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 Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,123 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The part of the argument that irritates me is the fall back to religion rather than law. You are welcome to believe whatever religion you would like in this country. That said, your religion is yours, not mine, and I should not be held to its tennets.

Nor should people be treated as less of a person because of who they love or the color of their skin. The anger over this ruling that I've seen in the media has mostly been one centering on religion and less about whether the law was somehow unjust. Looking at many of remarks from presidential candidates, you see God or Christian rights being brought up again and again (except for Trump, who took a shot at Bush instead. Because Trump.)

If, as Dr. Carson remarked that "marriage is a religious service not a government form", then the government needs to separate all the legal and tax related perks from it. Because this isn't just about having a ceremony and flowers and a cake, but about all the other things that make up a marriage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

57. Bringing illegal drugs to the game. I'm glad you may enjoy them. That said, I'd prefer my night not end in a narco bust.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Dunno, there are many days I'd rather have a conversation with my five year old than most adults. I'd append the above to add that you shouldn't have more atmospheric disruptions and various sensory offenses than a child as well.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

5. You've moved away from everyone you know.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Did I say it was fine? Could you point that post out to me? To my knowledge and search, I didn't post anything in the thread.

Post what is good or bad with the class; being unrelentingly negative isn't a play test, it is a diatribe. That is my awful criticism of what is going on -- not that you called the class a bad name or don't like it, or do like it, or think it is purple.

Saying it sucks is no better than saying it is great. They both are meaningless terms to people trying to collect data. Hammering home that it sucks or is great continues to be meaningless posts where people do what we are doing -- arguing about nothing.

So far the majority of people who say it's bad say "it's bad because this" or "this doesn't work for what it seems to want to do". Then people say "quit complaining" or that "it's good". And about the only things I've heard positive about it is that it allows people to think about using the disguise skill since it's a class feature.

Cool, all is well then and I've apparently been wrong about what I've been reading. People have been breaking the information down, which is good, and there hasn't been much in the way of fighting. I'll wait and see how it turns out and work on my own play test.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Confession: more and more everyday I would like an Ignore feature. Or an unlike. Or a bomb.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Did I say it was fine? Could you point that post out to me? To my knowledge and search, I didn't post anything in the thread.

Post what is good or bad with the class; being unrelentingly negative isn't a play test, it is a diatribe. That is my awful criticism of what is going on -- not that you called the class a bad name or don't like it, or do like it, or think it is purple.

Saying it sucks is no better than saying it is great. They both are meaningless terms to people trying to collect data. Hammering home that it sucks or is great continues to be meaningless posts where people do what we are doing -- arguing about nothing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:

Let me be blunt. This is what your post and your response to it read as. If it is not the "tone" you intended, or not what you meant, that's one thing, but it is how it kind of sounds to others that read it. So, lets call a spade a spade, and if the shoe fits, well, IT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO FIT, DOESN'T IT, if it does not fit, every failure is a learning experience, and experience is the coin of the realm. F'!!!!! Gold. Even F' Platinum!!!! XP is where it's at.

Which is fine. But, how is doing exactly what you are doing any different? Calling those people, (those dirty "the Sky is Falling" People), not doing exactly what you seem to be complaining about in an off-handed, name-cally way.

We all, 100%, absolutely, ultimately, quintessentially, undeniably, and completely understand that it's a playtest for an unfinished class, and that we do not have all the relevant information. That has no relevance whatsoever to, well anything. The playtest isn't about the final product, it's about all the steps to get there. Just because you happen to be one of the individuals that may like it as is, (or may not) doesn't somehow give you the right to dismiss anyone else's opinions or take some kind of higher ground.

So, how exactly is being the first person to call the other side the loony luney "the sky is falling" crowd because you just something a lot of others do not as is any different than the exact thing you seem to be complaining of? Or putting all of the blame, or attempting to put all of the burden of proof in their court any better?

Secondly, if it doesn't matter at all, as far as you and buying the book are concerned,what any other "b@@+#%* crazy" person, that doesn't love the class as much as you do, why even post if it's not just to try to sucker-punch the other side of the rather unfinished and still being <play> tested fence without being caught, (as in hoping you are not targeted by Liz's I'm locking this thread or deleting this ass's posts).

I daresay I'm not the first person to call any side anything. What I find fascinating is that it is A-OK to be a jerk but it is not alright to call people on it.

Why does it matter to me? Because I'd like to read playtesting or theory crafting or just civin freakin conversation rather than the usual suspects acting in the usual manner until a thread gets locked or moderated to the point you cannot tell what is being said. Because in between the screaming there are actual useful pieces of information. I don't know everything about the class nor have I thought every thought about it. It is useful to see what others may have stumbled across.

If we all do, in fact, understand that it is a playtest them people might act like it is an unfinished product instead of going berserk because it doesn't cover every single item that they'd like or that there are mistakes, ideas that don't work, or whatever.

My tone, since you may have trouble reading it over the internet and want to interpret it, is one of a irritated and pissed off forum reader. I'm tired of having to wade through garbage because some people feel an obligation to behave poorly. So yeah, my post was snippy about "those" people. I expect better from people than to have to have threads locked over their tantrums.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd gladly pay $25 to watch first run movies at home rather than at a theater. No kids, no parents, no cell phones, no people. And I can pause it to go to the bathroom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:

So, are you not liking the fact that others do not like the class, or that they do not like it based on actual play?

Actually playing it isn't going to make comments any nicer or meaner, and is probably going to increase the amount of venting required.

To be honest, I don't care if others like or don't like the class. It doesn't affect if I'll buy the book or play the class. What I dislike is a great deal of the usual "The sky is falling!" that happens after each book or play test. It's an unfinished class from an unfinished book that we don't have all the information from. There are going to be issues; I'd think after all the play tests we'd know that by now. :)

As for the mean comments -- to be blunt some people on the boards either need to take a few minutes to scream into a pillow or log off. Attacking other posters because they don't believe what you do is jerk behavior.

@bookrat: I agree, all sorts of analysis can be helpful. But some of the threads have moved from "this is what I take from what I have read" to "how dare you believe otherwise!" It is not only discouraging, but pretty unhelpful. It is alright to be passionate about believing something is broken. Deriding others for believing otherwise is not.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It might have been a nicer way to say that some of the results coming back are not as useful as others. I cannot speak for the dev team, but just reading some of the threads gives you the feeling that some reviewers were just not happy with what they saw and are venting (sometimes to the extreme) rather than providing something a little more tangible than AR#E%@#%@#% IT SUCKS!!!!!1one.

A certain amount of venting is good and can help illustrate what they are upset about. Page after page of diatribe isn't helpful to the play test or the reader. Everyone knows that X didn't like what they read and doesn't think that they should need to play it. Does anyone else have anything to add to the discussion or is it another few pages of screaming and telling anyone who says different they are wrong wrong wrong!!!

I'm working on my own play testing but don't want to get drawn into the rage fest so I am unsure if I will bother to post it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

5. Inability to show repeatedly and not to call/text/email/send smoke signals. Once is understandable. Twice is irritating. After that, you're a problem.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My first wife was omnisexual and very interested in BDSM. A number of people assumed that I was as well, or was interested in all sorts of different play.

Now while I didn't mind the invitations (which were few), what bothered me more was once they were told I wasn't into the scene I was utterly ignored while they enticed her for sex or play.

Some people are just rude, regardless of what your proclivities or situation and you have to be willing to either explain your stance or deal with a great deal of rudeness and assumption. Likely both, and deal with some hostility as well when you aren't interested in their advances.

Dunno, I've never been one to approach others for sex unless we're dating or things are much further along than "I hear you like X. Wanna do it?"

Editted to add: Happy Marriage Equality. I spent the morning explaining to my sons why this was an important day in their lives and what it means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

3. Ignoring or not reading the campaign handout.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, if you are unwilling/unable to buy the PDFs you need, there are a few other alternatives. Mind, none of them are perfect but they may help your situation.

1. Get a car or a friend with a car. Tons of cargo space, good for things other than going to the game store, and surprisingly cheap for an old beater (especially if you need/want to buy a ton of PDFS). Alternately, do you have anyone else with a car that attends the games? They can help transport you and a wagon-full of things for some gas money. A taxi could also help on the days you need to take a lot of things with you.

2. Reduce your needs. Play something that doesn't require 8 hardbacks and multiple other resources. It may be more fun to have every option available all the time, but some reduction will reduce your weight problem.

A solution may be on the way, but it could be days, weeks or even years down the road. If you need to do something now, these might be some choices to consider in lieu of PDFS and a laptop.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Feral wrote:
knightnday wrote:
The crowd here is pretty professional -- when they aren't screaming at each other. But in general the people I see on the board, whether I disagree with their assessment or not, really do know what they are talking about when it comes to Pathfinder.

'Knowing your stuff' is not the only qualifier for being a professional.

Quote:
Not to mention hiring people takes money and eats into profits. Why do that when people are eager and willing to look over the material and help?
Editors cost money and eat into profits too but Paizo still pays them because they improve the final product.

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed what the qualification is, then? Unless you mean someone who gets paid for this, in which case they have a bunch of those people in house, yes?

My point was that paying additional people to do what the people here are already doing may lead to higher prices on our end, the sort of thing that people tend to be unhappy about. Given that many of the people in these boards are third party product creators, freelancers, and otherwise in the industry I would think that they have a few more qualifications than just knowing their stuff -- not that they need more than that, since knowing how the game works and how the classes interact is a large portion of what is needed here.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The crowd here is pretty professional -- when they aren't screaming at each other. But in general the people I see on the board, whether I disagree with their assessment or not, really do know what they are talking about when it comes to Pathfinder.

Not to mention hiring people takes money and eats into profits. Why do that when people are eager and willing to look over the material and help?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Only if you can afford a full time real time moderator. People cannot speak politely on whether a play test class is OK or the worst thing ever. Politics is a tad touchier than that.

Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:
What is the thought process for folks wanting to talk politics...on an RPG site

Arguing over paladins falling got boring?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Kryzbyn. OMG. Have you played Portal yet?
Nope. For pretty much the same reason.

Seems awfully silly to deprive yourself of a good experience just because someone can confirm that it is, in fact, a good experience.

My brother used to be the same way. I'd say "This is good" (or someone else would) he'd say "I'm not interested". Or give it a token "try".

"I read the first page and I didn't like it. Meh."

Thankfully, he grew out of that around the time he turned 15.

Really all you're doing is hurting yourself, in a sense, so it's really not something to be proud of.

I think some of it depends on where you get your recommendations from. There are people that suggest movies to me that I am sure do not know anything about me despite having met me and talked to me for years.

Sometimes you find a happy gem in the suggestions, but often I find myself very displeased with their recommendations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Children in theaters can be a problem -- I say this having 3 of them. We try never to go to the theater if we can avoid it, primarily because people tend to allow their children to roam around, scream, yell, and otherwise go crazy instead of watching the film. My kids look in wonder and are confused why no one has been strangled by their fathers yet, since I've told them since day 1 that if they act up in public I'll send them back to character generation.

This isn't to say that people older than children aren't a problem either. I stopped going to the movies due to people playing on cellphones, talking in a conversational tone during the movie and generally acting like people act in public -- like they are all alone and do not understand why anyone would be offended by their quaint customs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:

My wife's parents keep going to this s$~%ty little diner, like every Monday for years, then spend the rest of the day b*#%#ing about it.

So why do they keep going back? So they have something to b&$@% about other then each other:-D

I suspect thegreenbeargamer, this is a similar situation :-)

That would be funny if it weren't so true. I blame the internet; it gives people a wider audience to air their disappointment/grievances/or just get heard so they don't feel so alone.

I get it, but I don't understand it. I don't like certain things, but I would never dream of expending the energy to go to their forums, facebook, twitter or whatever to tell them that. "Hi! I'll never buy your product or service but I HATE you and you are doing it wrong!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Confession: I actually think this thread is kind of just full of b&*&+~&& passive-aggression and I would be pretty fine with it not existing at all.

Don't shun me!

There is some just plain aggressive aggressive in this thread. It feels like some get very angry that people do it "wrong" -- that is, not how they like. Funny thing is, they will never play with each other, so why get bent out of shape about it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I prefer GMing. I'd love to play, mind you, and relish the times I get to, but for the last 35 or so years I've been the GM in most groups I am in. I enjoy the world building aspects and the story telling, although I do miss the fun of bringing a character along and finding things out from the other side of the screen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I strongly discourage PVP unless it is in a game like Paranoia. I've seen people get in literal slap fights over Monopoly and Risk and lose friendships and relationships for things like PVP. If you want to cut pieces out of each other for probably OOC reasons, do it somewhere else.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:

New confession! I feel players are far too entitled, and have little to no respect for the GM mandate. The game is for everyone, yes, but the GM does significantly more work than a player, so I think the right to make and arbitrate the rules is a fair trade off. If you want to play in an Eastern setting when the GM has decided it will be a world based on Mesopotamia, either shut up or start writing your own game, but in either case stop b****ing.

I also do not think character concept is of paramount importance, because there's billions possible, and if the GM shuts yours down or GOD FORBID the rules don't make it exactly as viable as you'd like, you can think of another.

There. Are. Billions. Of. Possibilities. Your snowflake doesn't mean the difference between enjoyment and disappointment unless you let it.

In before special snowscape gets brought up.

If you are told beforehand what the game is going to be and you still try to get around any setting restrictions, you are a problem player.

I confess I wholeheartedly agree with thegreenteagamer. I've said it before on this topic: I'll gladly bend to help a player with their concept, but I won't bend over.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not sure where these discussions are taking place, but many of the classes are considered far from useless, while rogue and fighter are usually considered of much less use in these discussions.

As with anything on the internet, take it with a half-ton of salt and realize that if you ask 10 gamers their opinions you'll get 15 answers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

To elaborate, I'm a big fan of roleplaying a character according to their identity rather than using stats and numbers to artificially define them.

While the appearance of a Body Builder holds no appeal to me, I can see absolutely no good reason to restrict someone's appearance or behavior based on their stats.

When they do things, their stats will show out in the results.

I think the problem some people may have with this and other approaches to some of the attributes is the feeling that a character is getting some sort of advantage, mechanical or social, from having stats that say one thing and descriptions/play style that say something far different.

An example! In an online Shadowrun game I frequented, one of the most common and irritating to many examples was the tiny waif girl with phenomenal strength. Not magically augmented; rather, these people would have race maximum strength with a hearty helping of vat-grown muscles on top. Their descriptions and play style said they were a 98 pound four foot ten inch little sexy thing who could casually lift a car. I assume this has something to do with some anime.

Now, this is what they wanted. What others tended to believe should be true is that they look like She-Hulk as they saunter up to the guard and demurely smile. In effect, it was thought they were trying to downplay their great ability score in order to not suffer from people being suspicious because your muscles are ripping your clothing every time you move.

Moving back to our barbarian above, or any of the corner cases (a magician who has a low strength but just so happens to look like he is in better shape than everyone else in the party comes up a lot.) Yeah, sometimes there are players who have reasons for those characters. Sometimes. I'd daresay far less often than the discussions on the boards would lead me to believe, however.

No, you don't have to play a drooling idiot with a lower-than-average intelligence, or a bumbling klutz with a low Dex and so on. What I do ask my players to do, and try to adhere to myself, is consistency and continuity. If for the last six sessions you have played your barbarian as a growling wild man with no social graces and then suddenly, without any reasoning, backstory, skill buys or whatnot you start talking flawlessly, using big words and attempting to coerce, smooze, and otherwise play the Face role, I'm going to have questions and comments whether I am a player or GM.

By all means, play as you are comfortable with and make a character you enjoy. Sure, by all means. But for goodness sake, try to make a CHARACTER. If you are gaming the system, it will show. If you are trying to get some sort of edge and downplay any disadvantages, it will show. And yes, just beyond the -1 or -2 of the mechanics.

I've found that people are eager and willing to show off their high stat, but less willing to play up anything seen as a problem. You picked the numbers when you made the character, yes? Then accept what you've done and at least nod to it being a problem every once in a while.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
I know what TMNT is, I just... is there actually a tabletop RPG of it?

Since 1985 from your friends at Palladium


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
knightnday wrote:
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Here is my general reasoning for lack of guns and cumbustion engines. Due to the ability to weild magic, explosives were never refined and used, therefore, applications of contained/directed explosives were never researched nor exploited.
We had a world many years ago that didn't develop guns or combustion engines. Some travelers from another world found out why when they attempted to use the devices they brought with them and discovered that there was way more oxygen than Earth standard, as well as some other chemical (wasn't the GM so giving it my best remembrance.) The explosion ended a lot of curiosity as I recall.

Just a nitpick, but explosives developed on a world with higher than Earth standard oxygen wouldn't be more dangerous because of the fact they were developed using their own atmospheric conditions. The chemical mix of the explosives would just be different.

But that's just my opinion.

Yeah, like I said it wasn't my world and I didn't check his math/science. It made an interesting story and tied into why that sort of tech never developed other than "I don't want this in my world." I'm sure it scientifically doesn't work out, but neither does Jurassic Park and I still enjoyed it. :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Here is my general reasoning for lack of guns and cumbustion engines. Due to the ability to weild magic, explosives were never refined and used, therefore, applications of contained/directed explosives were never researched nor exploited.

We had a world many years ago that didn't develop guns or combustion engines. Some travelers from another world found out why when they attempted to use the devices they brought with them and discovered that there was way more oxygen than Earth standard, as well as some other chemical (wasn't the GM so giving it my best remembrance.) The explosion ended a lot of curiosity as I recall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Confessions: discussions/threads that devolve into over-analysis of the wording someone used or what word that someone thinks that they should have used bore me to tears.

Also, I hope Stormwind gets a dime every time someone invokes his fallacy because otherwise it gets brought up too many times.

Lastly, no one cares about your uber character's story. Please stop.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:

I've had to talk to some of my players about trying to avoid min/maxing. They are my younger players that don't own a single resource book and like to dig through the pfsrd to find the most obscure feats and options. I've encouraged them to stop digging for bonuses and start building their characters as characters - not just a set of numbers that they are trying to push as far as possible.

They explained to me that this attitude is a holdover from playing games like Hero Clix where everything is reduced to pure numbers and if you don't have maxed out numbers, you lose the game.

Why is min-maxing a problem? Well, when they're digging through online SRD's and trying to bring in feats from 3.0 that don't exist in any other iteration of 3.5 or PF, then it is a problem. They're just hunting for bonuses instead of building a character organically.

I encourage roleplaying at my table, though everyone has the right to play the kind of game they like. In my experience, those that like to hardcore min-max do so to the detriment of the roleplaying aspects of the game. Their input in non-combat situations becomes non-existent. I have encouraged them to play beyond these limitations.

Some might not have a problem with any of the aforementioned points, but I find having a table of min-maxers leads to the type of game I don't want to run.

Ah! The beautiful Stormwind Fallacy at work once again.

Explain to me this, how does building the most powerful character mechanically preclude the ability to roleplay him or her? Nothing in role play states you must create a character backstory and personality before development of the character. It is perfectly valid to develop your character based upon what you built after the fact.

Again, people who claim "role play over rollplay" I feel a lot of times are simply people who are just not that good at making character and rather than actually try and get BETTER at it, instead just stick their fingers in their ears and disparage any who question their correct style...

From what I've seen both on the boards and "real life" there is nothing that precludes someone from being able to roleplay as well as build a mechanically superior character. That said, there does seem to be a number of people that have had problems in that area, perhaps as they worry about more dakka rather than anything else.

We can scream STORMWIND to the heavens and that doesn't make it any more wrong or right. Some people can do it, and some people cannot. Concentrating only on the number or only on the story doesn't make you a good or bad player anymore than only liking Coke or only liking Pepsi makes you a bad soda drinker -- it's a preference. When you concentrate so hard on one of the elements that you exclude other things, including other people at the table, then there is a problem.

I think, and this is just my own crazy idea, that this notion of "I'm gonna get my fun and s#$*& you guys" is more of the problem with whatever we want to call this. Minimaxing, munchkinism, over optimization -- let's be honest. People are really saying that little Billy is being an a$#*&^% and a jerk in some way -- attitude, spotlight hogging, smug air of superiority when criticizing everyone else's builds or whatever.

Worry less about the sheet and more about the attitude. Life is too short to play with jerks.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For some reason my mind keeps going back to the old letters column in Dragon where Thor got knocked off a wall and someone got his hammer.

Anyway, no I haven't used Cthulhu against my players. None of them are big fans of those stories and no one is clamoring to see him outside of internet memes or whatever.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PIXIE DUST wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Aranna wrote:

And nothing in the game is FORCING you to try diplomacy with the king, if you avoid trying to bluff, intimidate, or diplomacize anyone then you need not worry about Cha... In fact you can role play him however you wish as long as you avoid saying things which require a skill toss.

DM: "The Seneschal brings you up and introduces you one by one to the King, who asks you to tell him a little bit about yourself- in turn, make a Diplomacy roll. "

Things like this, where some important person wants to meet and be introduced to the party is pretty common where I come from.

Here, let me give you a contrived and niche scenerio to prove my point...

So what your saying is that EVERYONE should have ranks in diplomacy and cha.. as if the poor monk isn't already shafted enough with Str, Dex, Wis, AND Con?

I'd worry less about a corner case like the one with the king above and more of the what ifs when the party inevitably splits up or gets separated.

It is one thing to hopefully depend on your fellow player to cover your weaknesses. But you should be able to function in some manner if they are not around as well .. maybe not as well, but hopefully good enough not to embarrass yourself.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JohnF wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Hm, that may explain one of the stores I visited last year or the year before. They were only giving out the items for Free RPG Day if you bought something else in the store. I was buying things anyway, so it wasn't a problem for me, but it was curious at the time. Could only have 1 item as well.

That could be a violation of their agreement.

Free RPG Day wrote:


So, the rule is this: if someone comes into your store on Free RPG Day and asks for something, you have to give them at least one item from the kit (until you run out, of course).
They don't have to give you your choice of item, but they do have to give you something.

Yeah, I went home and checked the Free RPG Day site to see what the rules were. I got the item I wanted, so it didn't cause me any grief but I imagine there were those that were a little put out. Of course if it costs as much as Drogon has quoted I'm not surprised they were being cautious not to just have it sitting out (as I've seen elsewhere.) Some visitors to the stores in the past have taken handfuls "for a friend" that couldn't make it or some such. Which is probably a booming business on ebay. :(


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kevin_video wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Without decent participation from major vendors like Wizards of the Coast and Fantasy Flight Games, spending the money on the kits this year wasn't worthwhile at all.
Though I am surprised that Fantasy Flight Games did not participate, I think this is the first time in awhile, has Wizards of the Coast ever participated in free rpg day?

They both "participate." They both put in what amounts to leaflets telling you about their latest and greatest. So, no actual content. When Free RPG Day first started each company that participated put in adventures, or pocket sized rule books, or cool accessories for their games. Now, half of them put in advertising.

And that $160 price that was quoted up there was for the bare minimum, by the way. If you want to have an appreciable quanitity of things to give out you need to buy more than that one kit (so double or triple that amount). And if you want to have the "cool kids" kit (a single kit with more interesting items like actual books) you're looking at a near $450 layout. And then you STILL have to buy another $160 kit to have enough stuff to hand out for free.

No thanks.

Yeah, that's a bit much. Nothing screams "FREE" like paying $610 to bring people into your store and hand out items that you don't see any profit off of.

Hm, that may explain one of the stores I visited last year or the year before. They were only giving out the items for Free RPG Day if you bought something else in the store. I was buying things anyway, so it wasn't a problem for me, but it was curious at the time. Could only have 1 item as well.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm mildly fond of training, but I certainly don't make it as hard as possible on people. Now I've played with a GM who had a chart to determine if you were able, at all, to learn arcane magic. This was several editions back, mind you, and it was partially to prevent some of the multi-classing I think, and somewhat to limit magic users because many believe they are all powerful. ;)

What else was on the list? Two GMPCs seems excessive to me, but I guess if there was a need? Critical hits and failures have been fun over the years -- we've used different charts on occasion in some games.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Myfly wrote:

And 19.99 USD for one unreleased promo card is really expensive!

I bet these promo cards are ALL sold within the next HOUR!
You could tell everbody... Hey, i got something you dont got right now :-p

Especially with the extra advertisement here. ;)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
k3ndawg wrote:

Too bad our local (Denver Area) venture officers are too busy running their own con to coordinate ANY sessions of We Be Goblins or ANY PFS scenarios.

Except, you know, at their own very special little convention... that they're letting languish and canceling tables. Gotta love that.

You can always try the Springs. Two of the stores there are running games that I know of -- hopefully I'll get to drive up myself and get to play this year. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

'78-'79 here, and assuming I don't have another heart attack I might make 50 soon. :) DrDeth gets to be the old man of the boards.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
If you're taking these boards as a representative sample, you're doing it wrong.

No, I've seen the same sort of sentiments elsewhere, although I suppose it could be the same people just under different names elsewhere. Regardless, I feel some days like I am a support meeting for abused players (mostly players, sorry to say. Most of the GMs don't get to rag on the players before the thread turns to how someone got screwed over.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:
thejeff wrote:
To some degree I agree with you. That would seem to imply no new GMs though? Or new players, since they wouldn't yet have the experience to trust implicitly?

Well, I think my group would want someone to play for a while before being given the reins.

As for new players, if they can't make a leap of faith based on the testimony of long-time players, that's their problem. I can't be held responsible for the fact that someone else screwed them. Play a fighter or rogue the first time around, I suppose. Alternately, leave your comfort zone and take a chance.

Just reading the boards for a day shows how little trust there seems to be between GMs and players. I guess I don't get it? I mean, it really really comes across all too often that people are so gunshy and have had apparently so many bad experiences it is amazing they ever play again. And I just don't buy it.

I don't, I really don't. I think people had A bad experience, maybe a handful, and are now just so jaded that they won't give anyone new a chance without an ironclad contract on what the GM is allowed to do to them, or what the player is allowed to do in the game.

I've played with people like this. One guy refused to allow anything outside of his control to happen to his character. He would just get up and leave a game if he took more damage than he thought he should, or if there was a chance of death, or if he was denied what he wanted.

I don't care to play with people like that, be they a GM or player, don't get me wrong. Entitled isn't a word that I'd associate with them -- most I would associate are banned here.

But for the love all all the Gods, people need to get a bit of trust for their fellow gamer. I dunno how much of this is the boards exaggeration or just people don't want to associate with "those" people -- the ones who do it "that way." But just like a relationship, if you got burned a few times that doesn't mean everyone of your mating preference are evil and bad because THEY were. You had a bad experience, move past it!

Grumble grumble shun away. I'm fine with that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The player only has his PC. The DM has the rest of the multiverse!

The PC is the only thing the players have, and taking away control of that PC makes the player wonder why he's even playing. Is it just to listen to the alleged 'DM' tell a story?

This rings alarm bells for many players. The post that started this may have been meant innocently, but the way it came across was like this:-

Cleric's player: Here's today's list of spells that I'm preparing. Note that this list was compiled entirely within the rules for my cleric.

DM: No, you don't get to choose your spells; I get to choose your spells, and if you don't like it then you're a whiney little bi...hey, where's everyone going?

Speaking of alarm bells, every time I hear "The poor player only has his character" and "is the alleged DM telling a story" I see in my mind Mel Gibson from Braveheart screaming "FREEDOM!"

Especially when combined with Player 1 in Jaelithe's example. I've met far too many of them in online games who need to relax a bit. No one is taking some unassailable right away; rather, a different way to play is being presented.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I guess?
Please note that someone else being more discerning does not mean you aren't discerning. ;)

Heh, oh I'm discerning, I just am usually willing to give the game a shot. Now, that isn't to say that after a session of insane things I won't bow out and find something else to do .. even if that is watch paint dry.

Back on point, a confession! I really dislike some of the weirder things like tumor familiar. I can see it in some situations, but for the most part it doesn't do it for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:

What Kryzbyn said.

That said, being on these forums and seeing all the myriad other playstyles that people apparently enjoy (even if for the life of me I can never understand why) does make me all the more thankful for my own group, who are all very strongly on the same wavelength as to what we want out of the game. I think one of the reasons I'm more comfortable saying "I wouldn't play in a group that does X" is because I know I have my group to stick with where I don't have to worry about those sorts of things becoming a problem.

If I didn't have a play group at all, I either would quit playing entirely if I couldn't find one that shared my mindset, or just deal with a group whose style doesn't quite jive with my own and probably end up bottling up my frustrations save occasional rants to non-group friends about the things I don't like.

Oh no doubt, I've had to do that myself over the years. But much like your comment about solutions to non-existent problems, I think that the text environment and the way things come across makes people less likely to want to game with each other based on a one-off comment on play style or preferences.

More than likely, if people were actually talking and could get their points across better or illustrate them better, they might be received better and we'd be more likely to give these alternate ideas a chance rather than shunning or avoiding these games.

Kind of like foods that you'd never think you'd like, sometimes something that sounds horrible isn't so bad. Of course, sometimes it IS horrible. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I guess? Or maybe it is easier to be "outraged" on the forums instead of face to face with friends.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Confession: People's comment that they will drop a game on a given dime over every perceived slight or table variation boggles my mind. I can count on one hand the number of games I've left in 35 years. Given the comments on the boards, I am shocked that some people manage to game at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't allow players to cherry pick through books for spells when I GM.

Prestige classes require in game relationships and development to find and gain. You cannot just "Ding!" get it whenever you want, whatever you want.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
williamoak wrote:

Well, as the OP, I am definitly not in a state of saying "I diplomacy them". I do all the acting, the accents, the attempts to play a character. My problem was more with GMs who dont make you roll at all.

But I digress. I believe even in a case where one has no capacity to communicate well, there can at least be a short description (IE, I attempt to convince the bandit of the value of not robbing us) rather than the stereotype. Effectively, it gives the same thing (mostly roll-focused, no acting), while still at least giving clear goals. I know I wouldnt accept "I diplomacy him" at my table, but if anyone simply said "I want to convince the of X" I would respond immediately with "Roll your diplomacy".

Now that I think of it, I think my main problem with "I roll diplomacy" isnt boringness, but rather that the statement lacks clear goals & intent, especially with such a broadly used skill.

I agree with your first paragraph; the acting is fine and all, but the roll matters as well. The two should work together to help tell what is going on rather than either being the only thing that matters.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It comes down to what you and your table want. If you want to define fantasy as only traditional medieval western fantasy and everyone at the table is good with that, then that is your fantasy.

If you want it to mean everything and anything, then that is your fantasy.

I prefer the dial somewhere between those extremes myself, but to each their own.

Pixie Dust wrote:
But it is still fantasy. It is like saying Symphonic METAL is not Metal because you only define metal as Speed/Thrash/Black metal. So if you said Guns don't fit as well in MEDIEVAL EUROPEAN Fantasy then I can see that but to remove them from fantasy all together is ignorant.

Continuing to call people ignorant because they do not adhere to your definitions is rude and undermines your point.

1 to 50 of 1,123 << 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.