Player 1: I want to scout ahead.
Looks like it is now $13, which is still a relatively good price given you get a predator, alien drone, and alien queen, plus an egg sack and several eggs that could be removed and rebased if someone wished. Heck one heroclix predator is easily going for $14 in most places.
Actually, since a skeleton has a small surface area itself, trying to hit it with something with a small surface area doesn't seem like a good idea. You'd be doing a lot of WHIFFS! especially since skeletons aren't just sitting there immobile waiting for you to windup to swing at them.
And since they don't appear to have any flesh, thus no connective tissue, there is no assumption that if you did manage to cut a bone in half, that it couldn't be, perhaps instantaneously, reconnected.
It would seem, your best bet is to crush the bones to powder, or at least as close as you can get to it. In which case, you shouldn't compare skeletons to wood, but instead to something placed into a mortar and pestle.
pres man wrote:
Well Aintsy Castings isn't carrying the clear plastic INAPs anymore thanks to the kickstarter. Looks like I waited about a week too late to order some. In other news, I picked up the alien homophages and the alien hunters. I'll post some pics once I get a chance to paint them up.
Looking at the tower, I have a few thoughts.
It doesn't look the tower is tall enough to bounce three times, I believe that is how many you'd like to have to get really random.
The dice tray at the bottom doesn't look very big, 2d20 takes up about 1/3 of it from the looks of it. You'll have a problem rolling 10d6 in it.
It does look nice, so even if you ultimately decide to not use it as a dice tower, you could probably still use it for terrain. Maybe a pool next to a wall, it would work for that (I think there was something in Second Darkness that it would have worked for).
Lots of players do not want to deal with sex in their role-playing games (and lots do or don't care one way or another). Sounds like your GM is one of these people. Beyond that, the idea of trying to use a die roll to "make" someone have sex with your character can offend some folks as well.
If a die roll was made, I would probably put it in diplomacy most of the time (instead of some type of profession, now the skill in how well the person performs the acts ...). One thing to keep in mind about diplomacy is it isn't mind control, so someone that really wasn't interested in, still couldn't be convinced to do it. In fact, I would suggest that if they were strongly against it, the better the check the more likely they would be to be uncomfortable around the person in the future (they were strongly tempted and so would try to avoid being around the source of the temptation). So I think it is totally reasonable for a GM to make a call about an individual that the diplomacy check has no chance of passing.
It sounds to me as if your GM may have a problem with Arshea being NG, and thus your attempts at following his/her faith along those lines. I would suggest that promiscuity is not something that usually goes with good. Not because sex itself is "bad", but because irresponsible sex with the potential consequences (pregnancy, disease, etc) is considered bad. Not if a race had a very open lifestyle and could control the negative consequences (I'm thinking of something like the elves in ElfQuest), then it might not be an issue.
Anyway, in conclusion, this is probably something your GM is just not comfortable with. This probably should have been hammered out prior to the character getting introduced into the campaign, so that you'd both have the same expectations.
I'm not sure if I'd say my plan worked perfectly, but it worked better than I had expected.
I had room that was trapped. You entered and the door in and out sealed. Tiles would flip with numbers on them and stones were present. The trick to get out was to put the stones on specific tiles, based on the numbers on the surrounding tiles. If you stepped on a tile that a stone was suppose to go on a fireball went off in the room.
Yeah, it was a game of minesweeper (actually several, it reset with a new pattern if the fireball went off). One player went into the room and got sealed in. It was the monk with insane reflex saves and evasion. And the player was the only one at the table that had never played minesweeper and so didn't catch on how to do it at first. Meanwhile the rest of the table is watching biting the lip and laughing the entire time.
I think we are starting to hear the underlying reason for the difference. Some folks believe it is perfectly okay to tell another player that the character can't be played because they personally don't like the character. Not that it doesn't fit the setting/theme or wouldn't be within character creation guidelines by race/class/level/etc, but merely because they don't like it. Some other folks believe that if you want to hinder another player's character design, you should probably have a better reason than the totally subjective you just don't personally like it reason.
Do people not understand why the CRB gives the DM the final say so?
Arthur: "Rule 0 of the Lake, her arm clad in purest shimmering samite, held the DMG aloft from the bosom of the waters to signify that by Divine Providence....I, Arthur, was to carry the DMG...that is why I am your DM."Player 2: "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing over DMGs...that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the players not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
Arthur: "Be quiet!"
Player 2: "You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a DMG at you."
Arthur: "Shut up!"
Player 2: "I mean, if I went round saying I was a BBEG because some moistened bint had lobbed a Monstrous Manual at me, people would put me away.
Arthur (grabbing him by the collar): "Shut up, will you. Shut up!"
Player 2: "Ah! Now...we see the violence inherent in the d20 system."
Arthur: "Shut up!"
Player 2: "Come and see the violence inherent in the d20 system. Help, help, I'm being repressed."
*Note: This is not my original content*
"We ran a positive campaign. We campaigned on the issues. The issue is leadership. Leadership for the future. Ask not what you can do for your country. The people have spoken. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. Live Free or Die. And in conclusion...read my lips!"
For anyone interested, there is an alien vs. predators boardgame kickstarter going on. I looked at it and it is really tempting, but just too pricey for me.
But it got me thinking about any stand ins for official aliens (xenomorphs) and predators that are out there. I noticed that Reaper has knock off Terminators
But I couldn't really find good stand-ins for either Predators or Aliens (they have a few guys that would make good hydralisks though).
So has anybody seen any that would be a pretty good match?
See my post above yours. Make sure you are correctly quoting me about what "no one is saying".
If anyone says that nobody is saying: "If you are not capable of imagining anything other than an awakened pony sorcerer as a disney character or MLP, then you are limited in your imagination", please feel free to quote me right here as saying that. Because the limitation is in fact your own, and not the concept.
Now if anyone says that nobody is saying, "If someone decides not to allow an awakened pony sorcerer, then they are limited in their imagination", then quoting me as saying such is in error at best and just a blatant attempt at deception at worse.
1. Who the hell cares how they can speak? Do you seriously have commoners running around saying, "Oh that raven can speak because it has a supernatural ability to do so, there for that isn't weird at all. But a pony talking, holy crap! That isn't a supernatural ability thus that is some really weird stuff there!" How many ranks of metagame does your typical person in your campaign world have again?
2. PCs can speak common (typically), because they have the capability to speak. Even if common wasn't a KNOWN language for them, if they have the capability to speak they can learn it. Now common is a known language for the core races because yes they are assumed to be the default character races.
3. Closed minded? Perhaps. You are certainly making an argument for it with your limited ability to imagine anything beyond disney movies and MLP. Yet, I would not use you as example of what other GMs are thinking and capable of, your limitations are your own.
Of course, none of them were purple horses with rainbows ...
Just to be clear, nobody has suggested purple horses with rainbows. Of course if when someone hear the three words, "awakened pony sorcerer" that is the only thing they are capable of imagining, well then that is an issue with them and not the concept.
@pres man - So because Ravens can talk sometimes talking ponies should be ok.
If the claimed issue was that talking animals = disney movie, then talking ponies should be equally as acceptable or unacceptable as talking ravens.
Pony's are medium, so anywhere that a human could fit, they could. As for climbing ropes, well mages haven't ever really been know for their physical abilities. It is little different hauling a pony sorcerer up a rope than human sorcerer. Of course most sorcerers don't eventually worry about ropes, due to something known as ... magic. Now magic has a lot of different uses, it might even be able to handle not having hands, with such things as mage hand, open/close, unseen servant, etc.
Also, let's not forget transmutive magic as well that could turn that pony into something else, that wouldn't have the normal quadruped limitations eventually.
So if the issue is that as a player you wouldn't want to "carry" the unusually shaped character, then address that with the player. It may be that they would be willing to spend their resources (spell choices for example) to make it so you don't have to. Maybe they had already been plan to and your concerns were unnecessary.
Equal question; why do you need to play something that annoys another player, whatever the reason is? When you could just play something else still have fun, and NOT annoy that player?
Do you assume that someone that is playing something you dislike, is doing it solely to annoy you, especially if you haven't actually said that it annoys you?
Follow up, if you do inform them, and they try to find out why it annoys you so they can avoid those issues (is it the whole My Little Pony thing, because I wasn't going to do anything like that, in fact I was not going to get anywhere near any prismatic magic at all). Would you be able to live with them trying their best to not overly annoy you by avoiding those major issues while still trying to stay true with their concept, or would any level of annoyance be too great for you?
As I have pointed out, (a)there are already talking animals in the core rules in the form of a raven familiar and (b)historically the idea of talking animals is a very strong component in "fairy tales" which games like D&D are inspired by, including occurring more frequently than fairies themselves. So while Disney is also inspired by similar sources, suggesting that the ideas originate from Disney would be wrong (not that you made that claim).
So go ahead and ban them, as long as you realize that the inability to imagine a game where there are some animals that talk is anything but a "disney movie" is a feature of yourself and not a feature of the concept. But don't use them as a default "extreme example", because they are not. Anymore than me complaining mushrooms are an "extreme example" of a bad topping for a pizza merely because I don't like them.
So cross-cultural and historical trends are not necessarily complete evidence of biological determination? That if a culture changes it can reveal that these supposed biological dispositions might actual be cultural directives, assuming enough time and cultural change is present? Interesting.
So how long has the US government allowed women to serve in front line combat positions? How long would you expect to see a change in the number of females participating, assuming of course the issue isn't biologically determined? A year? A decade? Several decades?
EDIT: One thing I would not expect is for it to happen before the military actually enacts such an allowance.
I'm not sure the number of people in military forces is a good indication of a specific sex's interest in violence. Society decides who gets to serve in a combat position, historically in the US at least women were not allowed to serve in combat roles. This was not due to physical differences, though those were used to justify it, but instead social prejudice.
Now there are certainly reasons why it is better to have males in positions of danger from a purely survival of the species point of view (one male can father multiple children with multiple females at the same time, while one female can only typically mother one child from one father at any one time, ergo males are less valuable). Also more males are born than females (not a hugely larger number but a measurable difference), so we need less males and we have more than we need anyway, thus from a species standpoint it makes sense to "waste" males on combat.
But that doesn't indicate if females are any less violent than males, just that they are more valuable than males and so should not be squandered in combat. Now at this point, the species is doing just fine (what are we at, 7 billion?) so we can afford to be less protective and allow more women into combat roles.
EDIT: An awakened pony does not have to be portrayed as a character from MLP to have a negative impact on the campaign.
Of course. ANY character can be disruptive. My point has been that the three word description, "awakened pony sorcerer" does not in and of itself describe something that MUST be disruptive. To imply otherwise is a limitation of the person making the implication, not the concept.
Anyway, my point is, if someone can't help but only conceive of an awakened pony as something like this, then most likely they can only think of a talking camel as something like this. And in that case, that is a limitation of the person, not of the concept, because the concept can be much more expansive than either of those two.
You say that as if it was an absolute.
"Camels of the pearl seek out people and places where they can be of service. They are glad to shoulder burdens, but they also insist that those they help help themselves. They often serve noble djinn and some desert giants as steeds and symbols of authority.
They often serve as mounts for such folk, it is not that they only serve as such.
Of course there is an effect, but there is an effect for any character being present. Whether that is an awakened pony sorcerer or a dwarf fighter.
EDIT: So I guess I could reasonably read your comment as equivalent to, "If someone plays a dwarf fighter, ..., it affect the environment being played in and effects immersion." Is that the type of point you were trying to make? I doubt it.
EDIT2: I just found this.
"Whether shape-shifted or merely having the magical ability to speak, the talking creature is perhaps the most common trait of fairy tales. The motif is certainly present in many more tales than fairies."
Matt Thomason wrote:
There are some things that some of us just don't want in a game we have a long-term commitment to.
And I have no problem with that. As long as the person realizes the problem is they don't like the concept, not that the concept in and of itself is unlikable. When I see comments like, "If someone plays an awakened pony sorcerer, ..., it affect the environment being played in and effects immersion." It is like me saying, "If someone puts mushrooms on a pizza, it ruins the pizza." merely because I have a disdain for mushrooms on MY pizza.
But see I don't say things like that because I know that my dislike of mushrooms is a characteristic of myself and not a characteristic of mushrooms. That realization, sadly seems to be missing when it comes to the awakened pony sorcerer for some people. It seems as if they think the concept is inherently silly (which the link to the Camel of the Pearl that I provided gives evidence that such concepts need not be silly) and not merely that they personally can't help but find it silly.
It might, depending on the game being played. But I imagine if a game has (a)the awaken spell, (b)ponies, and (c)sorcerers, then it probably wouldn't ruin the game environment or immersion by default. Now it could if person playing it makes it run around singing about sunshine and rainbows. But an intelligent animal casting spells is not in and of itself a concept that need be disruptive. If the problem is with someone wanting to be a My Little Pony, ok, say that. But don't keep bringing up an awakened pony sorcerer as if that in itself is disruptive.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'll go a step further and say that, if someone hands me a sheet of paper with like 5 choices on it and says "you must pick one of these or you can't play," I'll most likely be choosing not to play. Of course, that person, having read these threads, would not have invited me in the first place, so maybe there is some value in these discussions after all!
Oh. :( With the 25th anniversary of HeroQuest coming on, I thought ..., but the basic game only has 4 characters.
I so want to play in a shallowsoul game now.
"Okay guys, next campaign we are going to make a village of orcs here. Since the GM said we can only do it in game."
"But there are no orcs in the setting and no village in that location."
"Don't worry. We are going to have a male or two character and the rest be female. We will then have at least half the party be sorcerers or wizards. We'll make our way up to 15th-16th level, then settle down and polymorph any object ourselves into orcs and then start reproducing at that location. Orc tribe created. So, that should only take like what? Two or three years out of game to make it happen. Oh, GM, can we use the Book of Erotic Fantasy?"
Josh M. wrote:
I am not a "killer DM." I do not kill PC's "arbitrarily." I simply run the game as written, and whatever happens, happens.
Unless you only play in society games, then as a GM you are choosing what to include and what not to. Even if you are running an AP, the GM still has a lot of leeway on things. Basically, I would hate to see the GM running the game equivalent of a player running a CN rogue who steals from the rest of the party who claims, "I'm just playing my character, it is what he would do."
This brings up another aspect to the issue. If lack of death is harming the immersion of game play, does the lack of permanent death also harm the immersion of game play? Does having access to magic that can bring someone back from the dead effect game play just as much as not having death be part of game play at all?