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. 16,715 posts (17,514 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 16,715 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No. But if I was going to try not to swear, I would have to think about what I said every single sentence.
If we all did that, the world would be a lot better off. Letting the mouth run without engaging the brain is the problem that too many fall into. It's pretty much what I try to do whenever I'm speaking to people.
When you're just hanging out with your close friends?
Especially then. because friends are worth the effort.

Friends are the people I trust enough to not censor myself - not just swears, but other things as well.

Or at least do so less.


Tacticslion wrote:
thejeff wrote:
When you're just hanging out with your close friends?

It's not actually a bad idea...

(I do try, though I fail as often as others. :D)

My close friends are people I can relax and not have to monitor everything I say around.


Fomsie wrote:
For those still arguing in favor of a greater change or allowance in regards to characters affected by this FAQ, I would offer the advice that being sarcastic, dismissive of opposing arguments, insulting the understanding of those with opposing opinions, engaging in hyperbole, or passive-aggressively asking the same question over and over with subtle variation after they have been answered, doesn't strengthen your cause or garner support.

Obviously being sarcastic or insulting or hyperbolic aren't helpful.

The only official word we've had is "We talked about it and settled on this." Which isn't really answering anything.

Of course, maybe that's me being dismissive.


Andrew Christian wrote:


The fact that Mike chimed in on this thread, shows that he at least read through it. And even if it wasn't deep, agonizing consideration, the act of reading a proposal, in and of itself, is a type of consideration. There would be no point to reading ideas, if you aren't going to at least think about entertaining them.

The fact that he said, "We are sticking to what we said," Indicates that he's made his decision. Of course barring any well-thought-out, proposition that isn't confusing or complicated, and didn't include some level of angst in the post, I don't expect he will change his mind. Expecting him to spell out his every inner thought (i.e. "I've thought long and hard on these proposals, and we are going to stay with what we've done") is perhaps asking too much. He did come on and say, "We are sticking with what we said." That in and of itself implies at least a cursory amount of consideration.

Did Mike chime in on this thread? I don't see a post. I'm curious exactly what he said. Could you link it?


LazarX wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No. But if I was going to try not to swear, I would have to think about what I said every single sentence.
If we all did that, the world would be a lot better off. Letting the mouth run without engaging the brain is the problem that too many fall into. It's pretty much what I try to do whenever I'm speaking to people.

When you're just hanging out with your close friends?


Andrew Christian wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
They specifically asked people not to abuse the grace period. People openly did so. That's all that really matters.

And if the decision was down to a binary issue of whether to allow a grace period or not, then that would totally settle the matter.

But now people are suggesting an alternative that still honors the lack of a grace period.

This is what has me so befuddled at this dialogue: nobody's asking for a grace period, yet the past abuse of a grace period is being held up as the central issue.

Why is the past abuse of a grace period relevant to discussing an option that doesn't involve a grace period?

Past abuse of a grace period makes sense as a rationale for not offering a grace period. Past abuse of a grace period is nonsense as a rationale for anything else.

I'd wager a guess that this is why the authors of some other solutions don't feel listened to.

Because the current solution is simple and clean.

Any of these other solutions require a certain level of trust that the player base will only take what's given and not more.

Any of these other solutions require calculation of XP vs what the player might be doing, and completely disregards the fact, that they can still build toward the desired outcome, it will just take 2 or 3 levels longer.

I like simple and clean. You may not see it, but whenever some ruling and grandfather period has happened since I've been a venture-officer (October 2011), that seemed to be quite explicit and clear, there were tons, and tons, and tons of questions asking "what about my corner case." And that's frustrating, because now I'm spending all my time answering corner case questions instead of helping to coordinate games for my region.

I still don't see how "Played at 2nd level before X date" is any less clean and simple than "Played as the prestige class before X date".


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
They specifically asked people not to abuse the grace period. People openly did so. That's all that really matters.

And if the decision was down to a binary issue of whether to allow a grace period or not, then that would totally settle the matter.

But now people are suggesting an alternative that still honors the lack of a grace period.

This is what has me so befuddled at this dialogue: nobody's asking for a grace period, yet the past abuse of a grace period is being held up as the central issue.

Why is the past abuse of a grace period relevant to discussing an option that doesn't involve a grace period?

Past abuse of a grace period makes sense as a rationale for not offering a grace period. Past abuse of a grace period is nonsense as a rationale for anything else.

I'd wager a guess that this is why the authors of some other solutions don't feel listened to.

Agreed. And I've said the same thing.

I was just responding to questions of whether it was abused before.

I can certainly see that it might make them less likely to grant the community the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see the drawback to a more open grandfathering.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm not asking anybody to change (unless you're around my kids which none of you are), I just don't get the "woe is me, walking on eggshells" aspect of it. Do you really swear so constantly that it is unimaginable to turn it off for an afternoon?

I'm generally pretty much alright unless I'm working on the computer. :)

Which is my job - so it's a good thing I sit in a somewhat isolated corner.

Other than that though, it's basically a habit and not really done consciously. As is, to a large extent, what groups and situations you tone it down in. Take me to a formal situation with strangers and you won't hear much from me. Put me in group of friends that I'm not used to censoring myself among and doing an activity where I'm not used to censoring myself in and add one person who's bothered by it and I'll have a good deal of difficulty stopping - at least in the short term.
I'll catch myself doing it - or maybe not even notice - but not before some slip out.

Code switching really isn't easy to do consciously.


Sissyl wrote:
My point was that it's not one side's job to adapt to what the other side wants in this conflict of interest. It is completely irrelevant that you think it's easy for the other side to change, the only part of it you CAN change is YOUR part of it. You don't get a free pass because you consider swearing an ugly, uncouth, barbaric, stupid, moronic, uncomfortable, uncivilized, blasphemous or otherwise disagreeable behaviour. Just like swearing, it is your choice not to see it as the above or not, and if you do, you put the entire onus of change on the swearer. As TL says, if you want to be around that person, it's not a good method.

OTOH, it might be easy for the other person and he might not have any idea you want him to unless you ask.


GM Lamplighter wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

[

Are you talking about aasimar/tiefling? Was that really a problem? I've been playing on average of at least once a week since then and haven't seen any issues with it here. Sure, I've got a practically-level-2 tiefling that I don't know what to do with and haven't played since--is that abuse? If there are people with a "stockpile" of these characters is it really affecting organized play?
Yes, it is. New players can't play two of the more powerful races there are, while some pockets of players have a half-dozen or more of them, generated by replaying a single module multiple times in a day (at about half-an-hour a pop since they could skip everything but the dice rolls). The races were removed in part because they were quite powerful, and now there's a bunch of them in the hands of the players most likely to exploit legal loopholes for personal benefit, while no new players can have them. That doesn't make new players feel very welcome, and further minimizes the impact they can have on the game when the more powerful options are denied.

This doesn't really matter though. You could argue that they're not too powerful and you might even be right.

They decided to remove them from the game, rightly or wrongly, and left a grace period for those who were starting new characters. They specifically asked people not to abuse the grace period. People openly did so. That's all that really matters.


claudekennilol wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:


It was already advised why the decision was made Here.
John Compton wrote:

I can sympathize, for this solution doesn't do a whole lot for the 2nd- and 3rd-level PCs who were aiming to employ the spell-like ability backdoor.

On the other hand, in the past the campaign performed at least one experiment tied to grandfathering in an option with a grace period. While it allowed some good-intentioned people to get in on a character option, it also invited egregious and now infamous cases of abuse. Grandfathering without warning is fair to those who at least played using that option. Grandfathering with a future grace period date was an invitation for abuse under a strict time limit.

The trouble is that I don't see a way to provide accurate recompense—at least without opening up lots of room for abuse—for those who had the glimmer of bloatmage initiation in their eyes but never got around to signing up.

Are you talking about aasimar/tiefling? Was that really a problem? I've been playing on average of at least once a week since then and haven't seen any issues with it here. Sure, I've got a practically-level-2 tiefling that I don't know what to do with and haven't played since--is that abuse? If there are people with a "stockpile" of these characters is it really affecting organized play?

*for what it's worth, this current ruling doesn't affect me at all, it just seems odd to not allow a grace period.

As I understand it, they said "We're going to give a grace period, please don't abuse it." Whether or not that's led to any long term problems, people certainly abused the grace period. Enough so that they won't do that again. Won't trust the player base to not abuse things even when specifically asked not to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haladir wrote:
Kelsey Arwen McAlibert wrote:
California man files ballot measure to execute all homosexuals by firing squad.

Huh. That was an interesting read.

I seem to recall someone important once saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

And something else about "Judge not others lest you be judged yourself..."

And another suggestion to "Remove the log from your own eye before you remove the speck from someone else's..."

And that the greatest commandment is to love your neighbor.

And something else about putting away weapons drawn in his defense.

The fact that Mr. McLaughlin is advocating murder in the name of Christ indicates that he hasn't actually read this book he purports to be defending.

I think the guy needs to see a shrink.

Selective reading of the Bible isn't exactly uncommon.

Nor limited to the Bible, for that matter.


Serisan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Just because I have a wizard with 4 xp prior to the cutoff means I can still early entry into MT?
I'm not sure I'm clear on what your worry is here. So imagine someone was planning to play straight wizard, and they're currently wizard2 and have 12-14 WIS. What exactly are you worried they'll do? Lay out the situation for me, and how it qualifies as "abusive".

It's not so much abusive as problematic. Bear in mind that I didn't think early entry was a bad thing. A grandfather ruling like the one proposed does, however, create a situation where a player could reasonably have a grandfathered character that does early entry into MT any time between now and the end of the campaign. Thus, if the player couldn't progress the character until next year for some reason (maybe they're out of scenarios to play or have some personal issues to address), you could find someone doing early entry into MT well after the established cut-off.

Again, not particularly abusive, but bear in mind that for a ruling to be enforced, someone actually needs to enforce it. It's this reason that pushes me towards offering free rebuilds instead of grandfathering characters that don't already have levels in MT.

So? So a character doesn't get played for a year and then enters MT. So what? Is that really any more problematic than a character who's already got his first MT xp and then doesn't get played for a year?


Serisan wrote:
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Although if you can parse the slightly wall-of-text-ish OP of this thread, there's a suggestion in there somewhere. I think there were others elsewhere as well.

I will paraphrase myself in less verbose terms :)

Permit use of SLA for PrC qualification iff:

  • The character was locked in as of the time of the FAQ change (had at least one XP post level 2 earned by an actual game)
  • The character utilizes no retraining between the time of the FAQ change and earning their first level in the PrC

If grandfathering were permitted with those qualifications, the only characters would qualify are those narrow set who are the correct race to have an SLA, the correct stats to work in the PrC, and the correct feats, levels, traits, and boons already locked in to start pursuing the PrC. That long set of necessary conditions defines the pool of those to whom this would apply so narrowly as to nearly completely eliminate everyone except those who were already pursuing the option.

It's not so much abusive as problematic. Bear in mind that I didn't think early entry was a bad thing. A grandfather ruling like the one proposed does, however, create a situation where a player could reasonably have a grandfathered character that does early entry into MT any time between now and the end of the campaign. Thus, if the player couldn't progress the character until next year for some reason (maybe they're out of scenarios to play or have some personal issues to address), you could find someone doing early entry into MT well after the established cut-off.

Again, not particularly abusive, but bear in mind that for a ruling to be enforced, someone actually needs to enforce it. It's this reason that pushes me towards offering free rebuilds instead of grandfathering characters that don't already have levels in MT.

Auditing is as simple as seeing if you have a Chronicle (or Played chronicle) before the cutoff. Ignore intent. If you have a wizard with a Wisdom and an SLA that lets you get into MT, go right ahead.

The number of those who weren't already heading that way is going to be small. The number who grab their last chance will be even fewer.

With free retraining, what do you allow? Complete rebuilds for everyone? If not, where do you draw the line? It's the same problem.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I'll admit the game I described was intriguing. Immersion was near-total, especially since all we had to go on about how wounded we were were the DM's descriptions. But the uncertainty for some of the players was almost pathological. One of the guys who was known as a cut-up and a constant chatterbox was silent most of the time, clutching his note-sheet and staring at it as if he could make his stats appear on it.

As a GM, I wouldn't want the hassle. Keeping track of hit points, spells, and conditions, etc. for a bunch of monsters is bad enough. Trying to keep track of the PCs as well would split my skull.

As a player... I'd be afraid of the kind of person who could GM that way, since there's so much more to keep track of these days. The best movie serial killers are people like that... :o

Works better in games with less mechanical detail.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Message board troll wrote:


Now as for the topic. The railroaders are terrible. I had one DM that made every in game decision for us.

I had a DM in OD&D who not only rolled every roll for us, he kept our character sheets. All we had was an equipment list of what we were carrying, and a sheet to write information on. If we went into our mulepacks, he'd hand us that sheet to make changes on, and then took it back. We didn't even know how many hit points we had.

I only played in three sessions with that guy. They were fun, but I can't imagine that same sort of thing flying these days.

Amber Diceless Roleplaying. (Or the successor, Lords of Gossamer and Shadow.)

No dice. The GM decides success, based on your stats and other relevant factors. You buy your stats at the start of the game, but increases from experience are handled by the GM. You tell him what you're working on and you generally find out if and when you've gotten better, but no more actual numbers.

Great game. Some of the best roleplaying I've ever had. Needs the right GM and I'm sure it's not for everyone, but when it works it's golden.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
memorax wrote:
Personally I agree that people can change certain behaviors like swearing. But they have to be willing to change. If not good luck. It's way too easy to say "well I did it so can you". Another person might turn around and say "good for you I'm not and if you don't like it your free to leave". The problem to day is that everyone assumes that people will act and behave like themselves. Which is usually not the case.

That's true; you won't change unless you're willing.

Doesn't the attitude of "if you don't like [my behavior] you're free to leave" seem kinda anti-social?

About as anti-social as "If you won't stop your behavior, get out." Maybe even less so.


Nefreet wrote:

In another thread, which I can't find now, someone commented and gave examples of other past abuses.

It's not just about Tieflings/Aasimars. They're simply the most recent example that everyone's familiar with.

Still doesn't answer how those abuses relate to possible abuses here. Or why they bring that one up to shoot down any discussion this time.

Unless it really is just: "You've collectively been bad before, so we're not going to even try this time."


Jiggy wrote:

The more I follow the dialogues on this topic, the more perplexed I feel.

I mean, if the reply given to a proposed alternative is "But people abused the aasimar situation", then one would assume that the speaker is meaning to imply that the proposed alternative would allow similar abuse. That is, declining an idea because of past abuse suggests that the goal is to prevent a repeat of that abuse.

Except I don't see people actually saying that. Granted I've at times only skimmed some of the posts, but I haven't seen people explaining how a given solution would enable abuse. Meanwhile, the proponents of these alternatives have been asserting that their ideas would not be so abusable.

Yet still, the mantra against these alternatives remains, "But aasimar abuse".

So what does that reply actually mean?

If the proposed solutions actually do enable abuse in some manner that posters have overlooked, why not just say so? That would immediately clear things up, and I imagine the affected posters would be far more satisfied.

If the proposed solutions don't enable abuse, then why is past abuse being brought up at all? Are people just not really reading the ideas and assuming they'll be abusable? Does "last time there was abuse" mean something other than "we don't want to enable similar abuse this time"?

What is the actual message that's intended to be communicated by bringing up past abuse in response to proposed solutions?

I just don't understand what I'm reading here.

Exactly. I could see the results of the aasimar grace period leading them not say "This takes effect in X weeks and any characters played using a SLR to qualify for a prestige class will be grandfathered at that point."

But that's not what's being suggested.


Gaberlunzie wrote:

I'm lucky enough to live in a country that isn't _as_ deeply homophobic as the US, so that's probably why it doesn't get to me that much, but I just think, like, I've seen and heard hundreds if not thousands of comments to that extent (or sometimes worse). Granted it's probably a few people on a lot of sites saying stuff like that, but still, I see it perhaps a half-dozen times a day when visiting less savory pages.

This was just one of those guys who had 200 bucks to waste.

If he gets more than a hundred signatures, that's a different thing.

Granted, if he happened to get a bullet in the head himself, I wouldn't cry myself to sleep over it. I'd probably go get a nice whisky :P

Honestly, I'd be shocked if he got less than a few thousand signatures - assuming he makes any effort. Some people will sign anything without reading it. Some really do agree, or will agree with the general concept of banning homosexuals without realizing the shooting part is involved.

There are something close to 40 million people in California. One in 10,000 gets you 4,000 signatures. Obviously he can't ask them all, but he can target places more likely to have bigots.
Luckily he needs 365000 signatures and he won't get anywhere near that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:

California man files ballot measure to execute all homosexuals by firing squad.

This has so little chance of ever coming even remotely close to a law that I fell quite secure in laughing my head off.

I particularly like:
Quote:
e) This law is effective immediately and shall not be rendered ineffective or invalidated by any court, state or federal, until heard by a quorum of the Supreme Court of California consisting only of judges who are neither sodomites nor subject to disqualification hereunder.

Because putting "The Court can't overturn this law" in laws is so constitutional. :)

The part where, if you notify the state of a sodomite and they don't kill him within a year, you get to do it yourself, goes a bit far, I'd say.

Freehold DM wrote:
that someone even has the gall to present this as a ballot measure has literally made me lose my appetite.

It's a big country. There are bound to be a few crazy people with $200 and a bit of gall. (Actually the gall often goes along with the crazy.)


Space McMan wrote:
andreww wrote:
Space McMan wrote:
Well damn, forgot that little tidbit. That kills any reason to have a large pool. As a half-elf I could grab the human favored class bonus and take an extra spell each level. A free spell per level would definitely save gold in the long run.
Not really, you are saving the cost of buying access and scribing a grand total of 20 spells. Thats a total cost of about 10,000gp assuming you go through all 20 levels and assuming you never invest in a blessed book. You are probably better off with the HP/SP.

My GM doesn't allow easy access to other wizard's spellbooks. Initially I had to buy scrolls for full price to learn extra spells on my current wizard. Eventually, as the prices got unreasonable, he allowed me to learn new spells for half the price of buying a scroll of said spell.

Edit: However, I did the math and if I didn't start taking the extra spell until level 10 when I could use it to gain extra 4th level spells, and used it every level until 18, it would save me about 10k. Saving 10k gold seems worth losing 9 hit points.

10K gold of the 880K WBL suggests for 20th level.

It's probably no more worth than taking it at the early levels. The savings are roughly proportional to how much money you have.

Now, if you were building a high level character to start with, it obviously wouldn't be worth taking it for the lower levels.


LazarX wrote:
137ben wrote:

Which of the 24 types of libertarians will freak out the most?

:)
All of them. There isn't a Libertarian on the planet that will cop to meeting a regulation or a regulatory agency he'd approve up save for the police and the army. That's of course you find the few that aren't singing paens to St. Ayn of the Holy Galt.

Also those quite happy regulating sex and reproduction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:
I think a great DM is the guy that rolls with what the players do.
I agree with Mark. Over the nearly 30 years I've been playing this game I've learned to never rely on the players to follow the map or the plan you have in mind for them and to be able to improvise on the spot.

At the same time, having a good plot going to start with can be important to. A fine balancing line to keep the main plot arc coherent and interesting and flexible enough to adapt to the turns the players take that you didn't expect.


Kolokotroni wrote:
One of the most important 'little' things I have seen great dms do, is employ different voices for important npcs. It doesnt have to go so far as elaborate accents worthy oscars, even just slight changes in inflection, or a change of pitch or tone. As long as its consistent it can really draw you into interaction with those characters. Particularly when you get to the point where the dm no longer has to say 'so and so says...' but just speak in the voice and we all know who is talking.

Don't neglect body language either. I had GM in an Amber game who could make us cringe just by leaning back in his chair and steepling his fingers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Coriat wrote:


When I went to a traditional high powered school, they let us take the tests and go off wherever to fill them in. Didn't have to take them in classroom. In the higher level classics courses which I remember better, about half the class would take it somewhere other than the classroom.

Maybe things have changed since my Rutgers days, but I'm pretty sure that even today you can't do that On The Banks.

I had a couple physics classes where we had take-home tests. Over the weekend even. I dreaded those.

15-20 hours working on a test.

Works well in classes where you actually have to know what you're doing, not just look up a few facts.


Nefreet wrote:

I think the "why" was adequately addressed in the locked thread.

A small subset of players ruined grace periods for the rest of us.

Don't blame Mike or John. Blame those who abused their leniency in the past.

As several have suggested, there are ways to do grace periods that aren't nearly so open for abuse.

Grandfathering all PCs who aren't eligible for rebuilds after the rule dropped, for example.


BigDTBone wrote:

Here's the deal on manspreading, 85% of the photos ever shown are BS. They aren't dudes just lettin it hang out with reckless abandon. They are the result of terribly designed seats that are too narrow to begin with.

1) take a chair and saw the legs so that when you sit in it, your knees are 4 or more inches above your waist with your feet flat on the floor.

2) saw the back legs two more inches.

3) sit in the chair and watch what happens to your legs.

Public transportation seating is designed terribly. If you want people to stay in their slots then build taller seats that don't dump you backwards into them.

Let's not go back into the whole manspreading thing. At least not here. I only threw that link in for the (50s?) poster about the same thing, just to counter the "back in the day when everyone was polite" nonsense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Reuters wrote:
"The definition of marriage is an issue for the people of Nebraska, and an activist judge should not substitute his personal political preferences for the will of the people," Governor Pete Ricketts said in a statement.

LOL@activist judge.

wikipedia wrote:
In 2003-05, Bataillon heard Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, a federal constitutional challenge to Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a voter initiative constitutional amendment that prohibited Nebraska from recognizing same-sex marriages or unions. In November, 2005, Bataillon ruled that Initiative Measure 416 was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and the Contract Clause's prohibition on bills of attainder. Bataillon became the first judge in the U.S. to invalidate a state marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman on federal constitutional grounds. In July, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed his decision on all three arguments and held that "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States."
Consistent != activist.

Activist == "Made ruling I didn't like"


LazarX wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I have no idea what that is.
manspreading

Thanks!

I now know what that is! (Also, yes: SUPER hard! :D)

Now, given that...

LazarX wrote:
Is this the gamer "manspreading" thread?
... what does this mean? I'm sorry. I'm sleep-deprived, and not quite getting the angle you're applying this to. I'd like to understand, however!

In olden days, manspreading would not be a thing because men were conditioned to be polite, yield seats to ladies or at the least not take up more than one seat. Instead nowadays there is a vocal group arguing that it's their God-given right to spread across three seats to protect their "man parts". Although it's my judgement that the human race would be better off if most of them were removed from the gene pool.

Similarly, I find it shocking that in this thread just how appalling lacking are many folks are in basic civility, and how some seem to have been either totally raised without manners, or simply glory in that lack of them. Some seem determined to cling to that subhuman stereotype about gamers that the rest of us have been trying to prove is utterly wrong.

As I think I noted in that other thread, it's not new. Just a catchy new name and a new twist to it.

I don't really believe in the olden days when everyone was civil and polite.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Oh I know. I'm not quoting you in order to illustrate that you believe that gaming the game ruins the hobby. Simply to illustrate that you've said plenty of stuff yourself that shows that the game itself is rife with such people, which is indeed my point.

In the same way that shadowrun attracts a higher percentage of players who like to be stealthy and plan ahead. Intentional or not.

Fair enough. I didn't see the connection because I don't think the thing I'm complaining about is the same as the thing you're complaining about. People like the "build game". They like designing characters and even optimizing them.

That doesn't have anything to do with 'have all the answers told to them right now' or "no desire to interact with something they don't already understand completely and must then also be given time to prepare for said ill gotten specifics."
It could be marginally related to not "thinking in creative improvisational ways", but that wasn't what I was talking about. (Or at least, without checking through all of those posts again, it's not what I normally complain about.)

Nor, again, is it really a new thing. I've played Champions since the mid 80s. Building and designing characters was always a big part of that. D&D didn't really start pushing that aspect until 3.0, or the latter part of 2nd.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
I wonder if I am. Or maybe I searched the last 10 or 20 posts you've made recently which is an amazingly easy thing to do.

Or, for the comments you found from me, apparently the last dozen or so pages of posts.

To find posts that expressed things that I don't like about PF, but didn't say anything like it ruining gamers or the nonsense about kids and their smartphones these days.

Edit: Apparently I post too much. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Wasn't this similar to the mysterious stranger gunslinger and some rules. Where it was unclear and people were taking advantage of it, then it became clear?

Not really, IIRC. In this case, it was unclear, then there was a FAQ making it clearly allowed (with the caveat that it could change), then there was another FAQ changing it to clearly not allowed.


pauljathome wrote:
"Inari" wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


Because you took a dodgy path, and the rules changed. Same thing with Bracers of the Falcon, vivisectionests, and other things that have changed.

Why no warning or grace? Ask the people who ran 30 minute MotFF runs to get 10 tieflings why.

Okay, I do not think I was abusing any rules,

You absolutely were NOT abusing anything. The PDT were extremely clear that this was known and legal. The people who are saying this was dodgy are 100% wrong.

I totally agree that it is unfair that lots of characters got hurt by this. For reasons that I totally don't understand many people (unfortunately including Mike) seem to thing that rebuilds and grandfathering are inherently abusive.

I think "dodgy" in the sense that it was risky because the FAQ did state it might be reversed. Not in the abusing rules sense.


Neurophage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Or a mystery. Or groundwork for things that'll come up later. Or a sandbox, where you figure out what you want to pay attention to.

Red Herrings do something. The entire point of a red herring is that it does something other than what you expect it to do. Groundwork does something. It serves as the base for something else that hopefully also does something. In the case of a sandbox, just because the players don't act on something doesn't mean it's static. Things can do something when players aren't looking at them.

thejeff" wrote:
It's a rule, but it's a rule for specific kinds of story. It really doesn't work well in stories that are made up as you go along, like RPGs. In most traditional fiction you can go back and make sure the things that turned out to be important got focus and take out things that didn't. In RPGs, you don't know how the campaign is going to go from the start. It's better to leave in things that don't turn out to be important than to omit things that needed to be shown early on.
There's nothing that says that details the PCs don't interact with are static objects. Just because they didn't take the caravan leader's request for aid because they thought it was boring doesn't mean that no one did. Just because someone has to fire the gun on the mantlepiece doesn't mean that it has to be a PC who does it.

PC doesn't have to do it, but it has to effect the PC somehow. If the gun gets fired offstage and the PCs (and the players and thus the audience) never even learn about it, that's not Chekhov's gun. If it's a sandbox game and someone else takes the caravan job, that's great, but unless it comes back to bite the PCs it doesn't matter. Especially if, as you probably should be doing in sandbox, I'm dropping 2-3 plot hooks for every one the PCs actually bite on, they can't all wind up being important.

Neurophage wrote:
thejeff wrote:

This is true to some extent in any serialized fiction, when the story isn't completely finished when the early episodes are released - long form TV serials, comics, old magazine serials.

With the exception of works with more than one writer, there's nothing stopping the writer from making use of any detail that's established anywhere. An audience has only what the story tells them to use to interpret the world. They are awash in a sea of nothing with only what's shown on-screen or on-page to know what the world is. When details don't go anywhere, people notice. Just by creating a work, the creator makes a contract...

I'm not sure what your point is there. Any reasonably complex story, that can't be revised as it goes is going to have some details that get set up and ignored. Plotline gets dropped or changed. Characters go in a different way. Whatever.

It's not that there's something "stopping the writer from making use of any detail that's established anywhere", it's that there's nothing requiring the writer to make use of every detail that's established anywhere. In a normal story, the writer can just go back and edit out anything that doesn't wind up being used - and edit in new details to support later ideas. If you're publishing as you go, you can't do that, since it's already set in stone. Thus it's a good idea to set up more than you actually expect to need, because you know you won't be able to use some of them.


Andrew Torgerud wrote:

i read your last two statements as...

1) "it's not open to abuse"
2) except by "a few marginal characters"

Which is why i limited my previous point to rebuilds. the grandfathering of characters based on players' future intent just isn't going to happen due to past PFS grandfather attempts.

Which makes it pretty damn limited abuse. If you even want to count "This existing character that could have taken a prestige class now will, even though I wasn't planning to" as abuse. The character's not likely to be designed to do it well anyway.

What's gone wrong with past PFS grandfather attempts? How does that apply? If there a flaw with this suggestion I haven't seen?


Decorpsed wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Definitely talk to your DM. In a home game setting, I would not allow this item because of how powerful it would be. At-will Fortune, Healing, etc. is overpowered, IMO.
I agree with you on the overpowered point. Hex Vulnerability itself seems pretty darn powerful when paired with friendly Hexes. I think the spell could probably benefit from having its targets limited to enemies only. The second paragraph adding the save bonuses seems to hint at this intention anyway.

I suspect that's what they were thinking. Sloppy, though.

For the item, I would definitely have it work for everyone, not just the crafter's hexes. Wouldn't come up very often, because how would the enemies know? Still make a nice little drawback.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Torgerud wrote:

The problem is how do you define the limits of the rebuilds? How do you grant a one-time use to a portion of the player base based on the player's "intent" - and avoid abuse by another portion that currently is unaffected but might take advantage of more leniency.

There has to be a line in the sand. in this case, the line is 1 exp earned in the PrC. the consequences are the level 2-5ish characters who were working towards that path must decide if they want to continue to their goal according to the rules, or retrain or scrap. Clear cutoffs - no abuse.

I don't see it happening, but if someone can word the limitations of the rebuild, perhaps the campaign staff would re-consider it. It would have to apply to any PrC... and avoid abuse by players who just want a rebuild of their lvl ~3 characters

Which is why a number of people have just suggested grandfathering any character that doesn't qualify for a rebuild - If you had 1 Player chronicle after 1st level when the rule came down, you can still use the SLAs to qualify.

It's simple. It's not open to abuse. No rebuilding just to make unrelated changes. It doesn't lead to annoyances like trying to run new characters through a dozen adventures in a week to get them grandfathered.
At most, there would be a few marginal characters who weren't intended to go prestige, but happen to qualify.


Neurophage wrote:
The problem with Chekhov's Gun is that it isn't a trope. It's a rule for how to construct a good story which boils down to "if a detail doesn't do anything, don't draw attention to it. If a detail that doesn't do anything will draw attention by its very nature, don't put it in the scene in the first place." So, yes. Every GM should be mindful of Chekhov's Gun because any scenario where I don't know what I'm supposed to be paying attention to is a poorly-constructed one.

Or a mystery. Or groundwork for things that'll come up later. Or a sandbox, where you figure out what you want to pay attention to.

It's a rule, but it's a rule for specific kinds of story. It really doesn't work well in stories that are made up as you go along, like RPGs. In most traditional fiction you can go back and make sure the things that turned out to be important got focus and take out things that didn't. In RPGs, you don't know how the campaign is going to go from the start. It's better to leave in things that don't turn out to be important than to omit things that needed to be shown early on.

This is true to some extent in any serialized fiction, when the story isn't completely finished when the early episodes are released - long form TV serials, comics, old magazine serials.


Matthew Morris wrote:
"Inari" wrote:

So, Inari is Kitsune Life Oracle 4/Sorc 1 who just today made it to lvl 6.... I told my buddy at the table I will take my 1st MT lvl now and he pointed me to this thread.

Inari's 1st, 3rd and 5th Feat were the magical tails feats to get him to cast 2nd lvl arcane spells, now how am I supposed to proceed ??? I am fine with Oracle 4/ Sorc 1, this is not too bad I can cast arcane spells from wands and scrolls, not much of a hit but I am playing with 3 less feats. Can some figure of authority please explain to me why I have to retrain all my feats now and pay my PP & GP for that ?

This is a huge hit for Inari, I would love to see a way to grant a grace period or at least granting a free rebuild...

Because you took a dodgy path, and the rules changed. Same thing with Bracers of the Falcon, vivisectionests, and other things that have changed.

Why no warning or grace? Ask the people who ran 30 minute MotFF runs to get 10 tieflings why.

Honestly? Make a new PC. There's a reason you look at my characters and see Dex 2.0 and Mayim 2.0. My recordkeeping has been less than stellar, so rather than prevailing on my VC to rebuild the missing sheets, I started over.

I still don't see what would have been the disadvantage to extending the grandfathering to any existing characters who couldn't rebuild, but them's the rules.

Retrain. Continue on as is. Start over.


Edymnion wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:
So what does that tell you about your character?

Frankly, nothing.

The trait flavor text is just that, suggested flavor text. Reactionary would make just as much sense if it said you drank an entire pot of coffee every morning.

I don't know anyone that actually enforces trait flavor text any more than they do feat flavor text.

In fact they mean so little, you're actually prohibited from drawing inspiration from them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
I try to avoid Chekhov's Guns as much as I can. Players lose immersion in the game if they feel like they're dealing with videogame conventions because every room in the dungeon is nondescript except the one containing the plot coupon.

I'm amused by Chekhov's Gun being described as a "videogame convention". You do know it dates to the 19th century, right? Long before videogames (or RPGs, for that matter).

I mean, I do get what you're saying and the relationship, but still...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, you've got less control over where the story goes in RPGs than in fiction, unless you're going for full on railroading. It's quite possible that Chekhov's gun may be attached to a plot the GM had in mind, but the players never picked up on. Or it may be a red herring.

Plus, in an RPG, the audience are the players. There are few ways of bringing something to the audience's attention without bringing it to the character's. That gun, quietly hanging on the mantelpiece? If you mention it, a PC will grab it and take it with them. If you don't it wasn't Chekhov's gun in the first place. As long as everything you mention is important, anyway. Players tend to be too genre savvy for a strict Chekov's Gun trope to work.

But it does work well in mass and in reverse. Drop a lot of things that could be important later and then they'll all look like brilliant uses of the trope when they turn out to be important. Everyone will have forgotten all the things that could have been it, but didn't turn out to be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Wow. I go do something else for a while and... wow.

Takeda, I think there are people on this thread who are going to dissect your statements for any negativity they can find, and attack you for it. If I was capable of apologizing for the community, I would.

I agree with some things you have said. I think there's a trend in modern gaming that diverges from the old school, and that makes my style of GMing clash with players of later versions of the game. But I still GM in my own style. And I still have players who play my games.

As far as the insults thrown your way are concerned... Well, I don't think being called a Grognard is really an insult, since it underlines literally decades of experience at gaming that younger players have not yet achieved. I am reminded of a lion basking in the sun while cubs chew on his tail. Eventually they'll get big enough to know better.

Everybody has a gaming style, and everybody thinks that style is the best way to play. Learning to agree to disagree is a big step forward. I wish more people would take it.

Wow, there are a lot of passive-aggressive attacks in there.

You don't know how long any of the "cubs" here have been playing, unless they tell you. I can promise you Vincent doesn't have decades of experience on me. I just fundamentally disagree with his assessment of gamers these days. Of course, I was never particularly "old school", even back in the day. Things change, but bemoaning the state of gaming and blaming it on cell phones and PF ruining gamers is a lot more like the old man ranting about "kids these days" than like the "learning to agree to disagree" you preach.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Usual Suspect wrote:
I'm honestly not sure what is meant in this thread by "Trust." If you mean trust the GM to play fair, I can't understand why a GM would want to cheat. Any GM can beat/kill the PCs anytime they want. There's no challenge or fun to that. I have yet to meet a GM like that and I've been playing a long time with a lot of different groups.
It is not always about "Beating the PC's", but some GM's try to run the game like a novel and will do whatever has to be done to see that novel to completion. Another problem may be favortism.
I guess I've mostly been lucky. Only ever had one really bad GM, and his problem wasn't railroading stories. It was that he let players do terrible things to each other in game, thought it was funny when they turned on each other, then just shrugged and told us to suck it up if anybody complained. There was some serious favoritism there and some horrible players (not bad role players, but honestly people that were horrible) so I left. In 30+ years only having one group I could not handle playing with is pretty good; especially as much as the military moved me around.
Yeah. I've been in some groups that really liked pvp. I think if the players liked it, then as a gm I'd allow it, but as a player I wouldn't participate in it. Not really my thing.

Not generally fond of it. It's rarely worked well in D&D for me. I particularly hated thieves back in the old days - And GMs who wouldn't let us do anything unless we caught them red-handed.

OTOH, I've played and loved Amber, though I prefer there to at least be something going on in addition to the Throne War.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Its not a slur... Is it how you game or isnt it?

Me having an opinion about a large group of people who truly do play that way is not a slur. Its an opinion about a fact.

An opinion folks particularly here dont seem to want me having or expresssing for any reason ever.

I think it's that you're accusing a large group of people of playing that way, when the rest of us don't see it.

Especially when you talk about "the average gamer" or how PF ruins gamers, PF players who think they're pretty much like the other PF players they've seen can be forgiven for thinking you're attacking them.

And no, I don't play like that. And I don't think the average player does these days either - though I've seen some and I've seen some back at least in 2E days. I play PF and I don't think it pushes me to play like that either. Maybe it's something about the way you (or your group?) run PF.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Yeah. Rynjin could have said 'I'm happy to say my experience with pathfinder hasn't matched your experience with it'... But he didn't...

Lots of posters could have said hey, lets not call the guy ignorant, what he says is actually pretty true among the guys I game with... But that didn't happen either.

What happens instead is what ALWAYS seems to happen instead.. Someone looks at my posts and says 'how dare he not like how I do things!!!' and then the most quoted quote in the thread is 'yeah YEAH!!! How DARE HE!'

which I believe was a sentiment I bolded in my original series of posts... I cant disagree with how you play.. HOW DARE I?

Go back and read it... How Dare I?

Thats my experience with these threads and folks who play this system... How Dare I? How dare I examine your methods. How dare I dislike your deal. Its tantamount to disliking you. How dare I not like you. How dare I say it. How dare I not reflect upon it.

I don't TRUST paiso and palladium gamers because I experience this kind of thing all the time... every time.

No wrongbadfun is just an illusion... Deep down its all about 'different playstyle and perspective than me? HOW DARE HE!' Time and time again.

Yeah, he could of.

But you really did come off as "All of you Pathfinder gamers are ruining gaming!"

It's not that you're saying "I don't like to play the way you guys do", but you're saying "You guys play like this" when that's not how they see themselves playing. But you really did make it a broad enough slur that it's hard not to take offense.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

I wouldnt want to make that statement. Let me clarify then. I do not like the playstlye of shameless metagaming, game the game, requiring that one must know immediately when his character has experienced something that could have consequences in the future when immediate knowledge of said thing is both not relevant, not possible for his character, and immersion breaking. I do not like the playstyle where having a crystal clear perspective on everything that's happening to his character at all times is non negotiable. I do not like the playstyle where characters are even capable of having tacit numerical and mechanical knowledge of their opponents.

I would go on to say that such behaviors becoming acceptable and habit has made the gaming experience worse for me and that such behaviors, in my experience, are either inentionally or unintentionally born of systems built on the d20/3e/4e/3.p/pathfinder or at the very least these systems attract this kind of player like a drop of blood in the shark tank.

Those gamers are probably awesome people but I will not play in that playstyle and actively encourage playing in other ways. If you like that playstyle you're still probably an awesome person but that gaming style makes me sad in my pants and I wish people would play that way less. If you call me 'ignorant nostalgiac grognard' for my opinions I will light the thread on fire because that's making a judgement against me, not my opinions.

If you go back and read my posts I think I was doing a fantastic job avoiding language that anyone could 'take personal'... But suddenly the ignorant nostalgic grognard barb came out, which doesnt seem to apply to any other posts but mine, and suddenly its the most quoted quote in the thread. Three cheers for the guy who used the personal insult against me.

If that's not ragebaiting I dont know what is. The paizo threads are the only threads where this kind of behavior keeps happening again and again and again... not on other forums so its not just a me problem......

I've probably been playing almost as long as you. I haven't seen the kind of shift in playstyle you're talking about. If anything, metagaming (of a slightly different kind) is far less tolerated than in the early days of D&D. Partly why it was so important back then to keep things out of the players hands.

I can't really speculate on why you see this change and I don't. I've seen some bits of it here and there throughout my gaming and heard complaints of similar things going back as far as I can remember.

Maybe you just had really good players back then. Maybe time has hidden some of the bad stuff.

Regardless, your original posts really did come off as an attack on modern gamers in general and PF in particular. When you start claiming things about "the average gamer" and saying PF "was actually making my players worse gamers", you don't really seem to be going out of your way to avoid causing offense.


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Yep. Again my experience isn't the one truth... YMMV...

The only way you could think of yourself as a victim is if my analysis is accurate and you know its wrong but you do it anyway. But even that is fine. Game how you want to game and, as picard would say, 'if you're going to be damned, be damned for who you really are'.

This thread is about trust. I trust you know what kind of gamer you are... Balance of probabilities is that its one of the three I just listed. Which is good for me.

The same applies to you getting offended when Rynjin called out:
Quote:

There's a whole lot of ignorant hostility and nostalgia tripping in this thread.

"Back in my day, men were men and gamers were gamers and everything was perfect and everybody and everything today is doing it wrong *Waves cane wildly*".

Get over yourselves.

Obviously, if you didn't recognize yourself in that, you wouldn't have responded.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Its funny how I dont remember the terms of use on these forums requiring me to only say the kinds of things people like to hear and blow smoke up people's butts.

I'm free to have an opinion and I'm free to voice it.

If you don't like the sound of what I'm critiquing... its probably you.

If you don't like the label, don't fit the label.

The same applies to you.

1 to 50 of 16,715 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.