 to 50 of 876 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.