|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Note that "sexuality" does not have to be non family-friendly.
Romance is sexuality. Parents are sexuality. The married couple working the bar is sexuality.
It's not the same as "sexual activity".
a) I'm not a expert on statistics, but does it really make sense to say half the population is two standard deviations from the average?
b) The problem with not trying to change it is that wouldn't the same thing be true with the situation 50 years ago? Or 100? In every generation, there have been people arguing that the current gender distribution of occupations was the natural one. There have also been other people trying to remove barriers, whether formal legal ones or informal social pressure ones and so far it's continued to work - women have continued to move into occupations they used to be rare in.
1) These claims seem to get perilously close to saying that media or literary portrayals have no impact at all. That mass media has no effect on shaping culture or individuals. There's a lot of space between that and "violent video games don't turn people into murderers".
4)Fanservice (of the kind we're talking about) is sexist. It's an aspect of sexism. It's putting women's bodies on display draw male eyeballs. And money.
Anime has some differences from Western sexualized portrayals. The anime girls are sexualized with plenty of shots designed to titillate, but are otherwise often competent well-developed characters. Western equivalents tended to be just there to be seen or for the male leads to rescue. That's been changing, but the differences are interesting.
Another option, especially if the player in question really doesn't want to have >thing< associated with them, is to tell the GM you're not okay with it. That you don't want it in game, leaving the other player out entirely.
Depends on the reaction.If for some bizarre reason you really do have serious panic attacks when you hear the word "trigger", you're damn right I'd avoid using it around you. If you find the word mildly irritating I won't, though I'd probably try to use other terms cause I'm a nice guy.
Not likely to come up in a game, since I don't think verbal description really set her off, but I've got a friend with a severe snake phobia. As in Throw you at the snake to delay and run screaming.
Mark Hoover wrote:
It's not always about "fearing change". Nor does it necessarily have anything to do with a mechanical build.
Drastic changes to a character's backstory can and probably should affect the character. Having everything you believed about yourself kicked out from under you is going to do that. This can be a fun roleplaying experience or it can be a disaster, depending on whether you want to play out that experience. The same thing can happen with in-game experiences, of course, but the player has more control over those - though GM abuse of the PC's loved ones is hard to stop.
Things like the "Your child has become a vampire and you have to kill her" suggested above can really easily cross the line.
Yeah, rich people view it as a tool to get more money. Poor people see it as a way to get food and a place to live. Really rich people see it as a status marker.
This isn't some philosophical difference. This is based on entirely on how much you have.
Now when you get to the middle class, and actually have some disposable income, the difference in how you view it philosophically might make an actual difference.
Yeah, adventuring for money always seemed like a silly idea in PF. It's an obvious starting motivation, but you're set for life very early on.
In games with less of a power (and thus loot) curve it can make sense, especially if you're encouraged to waste it in one fashion or another. The average sword and sorcery protagonist comes away from the story with a pouch of gold, enough to keep the wine flowing in the taverns for a few weeks and he doesn't carefully horde it to buy better gear for the next mission.
I don't even know what that means.
Reading classic literature for its own sake is the opposite of thinking?
Forgive me, but judging by sales figures, I don't think you're typical, even of a new comics reader.
That said, everyone has their different tastes. As we can see by your experience, there are books out there for you, even without retiring the old heroes. (Well, Thor had to lose the hammer, but he's still around, certainly didn't retire from age.) If those newer titles actually do better and sales on the older titles drop enough, I'd expect older heroes to be dropped and replaced. In fact, we have seen that with many second string heroes. Though their sales eventually drop and the originals are often brought back.
What I don't think is a good idea is a blanket policy of retiring all heroes on a time schedule, regardless of their popularity.
I think reboots are really orthogonal to the real-time question. You could have reboots even if they decided to age in real-time. In fact, I'd expect it, since that would be the only way to bring back old heroes and I know they'd eventually do it. You could, in theory, have non-real time comics without reboots. Characters and teams can change to keep up with the times without actually changing the backstory. They've done it many times.
I also think you're wrong about the habits of new readers. I really doubt that new readers ignore the old characters. The ones that they were introduced to in cartoons and movies. The ones that still remain the best selling comics, often in multiple titles. Nor do all the old readers only read the classic heroes. Personally, most of what I'm reading is outside the Big Two, but I have been picking up the new Thor.
Technically yes, but the hospital still has costs associated with that care. Those costs are passed on to those patients who can pay. Including you.
Which raises the cost of doing business. Which costs are again passed on to customers. Like you.
Never mind. You're against public education at all. (Or maybe you think public elementary school is okay?)
Still, no point in discussing this with you.
Quark Blast wrote:
Most universities these days are much more administration heavy than they were in the past. Much higher percentage of the budget not going to faculty.
It means nothing of the sort.
Unless you make the assumption that learning everything taught in class = 100% on the test. Which is a natural assumption to make, but doesn't always hold.
I had a physics professor back in my college days and he did that. He explained to us that he could design tests to put the average anywhere he wanted to and liked to put the average around 50%, because that gave more room to differentiate between the good students, rather than everyone being clustered above 80.
Maybe the 56% means no one learned what was taught. Maybe they did learn what was taught, but didn't extrapolate beyond what was taught into things they could have figured out on their own.
Grade inflation has nothing to do with grading on the curve or the relationship between the percent of answers you got right and the letter grade you finally get. That's far more likely to be tied to the difficulty of the test.
I think the competition from other forms of entertainment is what's hurting comic sales. I don't think ditching their still top characters is going to fix that.
If Superman and Captain America aren't relevant anymore, why have they just had blockbuster movies? Why are they still top selling comics?
N N 959 wrote:
Honestly, 99.5% of the time I'd just ignore it. Only if someone made a point of insisting that his character never needed to go, because the rules didn't say so, would it come up at all. At which point I'd laugh and tell him he still did, even if it wasn't covered in the rules. Only if he still persisted in arguing would it go any further.
Consequences for a player being an idiot.
Somebody's got to flip the burgers. Or do all the other menial tasks.
We need to make that not a horrible life. I mean, it's a horrible mind-numbing job no matter what. We don't have to compound that by also making people doing it live in poverty.
Quark Blast wrote:
If you're poor, you face an awful lot of challenges just getting the basic education needed to be accepted to college in the first place. Best predictor of education attainment is wealth/poverty level.
Matthew Morris wrote:
They might come into their own, but I'd rather they did it as Dick did - in their own right, rather than in someone else's costume. I'd rather see Nightwing than Dickbats, other than in fairly short runs to show how he handles it and contrast with Bruce.
The problem with the big characters is that the status quo is popular. If the status quo stopped being popular, if people really did stop liking Peter Parker as Spiderman, Kal-El as Superman or Bruce Wayne as Batman and stopped buying those books, then the status quo would change. As long as they remain the popular characters, that's not going to happen - not as more than temporary storylines.
Which is fine by me.
Which isn't to say the alternate universes where the heroes are retired and replaced can't also be fun, as long as they stay as alternates.
I think thejeff is just repeating what I am saying back at me, lol
Except I disagree with you.
By the time you reach 15th level each character in a 4 person party could have found around 480000gp worth of stuff. Twice WBL. Not 960000gp, which would be 4X. Since they will have missed some and used some up and sold some for half price and kept some, this should put their actual wealth at that point around 240K.
What I think you're saying is that they put in 4x as much, so that if you found it all you'd have 960K, which you'd sell to get 480K, but since you'll only find half of it and sell it all you'll be on track. Is that right?
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I think that one was more in reference to "I'm going to use your background, which might include threats to or death of NPCs in it", rather than "I'm going to change everything.
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
The modern Men's Rights Movement may have spun off from the Jungian Iron John stuff, but it's a very different animal.
Generally, once you've been in the nudist area for awhile, it wears off, you stop freaking out about it in either direction and go on with whatever you're doing there.
Once nudity isn't a rare exception, it stops being a big deal, even if it is some dude's fat hairy butt.
Thejeff: The problem of basing it off economic need is that it becomes an economic drain on the person in question. Take the hemophiliac. Should he be forced to spend every dollar he might ever get his hands on to survive, with the state only going in when he absolutely can't survive without help? Is it reasonable that a poorer hemophiliac should have to pay far less for the exact same treatment?
That's often the way it works in the US. Or did at least. There was an exception for those who needed kidney dialysis, they went automatically onto Medicaid. Possibly specific exceptions for other things, though I don't know about hemophilia. Otherwise, you only got government medical help if you were poor enough to get on Medicaid. Though you might have a job that got you good enough insurance.
ACA makes that a little easier, but I'm not sure how much.
Ideally, from my point of view, health care is best treated on a universal basis - which means government involvement the whole way. Experience and the examples of other countries shows that provides much better outcomes than the patchwork the US has now. Cheaper too.
For hemophilia specifically, I'd rather not see the economic drain, though it's pretty much the same argument for universal health care in general.
I do think people should be able to get enough food to survive and even thrive on, even if that requires government help. I don't think the finickyness of basing that assistance on individual size, metabolism, and whatever other factors go into caloric needs is worth the cost - in both money and intrusiveness. Much better just to make the assistance high enough that even the larger people will do alright.
As for hemophiliacs (and others with high medical costs, dialysis partients are the classic example), we're talking people who will not survive without help. If we do have the resources, that's a pretty straightforward case for the government stepping in.
I always wanted to hit Damian. With a chair. Arrogant little bastard.
He was, wasn't he.
The best times with Damian were when the facade cracked and you got to see the kid underneath.
I don't know if I'd say I liked Damian, but there was some really good stuff done with him and he played off the other characters very well.
I don't think he'd have worked well in the long run - he'd need to learn and grow up and I don't think he'd be as interesting that way. Worse if he didn't. Of course they're bringing him back, but I'm just going to pretend that's not real.
Sissyl is trolling the statist liberals here, not actually thinking taxes should pay for extra food for larger people.More generously, using a Reductio ad absurdum argument to hopefully make us realize that government shouldn't be doing so many of the things it is doing.
Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:
You keep talking about this being from 3.5, which is true, but I really suspect most people wouldn't even think about it that way. Just that it was from a Paizo Pathfinder source. Says Pathfinder right on the cover, it's just that meant something different back then.
I said "squeeze over". If you really can't do that, then you can't. But everyone else in this thread is saying "Just ask", so I assume most people can.
And by the way: "humans don't possess the correct enzymes to digest corn"? Bwah-hah-hah!
Tell that to the Southern Native Americans. It was only a staple of their diet for thousands of years.
Hell, I "Need" to lie down and stretch out over three or four seats and throw my bag on another one. Who are you to tell me your need to sit at all is more important than mine to lie down?
If you really absolutely cannot physically fit in one seat, that's one thing. Other than extremely obese people, that's not generally true. If you can squeeze over to make room for someone else to sit rather than stand, do so, even if you're less comfortable that way.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
While amusing, their budget is in the billions. That ad campaign had no effect on raising fares. It's a rounding error.
Given their apparent problems with overcrowding, if the campaign has any actual effect, it might actually help their budget problems.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
No one is saying it's some great sexist plot by the patriarchy or that the Accused is doing it on purpose as part of some nefarious plot.That's a complete strawman.
Mechapoet has explicitly stated it's largely "most likely non-malicious in intent and unconscious".
Which doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to correct.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Which works for guys. And would work for women too, but it's harder. Men are, as has been said, generally larger and those taking up the extra space are probably on the large end of that. That makes them more intimidating and less approachable. Further women tend to be, as a result of nature, of socialization, or simply of good sense and caution, less aggressive about approaching strange men.So most of these guys would probably move for women if asked, but women are less likely to ask than men.
As a result of the same gender dynamics we're talking about in the first place.
Maybe don't wait to be asked? If someone comes in and there isn't a lot of room, take the initiative to make space.
Need? Yes.Want? No.
If you "needed" the space, you wouldn't be able to make room when asked as others are saying.
Freehold DM wrote:
Seriously? Is this really a thing? Men really can't sit with their legs together?
How come I, who am a man for the record, possessing the relevant parts, have never noticed?
I'm not exactly a small person and I do tend to sprawl out when I can, but if it's crowded, I am still quite capable of making room without fuss or trouble. It might be less comfortable than sprawling, though not really for any reason related to my genitals, but not so much that I'd put other people out for my comfort.
What I can't seem to figure out, is how it is that when it comes to "planning" players are zealous in creating characters and disinterested in any other sort of planning that might come their way. Heck, in most of my games I can hardly even get the players to talk to each other, let alone hope they will come up with a plan, even to open a door.
Because PF is a character building game with an annoying interactive part bolted on. :)
I'm not so sure that manspreading is a gender issue as opposed to a general decline in civic values. Most manspreaders are essentially men who eschew the notion of common courtesy to their fellow passengers, if not actively revolting against it.
Given that there have been campaigns against it (under other names) and other bad subway behavior since before I was born, I doubt it has anything to do with a "general decline in civic values".
Except not really. Batman stayed about the same age and was acting as Batman again. Dick only became Batman when Bruce was dead, though he did stay in the cowl afterwards. The Batman Inc thing stayed around through the transition. Most of the Bat family stayed basically intact. The only real change was Dick went back to Nightwing.
Batman's a great character. Dick's a fun one, but he doesn't have the depth that Bruce does. I would really have hated it if Bruce had retired in the 60s and died in the 80s and I never got to read any of it. (Since I'd assume strict aging, retiring characters policy would forbid reboots.)
Bruce is Batman. Others can take the role for a storyline, mostly to see how things would be different, but he's the iconic character. He can't be replaced.
That being said. There are GOOD retcons and there are AWFUL retcons. All retcons are not created equally...
Certainly. It's hard to extrapolate from fiction, where there isn't a "player" involved. It's more complicated and riskier when you're changing the backstory of someone else's character without consulting with them. Something you think is really cool may break the character's underpinnings.
Or it may work out just fine. Just something to be very careful with and be sure you know the player well enough to know what's actually important.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Just for reference, that's pretty common. As I understand it, men tend to interrupt and talk over both men and women, while women are less likely to. It's not sexist by intent, but does tend to wind up with women's voices being drowned out, particularly in meetings and the like.Individual exceptions apply, of course. We're talking general trends here.
I suggest not waiting until after they get married to drop the reveal though.
It can work. It works better in literature, since it's usually set up from the beginning and there's no "player" who made the character one way and then got it changed out from under him.
Peter: My Uncle Ben died because I didn't think it was my problem. I learned from that that with Great Power comes Great Responsibility."
Villain: <rips off mask> "You fool! I'm your Uncle Ben! I faked it to get away from you and your insipid Aunt and back to my criminal career!"
Or in an actual comics story, revealing that Peter's parents really hadn't died, but were secret agents or something. Which went over like a lead balloon and was eventually retconned to be imposters, IIRC.
First, there's a difference between the GM and player working out changes so the backstory fits the campaign, usually before the game actually starts and the GM unilaterally changing things that the player thinks are actually there. The first is fine and probably a necessary step. The second is almost always a bad idea.
Second, your "mining for gems" is exactly why people start making loner characters with no attachments. Everything you suggest involves threatening or actually harming the PCs connections to make the PC react. That's a valid tactic, but way overused.
Finally, treating the character's background as an "unreliable narrator" can work and is theoretically legit, but doing so with things that are thematically important to the player risks breaking what made the player interested in the character in the first place. Be careful.
Again, as Aranna says, age is a good concept that would keep things fresh.
I see lots of people say this and I don't see why.
"Fresh", I suppose, in the sense that good characters get thrown away every decade or so and replaced with copies. Or dropped entirely, I guess, in the hopes they can replicate the magic and create completely new characters that will stick and become iconic.
Not to mention even more continuity, since everyone will have predecessors and parents to keep track of. Who will inevitably show up every so often in the hero role because some writer/editor wants to use them again.
Would it really be a good thing for comics if all the iconic characters were long dead or retired? Most of us wouldn't ever have seen the main DC heroes. Unless they still rebooted everything, at least at the start of the Silver Age.
I think I see the problem. :)
Seriously, I'm about as non-lethal of a GM as I know, but I make exceptions for suicide.
Passing the title on to the new generation is writing them out. Those characters stop being the hero and you get to see if a different character (same hero name and maybe costume, but a different person) can carry the title.And of course they would keep dragging the old timers out all the time anyway. And killing them all off every so often to get them out of the way. Then bringing them back because some new writer/editor wanted to use them. See DC's handling of the old JSA for decades.
Because writing out popular characters due to old age isn't good business. You wouldn't get really cool new generations of characters, you'd get new universe reboots whenever characters started getting to old to fill their roles.
Well, except for Thor. He'd still be around. :)
OTOH, if the GM is of both the "You must give me backstory with family members and loved one" and the "Now I will torture and abuse them" persuasions, well then I guess you know to walk away from the table.
Which is the flip side of "I'll do whatever I want with your backstory. Including killing or torturing everyone you've ever cared about or turning them into enemies and monsters or making the whole thing a fever dream that never really happened. Because I'm the GM and I can!!!"
The answer of course is to communicate. Talk to each other like reasonable adults, make it clear what's important and what isn't and what's put in explicitly as hooks for the GM. Not to fight over who has the rights to control it.
I think it is important to distinguish between what the character thinks his background is and what it really is. It is right up the fantasy alley, after all: You are not the son of a pig farmer. In truth, you are the lost child of a great knight yadda yadda. I wouldn't contradict the backstory... But the backstory is a perception, not the objective truth.
There's a distinction as well between what the character thinks his backstory is and what the player thinks the backstory is.One is fine to mess with, the other may not be. I rarely go into great detail in backstory and often leaving gaping holes where a GM could insert stuff without problems, but some parts are likely to be important to the character I want to play. Mess with those at the peril of destroying my interest in the character.
If I made the character the son of a pig farmer because I wanted to play with the theme of "strength coming from humble origins rather than bloodlines" and you make the character really the lost child of a great knight, you've just torpedo'd me.
Be really careful about being sure you know what the player thinks is important and what he wants before mucking with his backstory. Ask, if you're not absolutely sure, giving away as little as possible to keep the surprise of course.
I'm done. I promise I'll let it lie for awhile at least.
Can't promise I won't fail a save against a new post in a couple days and jump back in though. :)