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. 691 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 691 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Werebat wrote:

I'm not telling you all to stop playing PF. I don't even want you to. I think this competition between Paizo and WotC is good for all of us. And I'll freely admit that Paizo seems to have the upper hand when it comes to business strategy -- although WotC seems to have taken some pages from their book (not nearly enough, if you ask me, but still). Like another person who commented here, my ideal would be 5e spurring Paizo to develop something new that incorporated everything good about 5e and improved on it. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened someday -- the Paizo people are smart.

But something has happened to PF, and for me, I feel it is time to get off this train and board another. I'm not alone.

And that means something.

So what are you telling us? That you, and perhaps others, are ready to go on to another game? This isn't news, this is the subject of a post or two every other week for the past however long these boards have been up here, and on boards elsewhere. For this game. For every game.

I appreciate the heads up on your status with the game, I really do. But this doesn't mean anything more than you (and perhaps some others) want to play something else for a while. It is as meaningful as if you tell me that you are done with True Blood or don't want to follow X sports team anymore. I nod and say OK, but your exit from this game only means that you exited this game. It isn't a statement on the overall state of gaming or if this or another game are going down a certain route.

I wish you the best in whatever game you find yourself playing. Have fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Well, firstly, we don't have a Belkzen book yet

This is important because we don't have a lot of information on a lot of places. The reason, as far as I can see, why there isn't interaction and movement between the countries is because Paizo is giving us a starting point and expanding outward from there, giving GMs a place to work from.

So you get your information (however limited) on guns, on crashed spaceships, demonic incursions and so on so that you can run something from there.

Given from the posts I've seen that the devs are working, what, a year in advance on the APs they have to toss these ideas out and see if they work with the masses before deciding on follow up. I imagine that there are lots of areas they'd love to follow up on, and may do so in the future; they just have to balance that with pacifying whichever side of the "I hate/love X" that they are currently offending with X.


Zhayne wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

1.) I don't.

2.) I probably wouldn't join it. Passive-aggressively "allowing" something and then s~!@ting all over a player (and not just the player, the rest of the group by association) because he takes that option tells me right off we're not going to get along. If you don't like something at least have the balls to ban it outright, it'll show you're at least honest and straightforward enough to deal with.

This.

This is as big a pile of dickery as 'sure you can play a paladin, I'll just take away your powers in the first session'.

Pretty much agree with Zhayne and Rynjin here. I prefer for my players not to dump stats -- that said I'll tell them what I expect and what I enforce and let it go from there. If you are comfortable with the ramifications of your actions, or stats, or alignment, then cool. But if you make a hideous social troll or utter weakling and aren't interested in dealing with the in game problems (represented by encumbrance penalties, stat mods and so on) then you may want to rethink.

Sounds like the OPs GM had some bad experiences and is trying in some way to lay down the law, but in a counter-productive way instead of talking to the group.


Adjule wrote:
Hama wrote:

So, if they make a useless character, but it makes them happy, that's it? And if other PCs die because his characters was useless, that's ok too? Playing a character who "doesn't make all the right choices" is ok. I even encourage it. But not making useless characters.

And, I've noticed among the people I game with that those who make useless characters are always the ones complaining that someone is annoying them by trying to give them advice.

The only useless character I have ever made is my life oracle in my Wrath of the Righteous game I play in over roll20 on fridays. I thought fighting mythic creatures and demon lords and possibly closing the Worldwound permanently would required a healer of some sort. I had no idea how broken mythic is and how wrong I was. Also didn't know how absurd the other players would make their characters. I lost the fun factor back in March, after starting October 2013. We are level 15 and tier 7. A bit too late to try and bring in a different character, and I keep hoping something will happen (not disastrous) to make the game get cancelled.

All of my other characters have not been useless. Just that oracle. The oracle is useless because the other 3 characters can't be hit unless the DM rolls a 20, and slice through the enemies in 1-2 rounds. We took out 2 balors in 3 rounds yesterday.

That is not my idea of fun. The others seem to enjoy it, despite saying how stupid and OP their characters are, but they continue along that path. *shrug* I stay because the DM is a nice guy and I want to finish out the AP. I wouldn't be sad if the game had to end early, though.

That seems to be a large part of how "useless" someone is: what the current game is and what the others are doing. I've noticed that if you have more than a few powergamers in a group, they tend to label those not doing a zillion points of damage or otherwise keeping up with their builds as useless or weak.

It's hard to make a character that cannot contribute in some way; you actually have to work at it. Yes, you can make "broken" characters or those with sub-optimal or so-called trap options that make them less desirable, but they can still contribute in some way (I've seen it. Yes, yes, anecdotal evidence and all that.)

Anyway, to address Hama's point, yes it's ok if they make a useless or sub-optimal character IF -- and only if -- they tell the group "Hey, this character isn't going to be the most combat savvy or optimized, but I think they idea will be fun and I'll be able to contribute in X or Y way." That way people know what to expect and can adjust the combat load accordingly by addressing builds beforehand, hiring NPCS, avoiding certain fights, and so on.

It is, they tell me, about having fun playing. Someone getting everyone killed by surprising the party with "I have 3s in all physical stats and am a pacifist and by the way, all my spells just are for cleaning and making things change colour" is not cool, I agree. But then I'm a strong believer in people talking about this before dice are rolled and points are spent. It saves time and aggravation later.


Adjule wrote:

I am one of "those guys" who gets annoyed when someone tries to tell me what feats, spells, wondrous items, class features, or equipment to take. Nothing annoys me more. It is one of the reasons I dislike playing with powergamers of any type. I don't make terrible characters that drag the others down because I took "trap" or horrible choices. I just usually don't take options just because they give higher numbers.

I was told a barbarian of mine was terrible because I didn't take Beast Totem for rage powers. The one time I did take Beast Totem powers, it made sense for the character. He was a kitsune barbarian, and the beast totem powers made sense. I guess the DM thought I did it for powergame reasons and the game ended after we reached level 2. Might not be the reason, but it felt like it.

If people want to powergame, I say go for it. I just don't want to play with you. I don't find fun in resolving combat in a single round, and even less so on the very first action. Nor do I find it overly fun when someone has a +20 or so to a skill at level 1. But, like I said; if you find fun in pushing your power so high, knock yourself out. I am sure you share my feelings in not wanting to play together. And I am ok with that.

So much all of this. If someone wants to play a certain way and that makes them happy, then so be it. But I'm not interested in being told why the character I made doesn't live up to their standards and how much better it would be if I'd just blah blah blah.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
It's not just you. Lots of people have problems with Pathfinder. Some of us put up with those problems and play anyway, others don't and find some other game that doesn't irritate them. Whichever you choose, I hope you have fun doing so.

This is pretty much the best advice you'll get: find something or some way to have fun.

Much of the problems you seem to be having are not locked to the Pathfinder or 3.* system, but crop up in how GMs and players interact. you don't have to play dungeon crawls or use towns like a selling hub. You say you've run adventures -- I suggest talking with your players and seeing what their interests are and what they want to do and doing that.

As far as instant learning with skills and so forth, there are ways that one can replicate training time if one cares to. It is a point of some discussion here on the boards, with those who prefer not having to spend downtime to do what they believe they've already trained to do while others would like to see more effort spent learning. Again, this is something to talk about with your table and see what they want to do.

Players using OOC knowledge is troublesome but not locked to the system as well. It's pretty easy to get around as well, with something as simple as "I'm sorry, you learned that where?" or "Can I see your sheet?"

If you feel the problem is Pathfinder (and given your comments I don't think it is) then there are a multitude of gaming systems out there. Grab one, learn it, and introduce it to your friends/players. You may have to be the prime GM for a while until everyone is on board, but you may be able to find something more to your liking.

Best wishes.


PM Sent. Thank you so much for this!


I usually play whatever makes sense for the group and the ideas I have. Whether or not it is considered underpowered isn't on my mind when making a character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
I believe, like me, he's saying a forum isn't really the best tool for handling a question/answer format. Currently it's far more "rules discussion and arguments" than "rules questions and answers". A typical player coming here for an answer and searching the forum is unlikely to want to trawl through X00 pages of conversation just to find out how a rule works.

I do think there are plenty of rules questions threads which can be (and often are) resolved clearly and neatly.

Of course they don't tend to stay constantly on top of the forum because there's nobody who keeps posting in them afterwards.

It's not about keeping those threads at the top of the forum - more about keeping the two or three posts out of the hundred or so in each thread that actually answer the question on the first page of the thread, so anyone coming in later can read the actual answers without having to read pages of conversation to find them.

Maybe a way to move questions marked ANSWERED into a subthread to find them easier and general neatness? That way people don't have to do some huge search, they can go right to the subthread and see what is there.


shallowsoul wrote:
knightnday wrote:
If you start off a thread with "100 ways you suck at playing a paladin complete with pictures" you are going to get negative responses.

You won't ever find a thread I started that is anywhere near this.

Why are you exaggerating the issue?

Well, I was exaggerating for comic effect to help lighten the mood. In all honesty, it is hard for people sometimes to see what they are posting and how it can be seen by their audience. There have been posters on this thread who have made their own threads with titles and opening posts that are the equivalent of throwing red meat to the howling masses looking for an argument.

If you aren't looking for that sort of discourse it is important to find the right balance. If people are coming in and right off the bat saying that a thread should be locked or that it is troll bait, that is a perception that they have -- right or wrong. If you are getting more negative responses than positive, then I suggest that you may want to revisit how you are saying things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

What's holding me prisoner is the fact that I can't come in and have a discussion unless it's under their terms. Like I almost have to have permission to discuss a particular topic. I respond to those posters because in all honesty, nothing gets done flagging them.

My hands aren't clean but I don't go around looking trouble. Some people really don't need to take it upon themselves to decide that a post or a thread is somehow "trolling" when it clearly isn't. It's just a tactic to get the post removed or the thread locked.

But you don't have to respond. Try ignoring the people that are trying to get your goat or otherwise derail things in your opinion. Stick with the topic and do not allow others to dictate the flow of the conversation. If your motives are pure and you aren't retaliating, you are less likely to have posts removed.

Don't copy or quote other posts with derogatory language, because your post is going to get removed when/if theirs does. Yes people use these tactics to close threads and get reactions and they use it because it is working with you!

I'd also recommend working on less provocative thread titles and the general outlay of the question. If you start off a thread with "100 ways you suck at playing a paladin complete with pictures" you are going to get negative responses.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Yes, and there's a couple of posters pulling the old trick of when the debate isn;t going the way they want it to, they start asking for a thread lock and insulting other posters- which means that post gets flagged, which does sometimes end in a thread lock. It's a nasty, cheap trick.

The mods are just so busy I don't think they catch it.

This this this this!

I'm growing tired of a select few posters who act like they are the self proclaimed Paizo forum police and go out of their way to get threads locked just because they either don't like the topic, or they are losing their argument. They are dictating when a thread is to remain open or closed. I will not continue to be held prisoner by these people.

Nobody is forcing you to click on the thread and read it, nor is anyone forcing you to make a comment, especially those comments informing you that you are trolling and they will be flagging it. It's like these people think they are of so much importance that the whole board needs to hear them speak.

By the same token, it is this sort of melodrama that keeps things in a state of turmoil. No one is holding you prisoner. No one is forcing you to respond to the other posters and exacerbate the situation, nor to post things that are provocative.

It goes both ways. You cannot say they are being meanieheads when your hands are not clean either. And that goes for anyone and everyone in these threads. Over half the posts are accusing someone of being a troll or not knowing what they are talking about or debating if they are being offended or needling the other to get them in trouble. It's like driving with kids who poke at each other until someone gets smacked or the car gets pulled over.


Matt Thomason wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:

In regards to the Rules forum, it should either be eliminated, or changed to one question and one answer only per thread.

.....

If the rule gets enough FAQs to require a staff response, the OP and the answer to the OP are created as a thread in the Rules forum. This would provide a forum of all staff-responded FAQs.

Um, what you just described as your ideal Rules forum is actually exactly what the existing collection of official FAQs already is. Are you wanting a second one, or were you perhaps unaware of the existing FAQ? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I believe, like me, he's saying a forum isn't really the best tool for handling a question/answer format. Currently it's far more "rules discussion and arguments" than "rules questions and answers". A typical player coming here for an answer and searching the forum is unlikely to want to trawl through X00 pages of conversation just to find out how a rule works.

Being able to automatically filter out the chatter and see what the suggested answers are (and they can only ever really be suggestions, unless made by Paizo staff, because half the time the player base can't agree on a single answer) would be a huge benefit. It may also have a beneficial side-effect of cutting down on the hostility in said arguments if it focused on providing answers rather than shooting other people's answers down.

^^^^^^ This.

What I'd love is a thread that allows you to ask questions, ala the way we do with James, and have it be about rules. Or multiple threads. Not for people to debate their views on the rules but for someone on staff to definitively answer. Instead, what we have is someone asks a question and it turns into page after page of less than useful information and hedge cases.

It wouldn't even have to be a lot at first. A question a day, or every other day, or a week. Actual useful information instead of pages of arguing over what someone believes is the correct answer and how dumb they are for even suggesting that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Because the Paladin is a cool class with nice mechanics which is overly restricted by alignment restrictions.

(Also, Anti-paladin code screws them out of ever being a reliable party member)

So basically you just want access to cool mechanics without the restrictions?

This is an RPG BTW.

And? The mechanics of the Paladin are interesting and sometimes people want to play a Paladin-esque character, but wants to play as say... a harbinger of Law and the absolution of law. The Warpriest, the cleric, and the Inquisitor can mimic it to some extent but lacks things like Smite that really bring the flavor to the forefront. Say, as an LN "Paladin" you would have Smite Chaos, and you would basically be flavored as smiting down chaos with the absolute power of law.

Oh BTW, this is a RPG...i.e. YOU PLAY ROLES... WHATEVER ROLE YOU WANT...

In a homebrew game you can play what ever you want, but this isn't the homebrew section. We are discussing the default of the game which cannot be ignored in these conversations. Can you play any way you want? Sure you can, but the game is set up with a specific default flavour and that flavour has carried on for over 30 years now.

Dismissing the lawful good alignment with the paladin is dismissing the paladin itself. If you remove the restriction you no longer have a paladin, you have something else.

Not really, no. If you changed the alignment requirement to Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral, you'd still have a paladin -- just with different hoops to jump through.

There is nothing intrinsic to the Lawful Good alignment for the paladin anymore than there was to require them to have a 17 Charisma back in the day. It was a prerequisite, the early stages of what we now have for prestige classes. The early bard class had even more hoops to jump through.

The paladin is God's hammer -- in this case Lawful Good God. It isn't a requirement to be LG, and I'm not utterly convinced that LG is the bestest good, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. The paladin existed to give the players something to strive for, some extra zing above the fighter in the old days. You got the scores? Sweet, have this assortment of abilities and go kill some demons my child.

As the years went on, that idea was left behind and they have become just another class instead of, as some have said, a prestige class or even nine prestige classes. If I were to house rule it -- and I have -- each god would have their own flavor of "paladin" for their specific religion with specific codes and requirements and flavor.

So IMO people are not trying to get rid of the alignment restriction as much as drag the class into more modern times and ways of telling stories and playing. Being Lawful Good isn't a requirement to be a paladin, it is a vestigial fragment left over from The Good Old Days.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:

While I think there's certainly room for feedback/debate over the usage of the Rules Forum, I'm leaning towards agreeing that this thread is not the place for it. This should be about the amount of hostility in general on the forums.

While the two may be related in some cases, addressing the hostility issue feels like it ought to be the priority here - the problem certainly isn't with how the forums are being used, the problem is hostility, or attempts to provoke it. Anything posted with a modicum of politeness and respect ought to be absolutely fine. I really don't see why expecting people to tone down the type of response Rynjin has illustrated above to "That isn't the way I read it. However as I'm not prepared to explain why, you should feel free to go with your own interpretation." (or indeed, not making such a thoroughly useless post in the first place) is too much to ask of a society that supposedly has realized for a while that clubbing one another over the head isn't acceptable.

Exactly. The snarkiness, the "fixed that for you" commentary and general irritation that someone would dare to post something different or dissenting doesn't help anyone out, it just makes the place seem petty and vindictive.

This is not just the Rules Forums, but everything from how sexuality should be viewed in the game to whether or not you are doing a Paladin's code right. And the sad part is that this is all opinion. No one has the One True Way and I would hope that people can discuss things without having to be rude for no real reason.

If you don't agree or don't agree and cannot be cordial about it, try not to post. No one is forcing anyone to do so -- believe me, I post far less often than I could. If you cannot be nice or at least reasonably polite, maybe you are better off taking a walk until you can be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thing is, it isn't just the Rules forum that this is going on in, although it is pretty bad there. A number of other threads all across the boards are just uncomfortable to even read, let alone talk in.

I echo some comments from above where it is better to just not ask questions or enter into the debates. I've erased a number of entries because it is just too depressing to get involved in the commentary or have a simple question turn into a thousand posts of "This is why you suck for even asking the question."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An idea came to me as I was flagging a post. It would be nice to indicate why or what you are flagging for outside of the pull down menu. What insult, what derogatory term, etc. There have been times where I think whatever the flaggable offense was got lost in the mix or the mod might not be sure what you are going on about. Being able to highlight the problem or an entry field on the drop down might help.


captain yesterday wrote:
Adam Daigle wrote:
As we're rolling into the weekend, I'd like to ask folks to be cool to each other. I'd hate to see the noise drown out the signal. Let's have a conversation rather than an argument.
I'm a' guessin' they didn't pay attention to this:)

My apologies. In deference to the mods I changed a great deal of the language and ramped back on as much of the aggression as I could. Some things need to be brought into the light, however.


thejeff wrote:

I'm saying that I'm also a Straight White Male and I don't see this bile and general hostility I keep hearing about. There certainly wasn't any in the sequence of posts you were responding too. I do see a lot of whinging about how the poor SWMs are always persecuted. Sometimes I get fed up with it and it overflows.

Dunno, we may read different threads. I've seen the same general theme on at least half a dozen threads now and am fed up as well.

In the end, my stance is that if we all want respect and all that jazz, then we all get it, you know?

I don't care about the art or the lover interests in the adventures or how many of which are depicted. More than half the time I'd editing things for my groups, so I don't think it will cut down on my work load. And if more of the art is of half naked men instead of women, then yay? People get what they want and the arguing goes down. A win-win.


thejeff wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Kerney wrote:

The first post is the perspective of a 40 someone (not me btw, but who is of my generation and could have been me) who looks at Paizo and sees how far the hobby has come from 'back in the day' and genuinely feels like others are demanding a change in the game and are being infringed on by the demands of the the OP to get a product they like and enjoy and feel justified (just as much as you do) in saying 'enough'.

You are not an interloper. But remember that these people are not interlopers either and both sides of this debate should keep this in mind, and try to see that the other's POV is genuine and heartfelt.

They may even be wrong. But just telling them how wrong they are will likely only harden their position.

Take Care,

Kerney

Right. Or to put it another way, in this and other threads it has been inferred and even outright said that straight white men are evil, that they've had their way for too long and have hurt X group. Which, sure, you can feel that way -- but understand that is a gross generality and there are a lot of us that might be SWM that didn't do whatever bad thing to you and yours, that have actively worked to prevent such and try pretty hard to get things changed. And to be continually slapped and minimized and told to go stand in the corner is hurtful, gets old, and leads to resentment.

Or another way: you don't like it when your particular ethnic persuasion or sexual persuasion or lifestyle choice or whatever is picked on. But it's totally ok if it is a SWM?

Oh the poor SWM. The most abused and persecuted creature in the universe. Slavery, centuries of institutionalized rape and misogyny, it all pales in comparison to being told that your race and gender might have caused problems for the rest of the world.

Speaking as another straight white male: Get over it. It's not about you. You don't get be center stage in everything. It's not even about you being the bad guy. It's about the rest of the world wanting a piece of...

Don't think I asked for the control room or for it to be about me or the sarcasm. What I believe I said was that if you want people to see your side, attacking them is seldom a way to go about it.

Second, as I said, the slavery, rape and so on wasn't me. I didn't do it and don't really want to be the target for someone's ire over it.

Third, I've said at least once if not more that I think the art and situations could be improved in the material, and barring that, a group and GM should modify the material in their best interests or even for Paizo to put up extra material on the site for multiple situations. Given that Facebook had what, 50 different gender options, might be daunting to do for each adventure so having the player side have to do some of the lifting might be better.

Lastly, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, you don't get to tell me that I don't get to be upset over the way these conversations go anymore than I get to tell someone who is black to get over slavery, or a woman to get over gender inequality or so on. If I put forth 10 percent of the bile and general hostility towards another race/gender/etc on these boards that I see towards straight white males, they'd ask me to leave. I accept being a target, but I don't accept the hypocritical BS that comes with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerney wrote:

The first post is the perspective of a 40 someone (not me btw, but who is of my generation and could have been me) who looks at Paizo and sees how far the hobby has come from 'back in the day' and genuinely feels like others are demanding a change in the game and are being infringed on by the demands of the the OP to get a product they like and enjoy and feel justified (just as much as you do) in saying 'enough'.

You are not an interloper. But remember that these people are not interlopers either and both sides of this debate should keep this in mind, and try to see that the other's POV is genuine and heartfelt.

They may even be wrong. But just telling them how wrong they are will likely only harden their position.

Take Care,

Kerney

Right. Or to put it another way, in this and other threads it has been inferred and even outright said that straight white men are evil, that they've had their way for too long and have hurt X group. Which, sure, you can feel that way -- but understand that is a gross generality and there are a lot of us that might be SWM that didn't do whatever bad thing to you and yours, that have actively worked to prevent such and try pretty hard to get things changed. And to be continually slapped and minimized and told to go stand in the corner is hurtful, gets old, and leads to resentment.

Or another way: you don't like it when your particular ethnic persuasion or sexual persuasion or lifestyle choice or whatever is picked on. But it's totally ok if it is a SWM?


pres man wrote:

Yeah, if there was a game company that characterized all darker skinned humans as brutish, sexually aggressive, criminal, etc. Nothing inappropriate with that, I mean any GM can change it if they and/or their group are not comfortable with it after all.

This message is approved by the Rule Zero Fallacy Alliance.

Inappropriate? Perhaps. A problem? Nope. We saw multiple upon multiple pages in various race and world building and "why you are a bad GM" threads about how you can ignore the text and drow don't have to be evil, monstrous humanoids don't have to be brutish and so on. I am amused and confused how that is totally fine in those threads but not here.

The dislike of the art isn't a problem. It's a dislike. The dislike of the sex of the eyecandy is a dislike. Flirting NPCs. Dislike. These are not problems, they are things we'd like to see changed but aren't -- or hopefully shouldn't be -- the sort of thing that is killing your desire to play a game. These elements are changeable with minimal effort.

The Rules Zero Fallacy Alliance bit? Isn't this the sort of thing that we're asking people not to do on the thread regarding needling and starting problems just to start problems?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TanithT wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Isn't the term 'hyper-sexualized" a bit of, to put it pun-ly, hyper-bole?

Sure they're somewhat sexualized (perhaps a bit too much) but I'd hardly quantify it as hypersexualized.

No. It's hypersexualized.

Have you ever seen a male character posed in an anatomically improbable manner just so that his sexyparts were all showing at the same time? It's unfortunately the default norm for female depictions in fantasy art and comics, and boy is it ever dumb. And annoying, if you don't happen to be of the orientation to be even remotely interested in the parts they are showing.

What do you call it when fanservice gets in the way of realistic depictions and storylines? Other than seriously annoying to everyone who isn't actually being served.

As a dreaded straight white male, I have to say that the "fan service" isn't serving me either. Overly sexualized art or images have been around my entire like -- I'm 46 now -- and they are back ground noise. Whether comics or RPGs or selling beer or chips or whatever, it has so ubiquitous in every form of media that my eyes just slide over it.

That said, this sort of art doesn't get in the way of the storylines for me, any more than having some beefcake poses are going to. I like art, don't get me wrong -- I think many of the pieces of art are beautiful and would love to have them as prints if I were rich -- but they are not what I am buying the books for primarily, and they do not decide, for me, if I'll continue purchasing.

As an aside, a vast number of my players past and present are female. They buy RPGs, they buy fantasy/sci fi books, comics, and even romance novels with this fan service art. The majority of them are .. well, not OK with it, but tolerant at least. According to one, that's the price of admission to get the product. They are not particularly any more interested in having male images of the same vein strewn all over the material either and would have just the same embarrassment issues with it as having half-naked girls on it. Take that as you will.


Jamie Charlan wrote:

You're misunderstanding the fallacy a little.

The idea is not that a GM should never change things, but rather, the fallacy addresses blind defenders of rulesets. Basically:

-Rule has balancing issues and/or does not work
-Someone suggests a houserule/fix/modification
-There was never a problem in the first place because you can modify the rules

The third part is the problem there. And a common one at that, including upon these very forums. Numerous classes/abilities/rules are pretty cruddy, or somewhat overpowered. Some folks claim that because you can just fix it, the RAW was never broken in the first place.

This is the logical equivalent of getting hit while stopped at a red light, needing a new transmission, and (the other person's) insurance refuses to cover it since if you just change the transmission it will was never has been damaged in the first place and thus they owe you nothing!

Oh no, I understand it. I just don't buy into it (see below). And while I am not much for blind defense, I am less for saying that if you can fix it that doesn't fix it. If the rules are borked and you fix it for your game, then it isn't a problem for your game.

Of course, broken is a matter of perception. There are people that will claim any number of things are broken, overpowered, underpowered, and so on.

As for the fallacy and the others that crop up on message boards, more often than not they are used to shut down conversation and dissenting opinion and translate in my mind as "you aren't coloring in the lines of the debate that I like, so your opinion doesn't matter anymore because of my kewl fallacy." Doing that is just as useless IMO as blind defenders. In another thread I mentioned that if you drank everytime someone blindly parroted "Stormwind" you'd die by page 3 of the thread. It stops being a useful point in a debate and starts being a meme that people throw out because they want to shut down the conversation.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

Anybody else ever heard about The Oberoni (or Rule Zero) Fallacy?

Basically it says if someone says a rule is not broken because the GM can always use Rule 0 to fix it, then they are committing the false. If you HAVE to change the rule to make it work, then that proves it is broken, otherwise you wouldn't HAVE to fix it.

I'm seeing a very similar thought process going on in some posts here.

"A GM should use internet pictures and change the written and developed game material (which they probably purchased specifically to avoid having to do all the writing and developing themselves). See there isn't any issue here. There is nothing wrong with the content at all. All you need to do is fix it."

I believe that fallacy got brought up on another thread. It is one that bothers me, as it basically is a way to shut down other people's opinions of what the GM could do to fix, change, or adjust things to remove a perceived problem. Keep in mind on this it isn't broken -- the APs function quite well if you don't have your particular flavor of playmate or eye candy in them. For a large number of groups, that is a secondary, tertiary, or lower priority/goal/thing that they are interested in.

And this is very much something that the GM should be doing anyway -- or maybe it is just me? Does no one else adjust adventures for their gaming groups? Sure, there are problems and it would be nice if the Powers That Be had space to cover every contingency and preference that might crop up in your group.

You aren't being asked to do all the writing or developing. You are adjusting things for your groups sensibilities, likes and dislikes, and so on. It doesn't seem likely that a product designed for mass distribution is going to be able to cover all the angles. That is just not something that is going to happen. They have to walk a fine line that keeps it approachable or interesting for a wide market while simultaneously not offending or ostracizing others.

It isn't easy and it has come a pretty far way for Paizo. They seem interested in addressing the problems and adjusting to the changing market. Until that happy day happens, however, GMs and players will have to do their part to customize the product for their individual needs.


Komoda wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Komoda wrote:
I think that the idea that you can make the internet a nicer place is just naive.
I disagree with this. We're not looking to make "the internet" a nicer place. We're looking to not have this section of the internet continue to behave in a manner that is unfriendly, unhelpful, and generally antagonistic. Just because other sites allow people to do whatever doesn't mean that Paizo should throw their hands up.

Is that really the only part of my post that you got?

But many are spouting just that. Many of the posts that I was responding to were not about removing/reprimanding blatant jerks, but about wording and inflection.

An example I have seen many times is BlackBloodTroll - without speaking for him, I have seen quite a few times where his posts have been read as rude and baiting whereas he was just making a point without going into an APA style report to ensure proper etiquette.

Just 30 seconds ago I saw a post from Jiggy stating that a person should not say something to the effect of, "Paizo doesn't think monks should be able to enhance unarmed strike without the Amulet of Mighty Fists" and should say something to the effect of, "There is no way to enhance unarmed strike without the Amulet of Mighty Fists."

That is what I meant by trying to make the internet nicer. The original poster didn't say anything mean, condescending or even slightly untrue.

Sorry, that was just the part that stuck out that I responded to. I got the rest of it, just wanted to address that line.

Your explanation makes sense and expands on how hard it can be to moderate or even flag posts -- what offends you or I may not be the same for them, or for a mod. What I believe is jerk-like behavior might not fit the parameters the mods use.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Hey guys, I'd rather we stuck to coming up with ideas to improve the situation, rather than turning this into a heated debate. There are some really good suggestions and valid points made here so far, though I haven't been able to respond directly to some just yet. I can say that: we're likely not going to have additional mods to handle spam (especially since we now have a new tool to deal with them), we're not super keen on editing posts as a method of moderation (we feel like it's counter intuitive to positive interactions within the community and we'd rather not alter the words that other people have said), and we have no plans for an ignore feature. I agree that we could be more transparent in some areas.

Can you whap people with a frying pan then? Three pages of "Nuh uh you smell bad and are stupid" "Nu uh YOU smell and are stupid AND don't know the rules!" is silly. That goes beyond flagging each post, that's 2-10 people behaving badly. Removing their posts, as others have mentioned, doesn't stop the problem. Most know that they are going to have the post removed and are getting their hits in before they get pulled.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:
I think that the idea that you can make the internet a nicer place is just naive.

I disagree with this. We're not looking to make "the internet" a nicer place. We're looking to not have this section of the internet continue to behave in a manner that is unfriendly, unhelpful, and generally antagonistic. Just because other sites allow people to do whatever doesn't mean that Paizo should throw their hands up.

As Cheapy has mentioned, there are some usual suspects that are going to turn up. Perhaps there should be a limit to the number of times you have posts removed before you are asked to get out of the proverbial pool and sit on the side for a while until you can behave.

This isn't a case of a few new people wandering in and causing a ruckus. This is people that have been here a while and know how to behave, but gosh darnit that other guy said something that is wrong so I just HAVE to call them names and berate them over and over.

Posters following each other to other threads and attacking/needling/generally harassing each other should stop, and that's the lion's share of the issues IMO. You don't like Bob and think Bob is a troll and don't like the threads he makes? Stay out of them. Wow. Hard.


Something I suggested for another topic which escapes me at the moment: would it be possible to have something like bonus material (like the Bonus Bestiary, for example) with multiple romantic/non-romantic interests in it.

That way the AP/module can concentrate on the main NPCs and story line while the downloadable extra content can shore up the other avenues that the players might want to enjoy. Could even use this content like DVD extras with material that didn't make it into the AP but is still interesting. No art needed for this, which solves or at least avoids a problem and allows for social interactions, story hooks and so on for those that are interested or want more variety, and those that don't aren't obligated to download.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:
Ah. By self-policing I meant that the poster self-moderates or self-censors before they hit the post button.

Which would be great. That said, there are posters that have said they are just speaking in a blunt manner and will not change, or that honestly don't see anything wrong with how they are presenting themselves. There are others that I believe are doing it to provoke a reaction from the other side(s).

Whatever the reason, I'm not confident that several are willing to change -- it is more about "winning" the argument or being seen as the smartest in the room rather than being polite or constructive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I should hasten to point out, for the benefit of people like me who just look at the little pictures to see who's talking, that I am NOT the OP. He's a new person who swiped my avatar just to start this thread.
Since you brought it up, gotta say I read well over half the thread before I realized this.

Yeah, I was half asleep and had to go back, wondering "Kirth sure seems different today for some reason..."


We had a young lady that played a cleric of the god of chance and chaos, luck, that sort of thing. She was a nice girl but was only playing to be sociable. Stats were rolled and she didn't do well, refused multiple offers to reroll, placed them in a haphazard pattern and we started.

The character was horribly ineffective in most situations due to the scores, the lack of effort by the player, and her "cute" ideas of interviewing trees and talking to doorknobs in the middle of combat. Expended a lot of spells trying to cure dead people, wandering around with Sanctuary and whispering nonsense to other PCs in fights, etc etc.

Her boyfriend was first in line to ask her to stop playing by the end of the night.


I totally agree with this and in fact posted a similar plea just the other day on this board. It is to the point that there are more posts that need to be flagged than actual content on the threads. It's unpleasant, unproductive, and really makes it difficult to want to deal with the boards.

I'd go as far as to say I'd like to see a function that flags a user, or barring that, if the mods have to remove more than X of your posts you are warned or barred for a time period. If people cannot behave and act civilized, they don't get to post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
xeose4 wrote:

Here's an analogy for you:

There is a picnic. The people hosting the picnic serve a great, amazing, absolutely delightful 4-course meal that satisfies everyone. Then they give Team A pie. It's a nice pie, and as someone who can participate in Team A alongside Team B, I can tell that it is a nice pie and appreciate it a lot.

Team B does not get pie. They don't get any pie at all. They keep coming though, and it's nice. Eventually, someone on Team B is like "You know, I'd like some pie too! Sure we get stuff that sometimes looks like pie, but we really don't get pie!"

They're told "Sorry, but a couple people from Team A don't like to see people from Team B eating pie. They might get offended if we offered you pie."

This leaves people from Team B feeling left out. They don't understand why an unfair system is perpetuated like that. "Well, could you maybe stop serving pie? And just serve another course altogether?" they ask, but that question goes unanswered.

Well, if we have to use pie in our analogy, I'd be more likely to say that our hosts are providing pie for the picnic. By far apple is the favorite so there are all sorts of apple pies provided -- dutch apple, lattice top, etc etc. There is a small amount of cherry, chocolate, boysenberry and so forth, but not on the level of apple.

There isn't a lot provided of the other choices. It'd be nice if, as the market and tastes change, that the other selections are increased in quantity. There is still a huge demand for apple, however, and when you say pie people are naturally thinking apple so you'll always have a lot of it. Probably more than fifty percent, because people cannot get enough apple pie and it draws the crowds.

And I think that about burns up the pie analogy. It'd good to tell the company what you'd like. But it is also good to know why you are getting what you are getting.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:

xeose4, may I ask you first of all what all this have to do with white people?

Quote:
certain races are designed purely for the benefit of straight, white, male gamers
Quote:
What purpose does their attractive-to-straight-white-males beauty/body type serve?
I don't see how any of this would not be equally attractive to straight males of any other ethnicity. To me that former sentence immediately set off my alarm bells, and I went into reading this as just another "social justice warrior"-tirade about how straight white men are so privileged and push their sexist and racist ideals on everyone. And as a straight white male myself I have to say I feel immediately antagonized.

+1

Frankly, every time I see the "straight white male" I tend to have my eyes glaze over and ignore the posts. There are a lot of good ideas in the OP's posts, mind you. I could just use less about how straight white males have ruined the world, the rogue, and made fighter's sub-optimal. Also, the whole "this perpetrates the same dumb..." A rule of thumb I've found that works over the years is that calling someone else's ideas dumb tends to cause problems in conversation.

Anyway, as far as love interests or romantic subplots in APS go ... doesn't anyone else modifier material for their individual games? I mean, one of my groups is filled with mostly females -- with straight, lesbian and bi sharing a fairly equal percentage -- and I alter things more for their likes and dislikes than what might be in the adventure. The written word is the starting point for us, not the end.

So yeah, have more eye candy for everyone, that's fine.

The rest .. eh. We've had conversations that there are a vocal group that would love to see less romantic subplots taking away from killing and looting, and a lot of people that want to see more straight/bi/lesbian/trans*/asexual relationships, I'm foreseeing a long argument about how there aren't enough platonic friendships or something going on. An exaggeration, perhaps, but not by much. Some of the lifting is going to have to be on the side of the GMs and players IMO rather than expecting the design teams and writers to include every perceivable variation on relationships.


With luck, adventurers that don't prepare take the hard lessons to heart and learn. That is part of experience outside of those shiny class skills and abilities. We all had to learn tactics and strategy from somewhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:

Every fighter who puts his highest stat in a physical attribute is optimizing. Every wizard who has a high intelligence is optimizing. Heck, everyone who plays something that isn't either a commoner or a randomly determined character is optimizing.

There is nothing wrong with optimizing.

Or to paraphrase the old joke/statement: "We have established what you are, gamer. We are now merely haggling over the term."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to request a way to flag an individual rather than each post. While it's the Internet and people are likely to use sarcasm and the like as a blunt tool, having a half dozen to dozen threads with the same people yelling at the same people is getting old and interfering with the tranquility and harmony of this site. Plus it makes reading things a real pain.

I'm not certain that there is a real solution to this, or that it is feasible to add this sort of function, but there needs to be something done. It's starting to look like a kindergarten class high on pixie sticks in here.

Thank you for considering this.


While all this is really, really, REALLY interesting guys, is it solving anything? Cause mostly it looks like screaming back and forth and a lot of flagged posts. Is there something one or the other of you is going to say that is going to somehow change someone's mind or are you in it just to harass the other guy? I'm seeing the same thing on half a dozen posts and it is getting old.


shallowsoul wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The problem is you have to swing into the right square. Otherwise you're just randomly choosing a square to swing into. That's a 1/8 chance IF you know the enemy is within 5 feet of you.

Nope.

If you are flying and invisible all I have to do is pull out my bow and suffer a 50% miss chance. I don't have to target a square when I am blind.

All I have to do in melee is make sure you are with in range, the player, can see if that's possible and move his mini up to your character and just suffer that 50% miss chance.

......

You may have been fortunate enough to find a GM that lets you do this. From my reading of the rules and game play, this doesn't work. You don't get to hit if you are not even pointed in the right direction.


Very nice indeed.


Inner Heru wrote:
knightnday wrote:

I've yet to have a "why isn't <insert their real world ethnicity> in this city/land/world?" yet. I've perhaps been lucky to not run across players that were looking to be insulted, or that were able to roll with what was provided in the game.

Could you explain that better?

I want to make sure of your meaning because that and the last part of your post are not the same statement.

Sure. I've yet to have a black player or a latino player say "why doesn't this city/land represent black/latino culture the way I see it?" From some of the posts in this thread and others, it seems that there are expectations that a certain skin colour denotes a certain culture.

Perhaps the players I've been with haven't been looking to replicate an Earth-specific place. I get the feeling, and could be wrong, that there are some that are looking for a reason to be insulted that something isn't included. I haven't run across that yet. As for the last part, the players I have had that are inquisitive about race/culture in areas have asked and in many cases helped define areas in better detail. In all cases, however, we weren't looking to replicate Earth with X brown people here that act like so and Y black people here that act like so. That, to myself and my varied players, can border on being just as problematic.


Problem is that many of these threads are roiling pots of hostility seasoned with disdain and a bit of impatience and an awful lot of arrogance. Or, in other words, like most of the Internet. It makes reading the threads a real pain. There have been threads where it'd be easier to mark the ones not breaking board rules or otherwise being impolite. On all sides.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh, these sorts of mock battles are like asking who would win between Batman and X. Did Batman get to prepare? Batman. Did Batman not get to prepare? Probably still Batman, but maybe someone else, if it was a slow week for the writers.

Casters are Batman. Casters in a game where the GM is less strict tend towards BadGod by Morrison. They can be beaten, sure, but you'll need to work for it and exploit weaknesses.

I'm still unclear what this "test" is going to accomplish. Shadowsoul, is there a bar of truth that will convince you of what these people have been saying?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure it is a problem. I've had a number of players with various skin colors at the table and haven't had a problem yet. I've had a few "where are these sort of people at" questions, and "why are these guys purple? What shade of purple? Do they like the lavender people?" questions.

I've yet to have a "why isn't <insert their real world ethnicity> in this city/land/world?" yet. I've perhaps been lucky to not run across players that were looking to be insulted, or that were able to roll with what was provided in the game.

I'm not really worried about some sort of message, myself. My hope is that anyone I'm playing with has been around enough sci-fi/fantasy to understand the hows and whys of game design, or is adult enough to ask me why X world is only populated by stark white people, or why there are no white people on Z world, and what the heck is up with the orange people on Y world.


I'm not sure how this is supposed to work? How are you determining what spells someone has or what they've prepared beforehand and so on?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Artanthos wrote:


Casting Haste on the marital characters is an order of magnitude more effective .

I've found that the marital characters actually aren't as fond of haste as you might think. It's generally better to take it slow.

**EDIT**
On a side note, I wish it were possible to discuss classes by Tier on this forum without people having apoplectic fits. It makes it much easier to organize and discuss comparative merits of classes.

Or even just without the apoplectic fits in general. It would make the discussions a heck of a lot more enjoyable and beneficial to read.


It is usually something I work out ahead of time, being the sort to plan ahead in my games. As several have said, there can be "magic" reasons why you have a skin/eye/hair colour that doesn't fit with the region you are in. As always, I let people know that having glittering silver eyes that glow or floor length golden hair or purple skin will draw attention both good and bad.

That said, on one of my campaign worlds there are no "people of colour" (a term I happen to despise, much like I hate anything regarding the "Blank Word". Hate hate hate. But that's a personal peeve). None. None, nada, nill, ziltch, etc. There are reasons for it that I lay out for the players to explain what is going on, of course, dealing with the suns and so on. Other worlds have had a number of skin colours, several of which do not occur on Earth.

In any case, I'd agree that it is something that will come up and something that a Gm/designer should be prepared to address like anything else, as well as if it affects politics, religion and so on. As I recall, we worked on a back history for drow many many MANY years ago that discussed how they were altered by Lolth in colour to help hide them as well as pay tribute to her and blah blah blah.

It's another facet of world design and can bring interesting elements or just be something that you ignore. Heck, a lot of games ignore handliness, more than the most basic description and so on.


*throws money at screen* Gimme!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My concession to the phone bit is to keep in on vibrate, in my pocket and out of sight. If I should get a call from one of the three people that have my number, it is probably important and I'll check on it in the most polite way possible.

The problem is less about having the phone/device -- even if you need it for work, for children or whatever -- and having to play with the #@%#@^#$@^ thing every second that you aren't rolling dice. I loathe people that don't pay attention whether I am GMing or playing. If I have to prod you multiple times a session because you are Facebooking/Twittering/Texting/playing a game and everyone else seems involved, I tend to believe the fault lies outside of myself -- that is, I seem to be capturing everyone else's attention except the person with the toy. I've asked people who cannot put the toy away to go home before, and I'd do so again. You are a distraction to everyone else and you aren't contributing. You seem to have someone you'd rather do. Go do that and if/when you want to be with us, then come do so.

Back in the day, before cell phones, we had similar problems with people bringing friends/dates to the game and being distracted, or going to play pool while another people was dealing with something or whatever. If you don't want to be at the table or are that easily derailed, I'm not sure tabletop is for you. It seems harsh, perhaps, but I guard my free time and game time jealously and find myself highly irritated that Captain Cellphone cannot put it away and roleplay for a while.


A large number -- way more than half, probably towards two thirds -- of the players in our games have been martials, predominately fighters or rogues. This has held true from 1st edition through Pathfinder.

Some of this has to do with "wizards being too much trouble", a lack of interest in magic in general, interest in other concepts that aren't dependent on spell casting and so on. In fact, I believe that we've had more clerics than straight up wizards, with a goodly dose of them being nature themed. Druids and rangers are also heavily favored as well. Outside of myself, I can count less than a handful of other players (when I get to play) that are interested in full blown arcane casters.

1 to 50 of 691 << 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.