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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 14,394 posts (15,193 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 14,394 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Orfamay Quest wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:

nurse returning from working with ebola in sierra leone inconvenienced by compulsory quarantine once back in usa

If you think being imprisoned for three weeks for a disease you provably don't have is an "inconvenience,"....
'probably dont have' has a seventy five percent kill rate.

Probably and provably are different words. They tested, and she is virus-free.

That's not exactly true. Unless they've developed something better, the test doesn't go that far. The standard one detects either anitbodies or virus in the blood, I can't remember which, but either way it requires a certain level to detect. You can be infected with the virus still multiplying, but still test negative. Once you're show up with a fever or other symptoms, they do the test to see if it's Ebola causing them, since it'll be detectable at that point.

Which is why they do the whole monitoring thing. If they had a test that worked early, they'd just use that rather than worrying about quarantining and self-monitoring and everything.

She's certainly not contagious now. That's one thing the test does tell us. Funny thing is, she didn't even have a fever. The readings they got were just from her being flushed and angry from locked in a room in the airport for hours with everyone too scared to talk to her. She got to the hospital and the doctors were like "You don't have a fever, why are you here?"


JurgenV wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
LazarX wrote:
If Nigeria, of all places, can contain this, we should manage.
Nigeria is a commonwealth nation with socialized medicine. The usa is still struggling with equality of healthcare.
It is much smaller and easier to manage. Socialism is not the answer every time

I'm not sure an actual socialist health care system is required to deal with Ebola, but some organized government level of intervention is. Especially for those of you calling for quarantines and travel bans.

More generally, a purely free market health care system can't deal with epidemics. Infected people need to be treated and isolated, generally at significant expense, even if they can't pay, in order to keep them from passing the disease on to others.

I think that isolation is the biggest part. It needs to run it's course without another infection and then it is over

And how do you do that without government force or government funded health care? What happens to the people who can't pay?


yellowdingo wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:

nurse returning from working with ebola in sierra leone inconvenienced by compulsory quarantine once back in usa

If you think being imprisoned for three weeks for a disease you provably don't have is an "inconvenience,"....
'probably dont have' has a seventy five percent kill rate.

So far the survival rate for those infected with Ebola in the US is 100%. So far the survival rate for those diagnosed in the US is 66.66%, with one case still in treatment and not counted. The survival rate for all cases treated in the US is 87.5%, again with the same single case still in treatment.

Regardless of the survival rate, the number infected by people who would have been quarantined under any reasonable plan is still 0. We're past the window for anyone to show symptoms from contact with Duncan, who was far sicker when admitted than any of the others, who were self-monitoring and went into isolation on schedule. If Duncan infected no one, the odds of the others doing so are minimal. Which is what the medical science predicted and what the protocols were written for.

So it's really "probably don't have" and with as much certainty as medical science can expect, "can't transmit".


JurgenV wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
LazarX wrote:
If Nigeria, of all places, can contain this, we should manage.
Nigeria is a commonwealth nation with socialized medicine. The usa is still struggling with equality of healthcare.
It is much smaller and easier to manage. Socialism is not the answer every time

I'm not sure an actual socialist health care system is required to deal with Ebola, but some organized government level of intervention is. Especially for those of you calling for quarantines and travel bans.

More generally, a purely free market health care system can't deal with epidemics. Infected people need to be treated and isolated, generally at significant expense, even if they can't pay, in order to keep them from passing the disease on to others.


KSF wrote:
thejeff wrote:
<Fires up an old copy of Alpha Centauri>
<Wishes Firaxis would just release an updated version of Alpha Centauri>

<Wishes I could actually get my hands on one that will run on a current version of Linux.>


deinol wrote:
thejeff wrote:
1) Isn't that essentially what 15 years of 3.x/PF taking power from the GM and pushing it towards the player have already done? Aren't we actually at the start of a wave back in the other direction, with the old school revival and even 5E?

What in the rules for 3.x/PF/4E gave you that impression? If there was any shift in that period, it was in the culture, not the game.

And Old School Revival is about many things. Far more about going back to a simpler, less bloated rule system than the GM/PC relationship.

All the grarr about defined rules vs GM fiat . All the attacks on earlier versions as "Mother May I". "rulings not rules"


TriOmegaZero wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Do people really just get attached to whatever their current character concept is and demand to play it in the next game to come along? Is that what all the fuss is about?
Nope. But when you get your concept shot down by every GM you begin to wonder when you will find a game that allows it.

That seems to be a very different issue than specific campaigns restricting specific concepts.

It would suggest that either you only have access to GMs who all happen to want to run (or at least not run) very similar things or you've come up with something that provokes the same reaction of disgust in very different people.

You could try something a friend of mine regularly did: prepare a couple of really bad (or really wacky) concepts and suggest those first, then bring up the one you really want to play so it'll seem tame by comparison.


TOZ wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Do people really get excited about new character concepts and then go to the table to find out what the setting/campaign is going to be?
Yep. All the time. Excitement doesn't preclude compromise, whether player or GM.

I guess. And I've been guilty of working up character concepts just for the fun of it too. Part of why 3.x/PF is so addictive: the build game is fun in and of itself.

But I don't get attached to playing something in a particular game until I know something about that game. Usually it's the campaign pitch itself that triggers ideas for me and even if I've already got some on the back burner, I'll wind up playing something else.

Do people really just get attached to whatever their current character concept is and demand to play it in the next game to come along? Is that what all the fuss is about?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hama wrote:
Why did the player even make a character concept before consulting the GM and looking up the setting first?
You don't read books and get character ideas without a GM present?

I do, but I don't decide that I'm going to play them in a particular campaign without some idea what that campaigns going to be like.


Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
So, despite a bunch of people posting here about there accommodating GMs. Despite some players, like me, saying they're fine with restrictions. Despite many talking about how they would usually compromise, but on somethings it just won't work. Despite me personally having seen more games collapse due to the GM not enforcing his initial strictures than the reverse.

Yes, despite all those things.

Quote:
You think the solution is 10 years of players getting whatever they want and GM's changing whatever they had in mind to the player's slightest whim?

Not whatever they want. I just want 10 years of the DM bending first. Bending; not breaking. I won't get that, of course, but I think it would be good for the hobby.

Quote:
I don't know. Maybe I'm weird. I never come to a table wedded to a particular character concept, much less a particular build. I'm usually looking to the GMs description of the setting and campaign for clues as to what will fit into the game.

That's not weird, just like coming to the table excited to play a new character concept and then being disappointed when the DM shoots it down over an easily changed setting concern isn't weird.

I think that part of the reason that portions of the gaming community see DMs banning easily-accommodated character concepts as normal is that we've been acclimated over decades to the idea that the DM "deserves" to have his way and that player concerns come second.

1) Isn't that essentially what 15 years of 3.x/PF taking power from the GM and pushing it towards the player have already done? Aren't we actually at the start of a wave back in the other direction, with the old school revival and even 5E?

2) Do people really get excited about new character concepts and then go to the table to find out what the setting/campaign is going to be?
This is completely foreign to me. You really come up with characters completely without GM input or any idea where the campaign's going to be set or what it's going to be like?

Edit: And I fully agree btw that anything that's easily changed or accommodated should be. I suspect though that we have differences in how we define easily, which may partly be due to differences in GM style. From other posts, I suspect you consider "easily" to cover pretty much anything.


Scythia wrote:
KestrelZ wrote:

According to the CDC, 108 pediatric deaths occurred in the USA from 2013-2014 from influenza. This does not count adults that died from it.

I'm not trying to scar people, just trying to shed perspective on matters.

Ebola is a very painful and frightening virus, yet people should not panic and head for the doomsday shelters yet.

We DO need to strengthen efforts to assist Africa in their crisis. We also have to keep perspective in order to live a balanced life rather than survive by huddling in a bomb shelter.

Influenza figures are hard to get, but on average influenza kills around 20k people in the U.S. annually. The highest recorded year was 49k, the lowest around 2600.

As far as Africa, in 2012 malaria killed 500k. Or, looking at worldwide issues, also in 2012 1.6 million people worldwide died of aids/hiv related illness.

So yes, the ebola panic is due more to it being a scary foreign illness that the 24 hour news cycle can hype. If we can get functional medical infrastructure in place in the affected countries, we can stop the spread. Nigeria did it.

Though frankly, Ebola is scary. Those others kill a lot more people right now, but they've been doing that for a long time and they're not going to spike.

Ebola's numbers are low, but it's potentially a fast moving disease with a very short doubling time (on the order of weeks at the moment). Unlike those others, it's still very localized and contained, which is why it's numbers are so low. If that changes and it absolutely will if we don't get on the ball in West Africa, it could easily be a top contender next year. The potential for those numbers to go up is huge.

And the more it spreads within Africa, the harder it will be to contain there. The US and other better off nations will probably do well, but it could easily become established in other poor parts of the world and at that stage it will be very hard to maintain any kind of quarantine.

In other words, stopping it now in West Africa is vital. It would have been much cheaper and easier a few months ago, but it's still doable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Yes, I keep seeing that in these threads. And I keep saying "Both of you should be bending." No one has to give up 100 percent of their ground, but should be meeting in the middle. Or maybe just find better/other people to play with. I've run across maybe a handful of people over the years that just wouldn't alter the game or their character -- a far smaller number than the boards seem to indicate are roaming the lands. Maybe I am special or just darn lucky.

We'll go with that explanation.

The problem with the "everyone should compromise" is that it gives DMs an excuse to say, "You first." We should be past that. DMs bear a responsibility to move this hobby forward. So let's have the DMs start bending first. Think we can do that for the next ten years? Then we can consider revisiting the possibility of both sides bending in unison.

So, despite a bunch of people posting here about there accommodating GMs. Despite some players, like me, saying they're fine with restrictions. Despite many talking about how they would usually compromise, but on somethings it just won't work. Despite me personally having seen more games collapse due to the GM not enforcing his initial strictures than the reverse.

You think the solution is 10 years of players getting whatever they want and GM's changing whatever they had in mind to the player's slightest whim?

I don't know. Maybe I'm weird. I never come to a table wedded to a particular character concept, much less a particular build. I'm usually looking to the GMs description of the setting and campaign for clues as to what will fit into the game.
Whether a GM is banning or allowing various races or classes is so far down on the list of what I'm looking for in a GM, I can't imagine even considering it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad I've had great GMs. In an old campaign I was in, I was going to play a human. The GM said there weren't any in this setting. I said cool. World without the default humans sounds neat. I played a dwarf instead.

It was a great game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
knightnday wrote:
To address the above from Mr. Betts: Everything you said could be reversed to address the player rather than the GM.
Oh we know. We've done it every time it came up. Every GM has said 'no YOU bend'. So we've found the answer to 'when is it our turn' has been a resounding 'NEVER'.

Every GM? Don't you GM?

I'm mostly a player and I'm quite fine with making my characters to fit with the GM's plans. I like quirky campaigns that don't quite fit the generic kitchen sink concept.

I've also seen campaigns implode when the GM doesn't enforce what he'd laid out initially. In at least one case, due to misunderstanding, rather than actual conflict. I've also seen cases where the GM and the player worked a compromise that fit the player's concept and still worked with the GMs.
I've never seen a player rage quit because he couldn't play his first concept. I've never seen a GM lose players because he didn't let them play whatever they liked, though I have seen GMs lose players for other reasons - railroading, boring, etc.


yellowdingo wrote:
infected reaches 10,000

Another sign that what we need to do, instead of freaking out about the handful of cases that reach the US and trying to lock down our borders, is commit massive resources to fighting the epidemic in West Africa.

The Mali situation looks bad. The girl died the day after being found, which almost certainly means she was sick enough to be very contagious. There will be more cases. Potentially a lot of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

<Fires up an old copy of Alpha Centauri>


yellowdingo wrote:
compulsory quarantines for anyone exposed to someone with ebola

Yeah. Overreaction for PR reasons.

Hope it doesn't discourage people from treating Ebola patients. Also hope it doesn't discourage people from reporting contacts.


Muad'Dib wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The story emerges from the characters actions and the antagonist's responses against that backdrop, rather than from the players defining background or even necessarily having it shaped for them specifically.

I think I'm a mix between you and TBone, but I like what you said here.

I start play in an existing realm with some light adventure and observe the players developing their characters. As we play the players and GM plant story seeds and when the characters are around level 3-4 I check to see what story seeds have taken root and have potential to grow into something special.

It's an approach that requires a lot of observation. The campaign has a story and a direction, but the stories and direction are reactionary to the players and not mapped out to far ahead.

thejeff, how does your approach with groups and players you are not that familiar with? I run game with friends I've known for many years and it works partly because I know them all so well. Just curious if you have had experience with players who are more or less strangers.

Not really very similar I think. The main plot is generally set up ahead of time by the GM and hooks are dropped for the players. Or, perhaps more accurately, the main antagonists and what they're planning are set up ahead of time - what will happen without PC interference and how they'll respond to likely PC actions.

Much less sandboxy than your approach sounds. Obviously no plan survives contact with players and things often get adjusted midstream and side stories and sub-plots come and go more like you describe. It's closer to AP-style than a sandbox, but because it doesn't have to be all published ahead of time, the path the players take and even where they end up is much more open.

But the overall plot of the campaign is there from the beginning, even if the players don't know it. It's still a story about the heroes stopping the undead former elven king from deposing his usurper brother. Or possibly helping the undead former elven king depose his usurper brother. Sadly, that game imploded for real life reasons before the final decisions were made. I think the last working plan was to somehow off them both and stick some other poor sap with the job.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think the fear with Ebola right now is different than that from the flu.

Currently in the Western world, flu has a fatality rate of something like .001% vs. ebola which has a higher percentage overall (though in the US for those in the past month it's like .25% currently...still far higher than flu).

In african nations, flu still has a fatality rate lower than 1% from what I know, but as we see, the fatality with ebola is 50% to 70%...which is far deadlier.

People are afraid because there's a MUCH higher chance of dying if you catch ebola, than if you catch the flu.

right now the hospitals are not overrun, so they can spend more time and attention on those who have ebola in the west. You get a couple hundred to a couple thousand cases and care could decrease, meaning the fatality rate would spike higher (possibly to the African levels).

That's what people are afraid of...not that it's spread everywhere yet...but if it is allowed to, the ramifications are regarding a disease which has a FAR higher fatality rate than flu.

If you had as many infected with Ebola in the US as you do the flu each year, you are probably looking at something on the scale of several million, perhaps dozens of millions of people dead.

People are afraid of the worst case scenario, and appearances are that the US isn't doing all that much to prevent the spread of the disease and has not taken as stringent actions as some other nations (including other western nations).

It's no surprise that the US and Spain were some of those with the first cases of Ebola in the West, considering they really have NO sanctions or things to stop Ebola from entering their nation...not even really questionnaires (I hear these policies are changing after public outrage though, New York just instituted mandatory quarantines) or anything other than that given before people leave the nations that have ebola already.

So yes, there are panics over nothing thus far...but there is a reasoning behind it...in that if it DOES spread and...

I agree to an extent and think some of the comparisons made with flu and other things are unwarranted - though flu can be bad too. There's always the chance of a new, bad flu strain, like the one back in 1917. Wouldn't be as bad today, but could still sweep through the country far faster than Ebola could.

Most of the fear of Ebola is ignorance. Yes, it's deadly. Yes, it would be really bad if we had a serious epidemic in the US. But that's not going to happen unless the US healthcare system, bad as it it, crashes to closer to Liberian levels.

As far as how we're handling it here: The Dallas hospital fell down on the job. Badly. Very badly. They sent Duncan home with a 103 fever. That should never have happened. It caused a huge stink and it's much less likely to happen again. They also didn't follow protocol and didn't have trained staff to take care of him, so 2 nurses got sick. That also shouldn't have happened, caused a huge stink and is much less likely to happen again.

OTOH, despite that: Duncan infected no one in the time before he was finally admitted to the hospital. Both nurses were monitored and caught early. Both are apparently now recovered.
The doctor in NY was self-monitoring and was admitted early on. Bellevue's been training and preparing for this. The odds are good they'll be able to handle him without contamination. The chances he's infected anyone else are minimal - he was brought in far earlier than Duncan, so he was much less contagious.

We're now imposing more travel restrictions and monitoring than is really medically needed in hopes of calming people. I suspect it's having the opposite effect, since it makes people think it's really necessary.

Frankly, other than the initial screwup in Dallas, we're handling it just fine. I hope we don't go much farther in overreaction.
Maybe even roll some stuff back once it becomes clear that neither the doctor or the nurses infected anyone else.


BigDTBone wrote:

Why is it that this is either/or? (ie, if the bad fit character is presented either before or after a GM gives the rules) I can't be the only person who approaches a new campaign by giving a vague idea of the type of story I want to run, and then let players come back to me with their preferred race/class choices and some limited backstory. Then I'll build a little more story and a little more detail about the world (using their information as building blocks) and ask them some follow up questions. I get full backstories from them, we determine which PC's know each other ahead of time and how each of their stories got them to the point they are in. Then I completely finish out the details of the area they are in, the NPC's important to each character, and the different factions (ie, cults, guilds, and governments) that are important.

At that point I have a pretty detailed sandbox where the players had major input into the world creation. The large forces in the game move without PC interaction, but how each part is dealt with and how the world grows is entirely up to the players.

There is no way to get blindsided with a "strange" or "ill-fit" character this way. Am I seriously the only one who does this? I thought that is what collective story telling was about...

Collective storytelling is broad. I generally prefer, even as a player, an existing world to fit characters into and some kind of existing threat or problem for them to engage with.

I'm not particularly fond of the sandbox approach.

The story emerges from the characters actions and the antagonist's responses against that backdrop, rather than from the players defining background or even necessarily having it shaped for them specifically.

More practically, as a GM, I'm fairly slow at such things. There's no way I could create a setting and run a game starting with nothing but a vague idea in anything like real time. I need time for things to gel together in my head. Once I've got the basics down and a good feel for the setting and what the NPCs are like and are doing, I can improvise details and reactions fairly well, but if I didn't have more than vague idea before character building started, I'd either have to stall a couple months before actually running or just be floundering.


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

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler'd because or my quantum state of potential sleep deprivation aside, I recognized it for the off topic it is!

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
It's also fairly common for young kids to behave differently, often better, away from their parents. Possibly he's on his best behavior elsewhere which is stressful and thus melts down when he comes home to you where he knows it's safe. Or knows that it's safe to push the boundaries with you while it might not be elsewhere.

It's also possible that they know the medical science on Ebola and know they're not contagious until they're symptomatic, so there's no point in quarantining themselves. And that Ebola doesn't spread by the kind of casual contact we're talking about here and that even when the earliest symptoms show up, they're only a threat if you're dealing with blood or maybe vomit and feces, and they're not yet dealing with vomiting and diarrhea.

Again, Duncan was wrongly sent home from the Dallas hospital with a fever of 103 and spent another 2 days with his family before coming back and being admitted. He was much more symptomatic than this doctor was when he was out. None of his contacts were infected, even those he was living with.

No one is going to come down with Ebola from Dr Spencer's bowling trip or subway rides. No one is going to come down with Ebola from nurse Vimson's flight or shopping. Hopefully, Bellevue is better prepared than Dallas Presby was and none of the staff will be infected. They're off to a better start at least.

The only person I'm at all concerned about would be Dr. Spencer's girlfriend. I believe they're already monitoring her. That's still very unlikely.

Edit: As I understand it, he was following MSF's protocol which requires self-monitoring, but does not suggest quarantine.


I wonder if it's that when the kids of really strict parents do rebel, they're more likely to go all the way? They'll be in big trouble anyway for the small infractions, so why stop there. While the children of looser parents might go part way without worrying too much about consequences, but still know there's big trouble if they go too far.

Obviously some won't rebel and will stay well-behaved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
More importantly, it's a bad sign. It's one player saying "I don't care what you've proposed for the campaign." To which the simple response would be "Why do you want to play in it then?" Maybe the answer is kick that player out. Maybe it's ditch the campaign...

If the players all agreed "no catpeople" in advance, and one guy rolls one up anyway, yeah, he's being a jerk. By all means kick him out.

On the other hand, if one or more players roll up catpeople, why would a DM at that point suddenly choose to insist on a "no-catpeople" campaign, if that's the opposite of what the players wanted? Just to "show them who's boss?" That makes no sense to me. If the DM announces a "no catpeople" campaign AFTER the players have already made catpeople characters, then the DM is being a jerk, and the players should depose him.

It seems like we've had this conversation in at least 16 other threads, though, and it always comes down to people reading that and saying "Doesn't matter what the players want. Me DM. Me decide." Which I guess is fine, if you can still manage to attract and retain players.

Since in the example at hand it was specifically Campaign first, then player objecting, I don't think we really disagree.

In some cases, there will be miscommunication and a player will come up with something the GM hadn't specifically forbidden, but that still screws up the GM's plans - which could be class, race or a more general concept. That's a little harder to handle. It's still usually easier for the players to change than for the GM to rewrite entire chunks of background to accommodate a player's whim. In other cases, it might be an easy change. Everyone should try to be flexible. I just think it's usually easier for a player to come up with a different character concept than for a GM to come up with a different campaign.

Of course, some GMs do campaigns pretty much on the fly anyway, with little planned out ahead of time. This argument applies much less in that case.

You'll might also note that even in the post you quoted I said: " Maybe the answer is kick that player out. Maybe it's ditch the campaign idea and run something more generic. Maybe it's time for someone else to run something. Maybe the campaign idea can be stretched to accommodate."

Of course this post will probably still be read as "Doesn't matter what the players want. Me DM. Me decide."


In worse news, there's a case in Mali now. An orphan girl who came back from Guinea. Hopefully they caught it in time and are on top of it enough to prevent an actual outbreak there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Terquem wrote:

The one I have the biggest problem understanding is why it would be "bad" to restrict some player options because of the setting

DM Bob: Okay, guys and gals, this adventure centers around the party searching out the clues to the mystery of why the world no longer has "Cat-People," okay, so what are you thinking?

Player Steve: I am going to create a Cat-person

DM Bob: Steve I just said the world has no cat-people, it's the whole theme of this adventure

Player Steve: Flips table and kicks chair - damn self righteous old school bastard doesn't understand how the game is supposed to be played

Not to encourage the I'm-The-Uniquest-And-Most-Special mentality of PC creation, but I think you could probably figure out a way to make your game more interesting by having the last remaining cat-person be part of the party searching for the reason the rest disappeared. Don't you think so?

A lot of DMs get it in their heads that their game is going to have a certain few immutable characteristics. That's silly. Each of your players is roughly 20% of the reason you all are gathering to play the game. You can accommodate them - and, at worst, you're merely sacrificing the holy inviolate purity of your personal fantasy world headcanon, which no one except you really cared about anyway.

There's a difference between sacrificing the purity of your headcanon and sacrificing the main plot of the campaign. If the plot of the campaign is about finding out what happened to the catpeople, then depending on what the answer to that is, having a player be the last remaining cat person might or might not work. You might have to throw away the entire backplot of your campaign to make it work.

More importantly, it's a bad sign. It's one player saying "I don't care what you've proposed for the campaign." To which the simple response would be "Why do you want to play in it then?" Maybe the answer is kick that player out. Maybe it's ditch the campaign idea and run something more generic. Maybe it's time for someone else to run something. Maybe the campaign idea can be stretched to accommodate.

Now if the player asked about the possibility and doesn't flip out if told it wouldn't work, then there's no problem.

Even when the only problem is "sacrificing the holy inviolate purity of your personal fantasy world headcanon, which no one except you really cared about anyway", if the GM stops caring about the game, the game dies. So that's kind of important. Obviously it can be taken too far, but so can the idea that all campaigns must be generic kitchen sink games with every possible option available for players.


yellowdingo wrote:
do you still think people working with ebola shouldnt be locked in a glass room for thirty days before being alowed out?

Yes I do.

Get back to me if people actually start getting infected during the time you would have locked them up. Which they won't because Ebola doesn't work like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


Then to this earthen Bowl did I adjourn
My Lip the secret Well of Life to learn:
And Lip to Lip it murmur'd - "While you live
Drink ! - for once dead you never shall return.

How long, how long, in infinite Pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute?
Better be merry with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit.

You know, my Friends, how long since in my House
For a new Marriage I did make Carouse:
Divorced old barren Reason from my Bed,
And took the Daughter of the Vine to Spouse.

And lately, by the Tavern Door agape,
Came stealing through the Dusk an Angel Shape
Bearing a Vessel on his Shoulder; and
He bid me taste of it; and 'twas - the Grape!.

The Grape that can with Logic absolute
The Two-and-Seventy jarring Sects confute:
The subtle Alchemist that in a Trice
Life's leaden Metal into Gold transmute.


Simon Legrande wrote:
thejeff wrote:

If both are actually colluding on a outright goal of stopping entrepreneurs, both together of course. Since most governments are at worst playing both sides there, most of the time that would be corporations, who will naturally want to stop entrepreneurs if left unchecked by some other force. At least competing entrepreneurs.

Remove government, shift all the power to corporations and then we'll be in an entrepreneurial paradise?

I'm not entirely sure I'd consider "barriers to entry for would be entrepreneurs" the only or even the most important measure anyway.

I didn't expect you would, most people don't. That's how we end up where we are. Sure corporations want to stop competition before it even starts, but they can't do that without a government to help them out.

Corporations would become as large an powerful as they are if there was no government to help them get that way? How about banks, they're one of the things safe to hate on these days aren't they?

Meh, I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind here anyway. I know it won't happen.

The idea of there being no government is kind of ridiculous anyway. The first thing that happens when there is no government is that all the people who want to be in charge fight over it until someone wins and he becomes the new government. Small enough groups can get by with informal arrangements, but those don't scale up well.

Technically, you're right. Without government, there wouldn't even be corporations, since corporations are chartered by governments. There would just be powerful people with the ability to impose their will on others. Simply by force or by denial of access to resources.

Some of the older, more socialist anarchist approaches seem to have some validity, though those still have problems with scale. Modern libertarian individualist anarchy is just fantasy.


boring7 wrote:
Eh, kinda. Even the backwoods parts of the world have AK-47s here on Earth, Arms dealers get around because there's always a blood diamond buck to be made. Suspension of disbelief is still possible, but don't dismiss it as unchallenging.

So?

If you don't want AK-47s, just don't have them in your setting. Don't worry about what the rest of the world that you're not going to deal with in your game has because it's never going to come up. Or work it out when it does.

It only becomes a problem if you want to cram all the various possibilities into one setting at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are they optimized or did they just roll well for stats and are now higher level?

Hercules didn't optimize, for example - he got a whole bunch of bonuses from being the son of a God.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:

Once upon a time I was young and idealistic. I voted in every election that came along because I thought it would make a difference. Then I grew up and decided that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil; and let's be honest, that's every election these days. I stopped voting then.

If you think your vote actually means something, good for you. I still think it's funny when I look around the Internet and find people foaming at the mouth about corporations running the country and then wanting more of the government that makes it possible.

And then there's those who think that if we just got rid of government (or at least shrunk it small enough) somehow the corporate power would go away.
I'm sure there are, just don't count me amongst their numbers. Power doesn't disappear, the way it's used changes. Who do you think creates more barriers to entry for would be entrepreneurs: Corporations, Government, or both colluding?

If both are actually colluding on a outright goal of stopping entrepreneurs, both together of course. Since most governments are at worst playing both sides there, most of the time that would be corporations, who will naturally want to stop entrepreneurs if left unchecked by some other force. At least competing entrepreneurs.

Remove government, shift all the power to corporations and then we'll be in an entrepreneurial paradise?

I'm not entirely sure I'd consider "barriers to entry for would be entrepreneurs" the only or even the most important measure anyway.


Simon Legrande wrote:

Once upon a time I was young and idealistic. I voted in every election that came along because I thought it would make a difference. Then I grew up and decided that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil; and let's be honest, that's every election these days. I stopped voting then.

If you think your vote actually means something, good for you. I still think it's funny when I look around the Internet and find people foaming at the mouth about corporations running the country and then wanting more of the government that makes it possible.

And then there's those who think that if we just got rid of government (or at least shrunk it small enough) somehow the corporate power would go away.


boring7 wrote:

Honestly I've watched and enjoyed aneough anime that schizo-tech doesn't faze me that much. You have a dude with a sword fighting an ogre with a cannon-sized musket fighting a halfling with a lightning gun and it's fun!

But at the same time I can dig if it's not your speed, and that maybe it doesn't make any dang sense that the super-rich and really powerful dude ruling a nation that does have some amount of trade is still rolling around with pikes and bows when there's a dude been selling AK-47s for 300 years. (That was hyperbole, BTW)

Really, what matters is that you have some kind of explanation (no matter how phony-baloney) that explains WHY the floating egalitarian continent of hypertech that sprinkles adventurers across the land like a jackpot machine doesn't leave a noticable amount of after-market tech in the markets of Master Trading and Shipping Archipelago even though they sail *literally* around the entire world. Maybe strong magic causes tech malfunctions except when you're a major PC or NPC, maybe Hypertech Continent has a really stupid but really well-enforced Prime Directive, whatever it takes.

Or maybe the place you've decided to set your game is the top tech in the world. Maybe it's not isolated and the tech really isn't that different at least for the major world powers. Maybe some other place has laser rifles and your area just has swords but you don't care because the campaign isn't going to take you out of that region.

If you make a setting for a particular campaign and don't try to cram all your different settings into one world, then it doesn't matter. Make the part the PCs interact with consistent and there's no point in worrying about the rest.


Terquem wrote:

I don't create plots for any of my games

I create situations

Plot is what happens when good players meet those situations

I don't create plots. My villains create plots. The PCs try to foil them.

Or antagonists, sometimes they're not really villains.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I can see the advantage to having one big setting where the PCs can wander around the whole thing as they see fit (or as the needs of the campaign and their abilities drive them) and interact with old PCs or at least their legacies. It's not really a big draw for me, but I can see it.
What's the advantage to cordoning off settings, but still putting them in the same world?

Not much, but a technologically uniform Holiday Inn world isn't a tremendous advantage, either. The "planet of hats" is a standard but discredited trope common in badly written sci-fi, and I'd hope no one's actually suggesting that it's something that should be imported into FRPGs.

The minor advantage with "cordoning off" parts of the world is that you can tell interesting stories about crossing the cordon, as indeed James Clavell did. If you're publishing a world, this creates opportunities for your buyers. If you're developing for home use,.... well, you're at least trying to avert the "planet of hats."

Sure. If that's the kind of campaign you want to play, go for it. I'd probably develop a new setting for that, rather than mush two existing settings together, ignoring the bits that don't fit.

It's not so much the "planet of hats" thing as developing the setting for the campaign you want to run in it. There may be other stuff in other parts of the world that doesn't come up in this campaign or this campaign may be a globe-trotting kind of affair that touches at least briefly on most of it.

Honestly, I'm not really sure how the "planet of hats" comes into it, unless you're just hung up the guns example. Even if you expand to a full world, you're just as likely to wind up with "countries of hats", especially since most of the places are likely to be very thinly sketched. The fact that the only thing you see of this setting is the Old West, because that's where you are, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Again, I tend to develop campaigns and settings together, so the setting will be right for what I want to do with that campaign. That may include the gods and planar cosmology or the length of history of the world. If I was developing a Japanese-like setting, I'd want the cosmology and pre-history to reflect Japanese myth. If I wanted to play in a Bronze Age Greek setting, I'd want to use that mythology as the basis. Now you could jam them both on the same world and decide one or both of those mythologies isn't true or they're both true but there's some deeper thing behind them, but that's going to be a retrofit, unless you build it all upfront with both games in mind. It's also not likely to come up unless you do decide to do a crossover.


ShadowcatX wrote:

Everyone optimizes their characters. When you assign your stats, or roll anything other than 3d6 in order, you're optimizing. When you choose a class, you're optimizing. When you pick feats, you're optimizing.

Some people simply optimize to a greater or a lesser degree than other people.

As everyone is aware and as someone feels obligated to point out every time it comes up.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:


One issue is, I don't care for the mixed technologies that Golarian has. If I play in a given "world", I want that world to be consistent technology wise. For example, as stated, I designed Kaidan for the Japan-analog game. However, I'm dabbling on a homebrew Supernatural Old West setting with rifles and revolvers tech. I really wouldn't want Kaidan, and this proposed Old West setting to exist in the same world, or in the same timeline. I don't want "we've got revolvers on this side of the world, but in Kaidan, muskets and single shot pistols is the most advanced tech."

Yeah, I could see that. There's no way that in the same world, you could have revolvers on in one part of the world and single-shot muzzle-loading weapons in another.

Oh, wait. Earth, 1836. Samuel Colt patented the modern revolver in 1836, and at the same time the contemporary Japanese were experimenting with flintlocks.

There are -- literally -- more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Of course, you can do it.

That doesn't mean you have to want it. And really, if you want the different regions to be separate for different campaigns, why say "They're on the same world, just in different parts, so there's no connection."? What does it get you?

I can see the advantage to having one big setting where the PCs can wander around the whole thing as they see fit (or as the needs of the campaign and their abilities drive them) and interact with old PCs or at least their legacies. It's not really a big draw for me, but I can see it.
What's the advantage to cordoning off settings, but still putting them in the same world?


RDM42 wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The whole "make one campaign world with everything you might possibly want in it and set all your games there" has never appealed to me. It works for a published setting, in a way, but our home campaigns have been in much more varied settings. It allows each to have a very distinct feel and theme.
Agreed. While I can appreciate the verisimilitude provided by a campaign setting with known history, due to many campaigns run in it over a long period of time, I'm a creative guy who enjoys designing custom settings, and I'd actually get bored of a given setting, after a single campaign within it. Creating new immersive worlds is an activity I enjoy as much as playing or running a game. I could never be satisfied playing in just one world over and over again - and is probably the reason I've never campaigned in Golarian, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc.
You realize that is sort of like saying that because you've been to Texas, you are now bored with the entire United States. Or that because you've been to Russia, you are now bored with Earth?

Not necessarily. Depends on the changes you want to make and the scope of the campaigns. Even if the changes can be crammed into the same world by using an entirely different part with no contact, what's the point? It might as well be a different world.

Especially once you start playing around with different gods and cosmologies, it becomes kind of silly to put them all in the same world.

It's the same reason many fantasy writers write stories in different
settings. Some like to focus on one, but many don't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:

If players want to be bland, fine. But as a GM I reserve the right to give out exactly as much story and detail and effort as the players are willing to put in. If you refuse to roleplay, why should I? If the players want to be bland and just kill stuff with little to no in-character talking to eachother or npcs or even basically describing what they do, expect the GM to do the same.

Again, you get the same level of quality you are willing to put into the story. Do you want WoW where there are quest NPCs clearly marked and the dialog means nothing and you just want the quick quest objective and map marker so all you need to worry about is your build and power rotation which you just look up in forums anyway, or do you want to play in a world where what you do and say actually matter?

Is there no middle ground at all?
not one that wouldn't result in a fight. The wall between playstyles has hit the stratosphere, any attempts at scaling it is seen as an attack.

Only on the boards, not in real life. Or even in actual games on line.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Eh, if we're going that far I'd rather the GM roll up a couple sets and let the players pick from them rather than waste time with the players rolling. But I can see how some people want to roll their own numbers, even if they may get vetoed.

Everyone rolls a set, everyone uses any of the sets rolled.

The only drawback is that the power tends to go up as the number of players does and works poorly if you've only got one or two players.
Choose your rolling method based on number of players.


I've never done it or been in a game where it's happened in a D&D/PF game. Our campaigns have all been set in separate home-brew worlds, designed for that campaign. With different histories often tied to the major villain's motivations.
The whole "make one campaign world with everything you might possibly want in it and set all your games there" has never appealed to me. It works for a published setting, in a way, but our home campaigns have been in much more varied settings. It allows each to have a very distinct feel and theme.

It did happen in a Cthulhu game of all places, since those are all set in roughly the same setting: Our world + monsters. One of my old Cthulhu characters showed up to give a little assistance in a later game run by another GM. He's a very friendly ghoul living under an old graveyard in Boston.
In some ways it's a bit easier in that system, since there isn't the gap in power as there is in D&D based games. Even though he'd become a ghoul, he wasn't ridiculously powerful compared to the current PCs, just a little more knowledgeable. And creepier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

Yeah I'm coming to learn that I had a fairly atypical, extremely tame college experience. Granted I was only in college for a grand total of about thirteen months, split over about three years, before I eventually dropped for good because I couldn't handle working and going to school at the same time and working paid rent.

But all my roommates were either classmates or friends/classmates of current/former roommates, so I consider the entire eight years and change I was out there with them as as close as I'll get to the experience. And none of us were super social and would rather spend our nights hanging out playing D&D, video games, telling stories or brainstorming/worldbuilding at IHOP or Denny's at Stupid O'Clock AM, or watching a movie than going to parties and getting drunk/high.

Fantasy was our drug of choice. Well, that and caffeine. I miss caffeine.

We did similar things. We just added a little alcohol to the mix. Not usually during the games themselves, but in the hanging out and geeking out sessions.

The occasional larger more organized party, but still more as socializing among friends than as "Let's get a random bunch of strangers together and get smashed!!!!".

Mostly in someone's dorm room or occasionally an off-campus apartment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OTOH, there's a middle line as well. I didn't drink or have sex in high school, largely because I was the geeky social outcast, but I did both in college, but without going overboard.
I drank, I got drunk, but there have only been one or two occasions that really went too far. I did some things I regretted later while drunk, but I never got in any serious trouble. I've done some things I regretted later stone cold sober as well.

Pre-marital sex, but not casual sex. I had good fairly long relationship s with 3 wonderful girls in my college years, one of whom I'm still close friends with long after. No STDs. No pregnancies.

No regrets.

I guess the point is the alternatives aren't straightedge or debauchery. There's a whole world in the middle.


Not sure on the guy with the beard. It's only a quick shot, so it's hard to tell without context.

Pretty much no comic storyline as far as I know - other than generic creation of Ultron, but it doesn't really have anything to do with that, since Pym and the Vision aren't involved.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
all official facebook pages soon released the trailer after the "leak"... coincidence? I smell marketing....

Or it was going to be out soon anyway (it was ready after all) and one it was out, there's no point in pretending otherwise. Might as well get the traffic to your sites.


Barachiel Shina wrote:
The Golux wrote:
Don't most advanced firearms not need to be reloaded every round anyway? Is Reloading a revolver putting in one bullet, or is it refilling all the slots in the cylinder?

It's a Move Action to refill ALL the slots in the cylinder.

MY problem is I have player with a Gunslinger who uses a Rifle. His character has sentimental attachment to the rifle, naming it "Skarlet", and doesn't plan on giving it up for a Pepperbox Rifle. What he wants is to be effective at higher levels with it, meaning he wants to be able to reload it as a free action.

Problem is the rules for advanced firearm reload times is all screwed up, no one knows what exactly is what, no one knows if Rapid Reload is legit, etc. He doesn't want to go Musket weapon and then Musket Master, he wants the rifle partially to avoid Musket Master archetype.

Do you want him to reload it as a free action?

If you do, house rule it. Or torture the rules until you convince yourself it's RAW. Whatever works for you. It's your game.

You're already using the non-standard advanced firearms anyway. Make them work.


Barachiel Shina wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Barachiel Shina wrote:

How is the firearm "advanced" in any way if the reload times are SLOWER than that of an early firearm? And what I mean by slow is, there is no way to reduce it to a free action?

What would Lightning Reload do? Would it allow someone to reload an advanced firearm to full capacity once per turn as a free action? It doesn't state that it works on chamber-loaded firearms, only barrel-loaded ones.

Man advanced firearms suck. Stuck with a slow reload just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame. People would rather stick to early firearms, which makes no sense on reloading faster than advanced.

"...just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame."

"...just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame."

"...just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame."

What I meant is it is lame to only make ONE shot at up to 5 range increments when you can just use Deadeye with an early firearm to shoot and load as free actions. Yeah Deadeye uses a grit point, so take a couple of Signature Deed feats and you're good with that.

So use a revolver or a pepperbox rifle to get 6 or 4 shots without reloading.

Then use a move action to reload completely next turn.

Or just house rule it, like everyone else does.


Barachiel Shina wrote:

How is the firearm "advanced" in any way if the reload times are SLOWER than that of an early firearm? And what I mean by slow is, there is no way to reduce it to a free action?

What would Lightning Reload do? Would it allow someone to reload an advanced firearm to full capacity once per turn as a free action? It doesn't state that it works on chamber-loaded firearms, only barrel-loaded ones.

Man advanced firearms suck. Stuck with a slow reload just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame. People would rather stick to early firearms, which makes no sense on reloading faster than advanced.

5 range increments as touch isn't anything to sneeze at. With the larger capacities for some, they're also faster to shoot until you do invest in Rapid Reload.

But mostly, they're a hacked on optional system that they recommend against using. Most likely it's an oversight that Rapid Reload doesn't work properly with them.

So just house rule it to work and everything's fine. Unless you're an absolute stickler for RAW, in which case you're screwed. Unless you're an absolute stickler for RAW but you're willing to accept baroque explanations for why it really works the way you want it to, in which case, go for it.


Danbala wrote:

It looks like D&D 5e didn't beat Pathfinder in the month that the PHB was released:

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/29999.html

I am genuinely surprised. Are sales weaker than expected? Is that why Hasbro didn't even mention the D&D release in its earnings summary?

That's for all summer and covers total sales, I think.

D&D5 had essentially one product for that whole time.

1 to 50 of 14,394 << 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.