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 Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 22,946 posts (23,867 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


1 to 50 of 5,810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rosita the Riveter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Showing a character in a negative light is not the same as perpetuating a negative stereotype.

Well, it's not the individual action that's the problem. It's the trend of the action being taken time and time again, and it isn't really something where you can blame the artists themselves. That's where the numbers game becomes so important. You don't say you can't portray black criminals, you try to portray more black heroes and non-black criminals to buck the trend.

Really, though, numbers are only one facet. If you see lots of transwomen but all they do is entrap men into sex for the audience's amusement, you still have a problem.

And that's the basic point. The numbers can solve one problem that Lord Snow rightly points out: Black Widow is by far the most prominent women in the entire Marvel movie franchise, so any problems with her portrayal are easily taken to be problems with the portrayal of women in general.

If the franchise was full of female heroes, even if they all had their own issues, they wouldn't each be stand-ins for all women.

OTOH, if they all get basically the same stereotyped portrayal, that doesn't solve anything either. You need not only more numbers, but characters in a broad variety of roles, with different problems and different parts to play - heroes and villains and love interests and all the same variety the straight white men have always had. It's not actually like women have actually ever been rare in movies - they've just been limited in what roles they could take. Numbers haven't solved that problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think that's pretty much the point.

The fact that it looks like a "rush to put a strong female character in every action movie" is that that has been so rare for so long that changing it is going to look that way. And while it might be fine for your movie to only happen to have one female character who happens to have an apparently sexist negative trait in a world of movies that was full of a broad range of positive and negative portrayals of women, the very same movie will look very different in the current world.

It's a process. We've got to get through this stage to get to the real diversity we're aiming for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MisterSlanky wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

No. It means that if you couldn't attempt the roll to begin with, then you can't Aid.

It does not mean that if you couldn't make the DC, you can't Aid.

Those are two entirely different circumstances.

Nefreet, with respect, that's not what the language in the rule reads.

The language doesn't read "if you couldn't attempt the roll" it reads, "In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results". If you have a -1 Diplomacy, you cannot achieve the result of influencing a creature that is hostile; literally the skill restricts who can achieve an influence result by who is capable of the DC, just as the skill of open lock restricts those who can achieve an open door result by who is capable of the DC.

Even the skill language is roughly the same; I fail to see where all these special qualifiers for "couldn't make the DC" come from, as they're not located in the skill descriptions themselves either.
<Snip>
Again, very different language than what is in the aid another description, even though it's in the same section. If the aid another meant to mean "no untrained use" it would say, "you cannot aid if you are untrained".

Well, there are other cases where you can't achieve certain results, even if you are trained - disabling Magical traps without trapfinding, for example.

That's a blatant restriction on who can achieve certain results.

BTW, do you let people roll anyway, then ignore the results or do you tell them the DC?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Spastic Puma wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

If you go to school, work hard, bust your rump, then getting a decent paying job isn't supposed to be a privilege (unearned benefit) or special treatment, it's SUPPOSED to be what happens to anyone.

That has of course, not been true for a long time (if ever), and certain segments of the population have known that that wasn't true for a long time. But people are looking for and expecting some sort of fairness from the system because that's what the system used to be to them: fair. You did the hard work, you got the pay. It was earned, not given. If that's not happening anymore then someone is cheating. Calling people that literally broke their backs to do their job privledged or entitled is not true, not fair, and most of all not helpful.

That's a really good point. I think a lot of different groups face the reality that The American Dream (in this case I'm referring to the idea that if one works hard and keeps their nose clean they will succeed in great fashion) is not real -- and perhaps, never was. Most people die in the same social class they're born in. There are countless people breaking their back for 70 hours a week, making peanuts while their CEO's make 260 times more money than them. It's not what you know, it's who you know, etc. all this creates a disalussionment that social groups have to contend with in their own way. From Kimmel's perspective, white males address this lie they've been sold with impotent rage and lash out at minorities who stole "their" jobs, threaten "their" freedom, and feel like they are drowning under the rising tide of equality around them.

It's worth remembering that to the extent this was ever true, it was much shorter and rarer than the American Myth makes it.

Early on it was possible to go out to the frontier and eke out a rough living farming - often that was far better than options back home - either in Europe or eastern US cities.
With the closing of the frontier and the start of industrialization, that safety valve went away.
The "American Dream" as we remember it today is the result largely of the confluence of labor unions, the New Deal and the post WWII boom. It really lasted somewhere around 30 years and was really only available to white men. It's telling that the downhill slide is closely tied to minorities getting enough influence to demand their share.
Maybe's is SUPPOSED to be what happens to anyone, but it never has been.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rosc wrote:
Pat Lowinger wrote:
Or maybe...again just maybe, some players look at utilizing Archetypes which give them more class skills and skill points, such as the Tactician or Lore Warden.
Some very nice thoughs there. I've had many of the same. In fact, I'd almost prefer Lore Warden to be the baseline. And while I acknowledge that Charisma is the de facto dump stat, I do wish it had more universal appeal. Like how Dex gives initiative, or Wis for will saves.

Well, Lore Warden only barely helps, since it only gives extra skill points for knowledge, not general purposes.

And it makes you a low armor manuever based fighter, which isn't really what I want for a baseline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Lots of stuff on political leanings of posters

I don't normally agree with GreyWolfLord on a lot of things, but I think he is exactly correct here. Paizo is a pretty progressive company, and I think their support LGBTQ and moderation policies have gradually turned off Alt-right and more conservative leaning posters either completely away from the site, or at least from sections of the site dealing even tangentially with those topics. I've been posting long enough to see some pretty disgusting stuff be posted by folks no longer around, which quickly got deleted and in some cases led to bans. And just being the sort of person who spends a lot of time on a forum is going to automatically skew where you fall on the political spectrum.

I also think there is just a natural human tendency to assume whatever special interest you have, whether it's science, gaming, birding, or any other hobby, is full of like-minded "enlightened" folks of your political persuasion. And a lot of that is more down to hanging out in areas where those contrary folks don't show up, or conversations just not steering in those directions and thus a certain amount of ignorance of what other people really feel.

Though I'd clarify that Paizo's support and moderation has really focused on LGBTQ and other inclusion issues. Things that would drive away the alt.right, but not fiscal conservatives or libertarians or such. I don't think I've ever seen them take a side on economic issues, for example. Other than the standard "keep it civil".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
Zhangar wrote:


Or the solar energy industry v. the coal industry. (Or global warming.)

All sorts of economic related issues with semi-arbitrary splits on which party is affiliated with which side, though Republicans tend to be consistently on whichever side would be worse for the environment and/or the public =P

Well both seem to be married to the oil industry, fracking for example, and while the democratic platform gives lip service to being against it, they didn't actually suggest banning it. Factor in that Ken Salazar has been named to lead Hilary's transition team, a man that's not only pro fracking but also green lit a number of off shore drilling operations when he was Secretary of the Interior, and you have to wonder exactly what the difference between a typical republican government and a Hilary government regarding the oil industry.

Like with most things, some level of restraint. Democrats are no where near as extreme as the left hopes or the right fears, but even moderation is better. No, we're not likely to see an outright ban - though if you look on the state or local level which party has tended to ban? We are more likely to controls and regulation.

As much as fracking worries me, I'm not actually sure that's a bad thing either. The main effect of fracking on a large scale has been to weaken the demand for coal and for all the problems with fracking I think coal is worse. If we're not building out renewable energy fast enough, then I'd rather see fracking as an intermediate step.

Of course, you could blame Democrats for not switching to renewables faster, but there it's very clear that Republicans would be even worse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GreenDragon1133 wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Ah! Thank you Jeff and Grey for the clarification.

I think they went with Iceboi since this one is gay and the other one is SO deep in the closet, Not even the Eye of Agamotto can find it.

You mean, since the older version of the character is straight and has dated almost as many women as Worthington III?

Well, officially he's not. They confronted each other over it in the last issue of Uncanny before Secret Wars and he basically admitted he's been closeted the whole time.

It's obviously a retcon. Certainly not originally intended for the character and probably not until this series. I'm not sure why "Iceman is gay" jokes have been a thing, unless it's been his generally lousy luck with women. He's dated plenty, but unlike Warren, few of them have lasted long. Still, I'm not really fond of the theory that "not good with women == closeted gay".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


Yes, but I think a reasonable one if the large piece of human culture seems to you like a small, niche subset of it.

Until this moment, I didn't realise anime was a "nationwide category of media", I thought it was a genre.

Anime is literally an abreviation of 'animation' used by the Japanese.

It would be like lumping all American Cartoons into the same pile. Including things ranging from Looney Toons to Avatar to Dreamswork to South Park to Disney to Futurama.......

Which is also a thing commonly done, particularly by older people - "Cartoons are for kids". Less prevalent than a few decades ago, but still a thing.

And again, while it's definitely a stereotyped overgeneralization, it's not racism.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Murderhoboes
If the players or characters call themselves this, I dont want to play with them.
It's not the ones who call themselves that that bother me. It's the ones who try to pin on my characters and games. "All PCs are murderhoboes."
When I look at the AP I am running and see its basically a string of home invasion and burglary with an expectation of wanton murder? Yeah, murderhoboes.

Yeah. Well, I'm not playing that AP. Sorry.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Murderhoboes
If the players or characters call themselves this, I dont want to play with them.

It's not the ones who call themselves that that bother me. It's the ones who try to pin on my characters and games. "All PCs are murderhoboes."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, it's not so much the Champions as "they had this spare superhero team name lying around".

I do have fond memories of the original Champs run, way back when. Shame it didn't last.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

But if I offered you Re:ZERO (a normal kid is transported to another world, gets disemboweled, then has to keep repeating the same few days until he figures out a way to not die) and Sweetness and Lightning (a recently-widowed schoolteacher learns how to cook better meals for his 6-year-old daughter), and you said "No thanks, I don't like over-the-top crazy fights", then that would be just as ridiculous as the example above with The Avengers/Get Smart. Furthermore, comparable to the above example's use of the term "Hollywood films" to mean "cowboy movies" would be the use of the term "anime" to refer only to the crazy, over-the-top fighting shows. And just like it would be mind-boggling to hear someone say that the "photographs of Americans with guns" is enough to infer that the above examples were cowboy movies, it's equally ridiculous to cite the drawing method of cartoon Asians as being indicative of Re:ZERO/Sweetness and Lightning being DBZ-style action shows.

Any number of folks in this community would find the above "cowboy movies" example shocking, to the point of probably not believing such a dialogue could even happen. And yet, doing the exact same thing with "anime" seems to be par for the course for a lot of folks in this community. What I take issue with is (1) that double-standard, and (2) that some folks are so thoroughly convinced of anime's uniformity that they think the "cowboy movies" comparison is invalid.

Making assumptions on the same tier of absurdity as "that James Bond movie has a guy with a gun so it must be like a John Wayne movie", and/or asserting that anime isn't diverse enough for that to be a valid analogy, are what I'm speaking out against.

]Honestly, in both cases (Hollywood cowboy and anime), I'd say it's far more ignorance than prejudice, much less racism. The Hollywood==cowboy thing is just much rarer, but if you were in some remote backwater country with no media access and all you'd seen of American movies was a few cowboy movies, it would be understandable. Probably not possible today, but maybe 30 years ago. American media is too pervasive today. You might still get stereotyped ideas from it, but it certainly won't be cowboy movies.

You might not think it, but plenty of people - even gamers, still have minimal exposure to anime. Personally, I'd have been more likely to associate with giant robots or mecha and I've still never seen DBZ (or really anything like it). Yes, it's annoying when people complain about "anime-style", meaning one specific bit of what's far more a medium than a genre, but I still don't think it's particularly connected to racism.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


3) The anti vaccine thing is one of those things where it's under the plane, you walk far enough out to the left or right and that's where you wind up.

I'm actually kind of grateful to Jill Stein for keeping up the perception that the anti-vaccine thing is as much left as right, regardless of her actual position on it. If that actually becomes adopted by the right as a Right vs. Left touchstone in the culture and science wars, far more people will take it up and that would be bad.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Your getting awful defensive there Jeff...

I just keep hoping that one time when someone talks about the scary Left, they'll actually have something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

OK. So no one with anyone near the prominence or power of the dangerous and scary people on the right.

False equivalence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

Oh, some are just as dangerous and scary, they just don't look like it in comparison.

Think of Father Ted. Ted and Dougal are both crazy, but put them in the same room as Jack they seem perfectly normal.

So who on the left is "just as dangerous and scary"?

Are they anywhere near as prominent as their equivalents on the right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

At the risk of spoilers, in the actual module it seems the intent is that though PCs may be built with such connections, they won't start off remembering them.

Spoiler:
As they further gain their bearings, each PC realizes that he also doesn’t recognize anyone in the room, including the other PCs. Even if characters have interwoven backgrounds or intimate connections, they have no memory of those experiences or relationships.

PCs won't even remember familiars or other similar pets, though they'll be available and will have the usual connections.

I'm not sure how that all works with the idea that you've only forgotten a few years. I don't think even the GM has the full story yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:

So in case someone wonders what parts of Gary Johnson's campaign I don't like:

1. The libertarian platform.
2. Ron Nelson's long time partnership with Gary Johnson and all the dirt that's attached to them both through that.
3. RON PAUL! (well only in that it's RON PAUL, and no direct connection)

Informative links

With a history of the stuff

And I as I like to add everytime I mention him, that's "former Republican governor Gary Johnson."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rednal wrote:
...When in doubt, loudly accuse somebody else of what you, yourself, are doing?

Projection is certainly a thing.

But this is almost cleverer. Accuse them of a different kind of fraud and use that accusation as justification for your own: Democrats are voting multiple times so we must purge the rolls of voters who might be doing so.

And we'll make the matches as sloppy as possible to knock out as many as we can. This kind of thing was one of the biggest factors at work in Florida in 2000. Back then it was purging felons from the rolls, not people who'd voted in multiple states, but it still worked by using sloppy matches, ignoring SSNs, middle names and other differences, to remove far more voters than necessary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Speaking of election rigging, here's a far more effective way than in person voter fraud.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
That's no problem at all, Amnesiac stacks with all Psychic archetypes (of which there are few, and none others very good). It should be mandatory for all Psychics.

Certainly not mandatory, unless you're going to strip the actual "Amnesiac" part from it. The mechanics are mostly nice, but requiring any Psychic character to start with no memory is pretty limiting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Charity navigator removed the Clinton Foundation from its watch list since those stories.

Charity Watch currently gives it a "A" rating.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

In their defense (not that they deserve one), it's basically a cardinal rule of campaigning that you cannot appear to anticipate anything other than a victory. I'm sure they don't believe it, but they absolutely must come up with a rationalization that allows them to behave outwardly as though they are winning, while facing polling numbers that make it clear that the race is basically unwinnable.

Last election it was "The polls are skewed, the unskewed polls show that we're winning." This election it's "The polls are wrong, because a lot of our voters are scared to admit they support Trump." It's nonsense, they know it's nonsense, we know it's nonsense, most of the world at large knows it's nonsense, but it's infinitely preferable to, "Yeah, we're getting destroyed."

The thing is, the didn't know it was nonsense last election. In fact, last week, a Fox reporter basically called the poll inaccuracy line b&+@*&%$, because she refuses to get duped again, reminding people of how stunned they were when the polls turned out to be right.

Depends on which "they" you mean. Normally the people spreading the nonsense know it's nonsense, but the whole point is to convince others. I don't think it's anywhere near so clear to most as Scott thinks. The Republican base is moving further and further into a world of their own with every election cycle. And it's been deep enough and long enough that they're electing politicians who don't know it's a scam, because they've grown up immersed in it.

I'm also thinking back to Karl Rove's reaction to losing Ohio in 2012. Either he'd been fooled, which I don't believe, or there was something that was supposed to happen that didn't.

Scott: I think we call most level-headed Republicans "Democrats" these days. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Exactly. I mean how are we supposed to add all these pieces up: Clinton is a warmonger who has to be bribed to sell more weapons to dictators. The bribes are donations to a charity that she doesn't directly benefit from and that is widely respected for its work and highly rated by the various groups that track such things. Neither her nor Bill or Chelsea collect money from the Foundation - they're not paid a salary by it or anything else. In fact, Clinton also donates the bribes she collects as speaking fees.
It really isn't clear how this nefarious scheme is supposed to work.

Beyond that, the Clintons are making plans not only to have the Foundation stop accepting donations from foreign governments while she's president, but possibly to spin it off from them entirely.

Meanwhile, we're told a little way back in this discussion that Trump's loans from other countries and business ventures in other countries won't influence him, even though he benefits from them directly and plans to retain ownership while President, just letting his children do the active management.
Admittedly, Trump hasn't yet been bribed to abuse his governmental authority - because he has never had any. He has allegedly been on the other side of that equation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Then it sounds like the impression you got from the box art isn't the type of impression I was talking about.

I still would argue that even the impression you're talking about is more likely just a stereotyped idea of anime than actual racism.

Except of course when you add on the asian looking characters bit, but it seems to me that pretty much stands on its own rather than adding to the art style.

If someone sees anime and thinks "DBZ" and isn't interested that's one thing.
If someone sees eastern looking characters and isn't interested, that's something else.
If they'd be perfectly happy with the anime-style as long as the characters didn't look eastern? I don't even think that happens. People perfectly happy with anime as long as the characters don't look asian? It's possible I guess.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rednal wrote:
And in other news, now that Trump is taking donations from others, he's significantly increased the rent he's charging his campaign for space in Trump Tower.

Cause it's all about the grifting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Maybe that's my disconnect. You're talking about one specific style of anime.

I think of Avatar as having quite a bit of over-the-top anime style action, just not to anything like the level of Dragonball. For the purposes of the "anime martials expectations" thing that this thread was originally about, there are certainly some pure martials who qualify. I'm thinking particularly of Azula's two friends in particular. Not breaking mountains or anything, but perfectly capable of beating up the setting's casters.

So when you say "the box art depicts something vastly different", I don't see that at all. The box art matched my impression from the art style. The show matched my impression from the box art.

I expected something with a lot of anime influence and I got it. Which is why I kept having trouble with your take on it. Because it made no sense at all to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rednal wrote:
I'm not gonna lie, that's impressive in its own completely insane way.

Most likely in a "I don't know who David Duke is, but I know I'm against Trump" kind of way.

Name recognition backfire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

Would you please pay attention to what I actually write? It was like this the first time around with this thread as well; I'd assert N, then had to go through multiple iterations of "No, I don't mean X, I said N; no, I don't mean Y, I said N; no, I don't mean Z, I said N" before one or two people finally recognized that I was saying something different than all the XYZs that they're used to hearing. You're starting that process all over again, and it's getting old.

Now, pay attention. You seem to be under the impression that I think the art style should be ignored, and if you draw any conclusions from it then you're racist/bad/whatever.

I did not say that.

Go back and re-read what I actually wrote. Here, I'll even re-post part of it for your convenience:
"What I'm talking about is if the viewer would actually like a story about young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat, and probably would have picked it up based on that, except they noticed that the youths look "eastern" and are drawn in a particular style, causing the viewer to completely disregard the obvious message of the art and instead assume that it's going to be hadokens and sonic sword-slices and over-the-top craziness."

Here are some key differences between what I actually said and what you somehow managed to absorb:
• I talked about the person's rejection being based in part on the race of the characters, which you completely ignored. (Sure makes it easier to say "That's not racist" when you ignore the part about race, doesn't it?)
• My reference to the art style was not about factoring that into the overall message of the cover, but actually using the art style (and race) to draw conclusions in spite of the rest of the message of the cover. That is, their assumptions based on the art style (and race) contradict and overrule all other data they have about the work.

In short, I'm talking about when "hand-drawn Asians" is basically all they can see on the cover.

Now, can you rephrase back to me what my point is? Because I'm not going to invest in you any further unless you can demonstrate that you really read and absorbed what I wrote. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to demonstrate that whatever you might be about to disagree with is what I actually said.

I think it's the part where you shift from art style to just "hand-drawn asians". There's plenty of anime that's "young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat" - but that combat is often over-the-top craziness. Sometimes not of course, but that's the anime stereotype.

It's not clear to me why you think the rejection is linked to race of the characters. Or why the other data contradicts the impression given by the style.

Given that the characters look eastern and are drawn in an anime style, I still don't see why it's unreasonable to think the whole work might be anime (or a western imitation). (And honestly, "look eastern" is by far the less significant of those to me.)

But maybe I'm still just to dumb to figure out what you're saying. Or maybe it's not as clear as you think it is.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Would you please pay attention to what I actually write? It was like this the first time around with this thread as well; I'd assert N, then had to go through multiple iterations of "No, I don't mean X, I said N; no, I don't mean Y, I said N; no, I don't mean Z, I said N" before one or two people finally recognized that I was saying something different than all the XYZs that they're used to hearing. You're starting that process all over again, and it's getting old.

It's usually a pretty good rule that when multiple people are misunderstanding you, the failure in the conversation might not be completely on their side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
scary harpy wrote:
memorax wrote:
So saying that Starfinder will be compared to Pathfinder is a baiting post and it was removed. Well that's news to me.

This is the first I've heard of Starfinder. So the rumor is that it will be an unofficial Pathfinder 2nd edition?

If so, I think this should extend the popularity of Pathfinder. Those who resist a 2nd edition would have Pathfinder; those that want a 2nd edition could play with Starfinder but in a classic dungeon crawl setting. Best of both worlds.

Just a thought.

That's the persistent rumor, but I really doubt it's the intent. It's not "Pathfinder 2.0 - back port it to work with our PF 1.0 content." It's "Pathfinder in Space - use it with our new space content."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I may well be wrong, (and dear god help me, I'm reading cnn) but it sure sounds like these are new emails that have not been gone over by anyone.

Nope. These are old emails that the FBI has been in possession of for a while, now.

A non-story, per usual. How many of these are people going to read before they stop leaping to, "Surely, THIS will be the story that actually leads to something incriminating!"

It isn't happening. It wasn't happening any of the hundreds of times people posted clickbait email scandal articles months and months ago, and it isn't going to happen at some point in the future.

But surely, THIS will be the one!

It goes back long before the email story. THIS, finally THIS revelation will be the one to bring the Clintons down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:
You can say, "adventurer," or "troubleshooter," but those words don't mean anything.

Sounds to me like a function of your setting, not of the term.

If your setting is well-civilized and has countries, jurisdictions, regulated law enforcement, and sufficiently-developed populations such that you can hire whichever set of specialists (explorers, bounty hunters, artifact analysts, etc) you need for this particular job and still have some selection available among the candidates; then sure, "adventurers" might not be a common thing.

If your setting is more wilderness-dominated with smaller population centers that don't have formalized defense organizations or specialized career training, where someone who wants to make a living exploring, fighting, investigating or relic-hunting is going to need to be capable of all of those things instead of just their preferred specialty (or at least be on a team that can handle them all), and where folks who need such jobs done likewise don't have a pool of specialized experts to choose from for just the type of job they need done and instead have to hire one of these "generalist" teams; then "adventurers" might well be the best term for the teams in question.

The hobby is bigger than your own narrow set of habits.

But in that first case, your group of PCs would have to specialize to get work. Which generally isn't what you want to do in the game. You don't want to only have bounty hunter jobs, because doing a variety of things is fun.

Hence why so many adventures have some kind of non-professional plot hook, such as being thrust randomly into a dangerous situation or being called in for a favor by an old acquaintance.

Seems a lot of folks want well-developed settings (like Golarion), which isn't always very conducive to stories based on being an "adventurer", so there's always some other way to get the PCs involved in the plot.

All I'm saying is that doesn't mean there's something inherently meaningless about "adventurer" as a term; the lack of such a profession is a product of the setting.

Agreed. I prefer to avoid the "I go into town and look for adventuring jobs" approach.

But if that kind of mercenary approach is the way you want to run games, having "adventurers" be a thing in the setting is useful, so a GM should look for ways to make it work, rather than ways to remove it.

In other words, I don't see it so much as a setting thing as a meta-game construct.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I guess people really do judge a book by its cover (art.) Myself I prefer to judge by the back cover text.

I've read enough back cover text to know better than that.

And honestly, both are half way decent guides for the basics. Both are marketing devices intended to attract people who will like that kind of book. They tend to say very little about how good it is, but are a fairly decent guide to the general subject matter or genre. Of course my first criteria is usually even broader: What section is it shelved in?

That way if I'm looking for a fantasy novel, I don't have to waste time weeding through the mysteries and westerns.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Neal Litherland wrote:
Zaister wrote:

No.

Doesn't have anything to do with PC motivation for me. An adventurer is someone who goes on adventures. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is exactly what PCs usually do.

Anything beyond that is your interpretation.

Zaister, I will pose this to you, then.

Say you put up a poster asking for a posse to hunt down a bandit lord. You want capable, experienced people with the skills to get the job done. Then some yahoo comes up to you, and when you ask what he does all he tells you is that he's an adventurer.

That's great, but what does that mean? By using the term in-game, you're still going to have people asking what you can actually do, and requesting a list of your previous exploits and history before giving you the job. And it's bad enough when NPCs are doing it, but if a new PC is approaching the group, that's essentially a job interview. You need to make your case as to why the company should hire you on. Wasting time with a job title that doesn't mean anything can make you look foolish, especially if you never thought beyond that label.

As usual, I don't have the power to make anyone do anything. I am not on staff as a game creator, and if people don't like my suggestions, they're free to not use them. However, pointing out that someone saying they're an "adventurer" and expecting that to mean something when it could be anything from treasure hunter and arcane scholar, to assassin or pirate doesn't seem unreasonable.

Thing is, if that's a reasonable thing to do in your game world - put up posters advertising for people to take down bandit lords, do dragon slaying, undead hunting and giant fighting, it makes sense there would be a term for people who do that kind of thing. Who would take on any of that very broad set of jobs. Because's that's the trope the game is working with, right?

It's got to be an accepted thing in the game world, that there are small groups of people wandering around doing crazy jobs for little reason - or no one would be putting up posters advertising for them. If they needed a posse to take on the bandits, the sheriff would deputize some of the trusted local citizens and lead them, not hire a bunch of random yahoos.

So this is a trope and adventurer is a real thing, because that simplifies the game. The whole point is to justify hiring the PCs for the job, not come up with reasons for them not to get it. So whatever wacky combination of skills they really have, or what they did before or what they do in their downtime, the job of the party is "adventurers".

Mind you, all this is really only necessary if you do want to hook the players for adventures by having random strangers hire them. Avoid that and it's much easier to avoid the concept.
I don't use it when I run and I prefer to avoid it when I play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Even the article continues to assume you're basically doing jobs for money. That's actually rarely been the case in games I've played, which is probably why I never really started using the word "adventurer" in the first place.

It's a convenient hook for modules, since the module writer doesn't know anything about what might motivate your PCs, but it's rarely used in APs, beyond maybe the first adventure. Home-brewed campaigns can usually find other motivations as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:

Today's bit of (unintentional) Trump humor:

"Doubling down on appeals to black voters that have become a mainstay of his stump speech this week, Donald Trump made a bold prediction about his ability to attract the support of the African-American community if he gets the chance to run for reelection in 2020.

"At the end of four years, I guarantee you I will get over 95 percent of the African-American vote. I promise you," Trump said to a largely white audience Dimondale, Mich., a town where in 2010 just 9 of the town's 1,234 residents were black, according to census data."

From a BBC story:

Quote:
Ana Navarro, a Latina Republican strategist, wrote: "Trump's 'Black outreach' so tone-deaf & condescending, his 'Hispanic outreach', (eating a taco bowl), suddenly not that bad & stupid."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
anyone else want to hermetically seal hillary in an unused bomb bunker until november 3rd just so she doesn't do anything to upset the balance? Just because trump is immune to gaffdar doesn't mean that it's out of the race.

Hell no. Clinton's been running a good campaign. Let her keep doing it.

Trump's been torpedoing himself, of course, but that's not all that's been driving the race. The Democratic convention was well done and helped her a lot - even beyond setting Trump up to drive himself down again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

You can use Spellcraft on Still, Silent spells with no material components or ones cast by Druid wild Shaped into a tiny bird or as a spell like ability. It's obviously not the gestures or words you're going by.

That's why they introduced manifestations, to provide an explanation for that.
Yeah, already covered that.

And thus, there's no need for casters to all cast spells the same way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Oh I am quite aware that the republicans themselves have noticed this. Which just makes it all the more hilarious when they don't seem to have the will do make the changes or that their base has not interest in the party changing.

They don't have a choice really.

Their real goal is "all money and power to those with money and power". That's... not a goal you're going to win elections on.

You can dress it up as FREEDOOOM! from the government but that lie only gets you so many people

So over the years they've had to stir up fear, anger and hatred against different groups and make them the scapegoat. you're not broke because your CEO is making 268 times your salary and half your money goes to taxes because he's not paying any, you're broke because that black welfare mother has food medicine and a cel phone! GET her!

And because that's not enough on its own, they need to appeal to the christians who think the government should promote christianity. This dovetails nicely with their anti science that tells us we shouldn't be making this much money this way push, because they're about the only large group that hates science.

So they're stuck with what they have. They've (hopefully) swung the pendant as far that way as it will go and it's time for it to tip back, hopefully this time hard.

Eh the party could rebrand themselves and still maintain a lot of friendliness towards big business. If anything, the current base's extreme stance on things like immigration are probably against their interests.

How? They can stay friendly to big business, but they can't stop scapegoating. Scapegoating is where their votes are. That's what this primary showed very clearly. The base doesn't want policy, it wants hate. It'll take dog whistles if that's all that's available, but if someone's throwing red meat, the dog whistle loses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Hey, the freedom to exploit and pillage free of interference is a freedom, too. ;-)
Okay, but it's not a constitutional right, is it?

It is if the Supreme Court says it is.

More importantly, it's not a vote getter. They can't run on their real platform because people don't want it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Grey Lensman wrote:

In other election news - In their whale-hunt to get Clinton for leaking classified information, House Republicans leaked classified information.

Hypocrisy at it's...um...finest, I guess.

Reminds me of the Benghazi hearing where they revealed a secret CIA base.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

All D&D has is it's name.

Since they threw away there online community like garbage, something I don't see Paizo doing anytime soon, I just don't see how they could compete without their pre-existing brand recognition and deep-pocketed parent company Hasbro.

Well, yeah. But those are huge and powerful assets - particularly the brand recognition.

Getting beyond niche in the RPG industry has always been a huge struggle for anything but D&D.

Given that Pathfinder got its start as "Keep playing D&D 3.5", that's pretty much true for Paizo as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Paul Manafort - the campaign chairman who was recently tied to what looked like under-the-table payments and pro-Russia activities in Ukraine - has officially resigned from Trump's campaign.
Obviously coming and obviously this is what the Bannon & Conway hires were setting up for, no matter how much the campaign denied it.
Perhaps, but then why not do it all at once? Surely they'd want to get changes in campaign staff out of the news as quickly as possible, rather than stretching them out over days?

Because this is the most incompetently run major campaign I've ever seen?

Maybe they were hoping nothing more would come out and pushing Manafort more into the background would discourage anyone from looking deeper or at least keeping the media's focus on Trump's new antics, as encouraged by Bannon.

Of course, my actual suspicion is that this marks the end of any serious attempt to win the campaign. Trump's now putting together the ground floor of his post-campaign media business - profiting off the millions on the alt.right who'll believe the election was stolen from him. Bringing on Bannon, the Breitbart exec and the less publicized hiring of Roger Ailes as an adviser kind of points where they're going.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
The Repubs have infighting, but they regularly pull together and work like fire ants or termites. And they're (too) damn effective.
Oddly enough, I've seen that exact charge leveled at the Democratic party. :P
Really? The current & recent-past Dems? Huh.

I'd say the post 2008 Republicans have been far more torn by infighting than Democrats. Neither Boehnor nor Ryan have been able to reliably get the House to work together or set up deals with the Senate.

The Republican Senate has however been very effective at blocking things. They very rarely have cracks in the filibuster wall.

Democrats on the other hand have gotten much more cooperative since the losses of 2010. Losing a bunch of Blue Dogs and conservative Senators helped them focus even as the Republicans have struggled.

Mostly these combination have led to nothing being done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Kind spoilery, but I haven't had a chance to do more than skim the module yet: Does the GM know yet more than a bare guess at what happened in the missing memory?
I know it'll get cleared up later on, but I'd kind of want the GM to know before characters get built.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:

Another chargen thread? I guess it's time to repeat myself. There's a link to the original post in context at the bottom of each spoiler. The threads linked also have a lot of discussion on the topic that occurred during the six freaking years between the death and reanimation of this thread.

why a single array isn't satisfactory unless it's absurdly high:

This is why I like the "Roll X sets of stats. Let everyone use which ever set you prefer." No one's getting screwed. You're likely to get both good SAD and MAD arrays. If you feel the need you can ramp up the process for rolling the array by any of the usual methods, but there's much less need to, since you've already minimized the chance of getting stuck with bad rolls.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1) True, I suppose. Though I suspect most of the "Both parties are worthless. The only hope is a 3rd party!" crowd aren't doing so. Other than, possibly, at the presidential level.

2) So? Recruit someone. Run yourself. The Green party vote might convince a challenger to run in the primary. Or it might draw enthusiasm and workers as well as votes away from a potential challenger. And of course, it's at least as likely there isn't a 3rd party challenger for downballot elections, much less one you can stomach.

3) Yeah, it pretty much does. If your job is being held hostage to party registration, there are more serious problems.

4) I'd certainly agree that down-ticket races are at least as important.

The larger point though is that this is being suggested as a movement strategy, not as "What to do on Tuesday". Changing the party and thus the government through primaries is a more effective tactic than trying to change government through third party voting. There may be individual cases where a person can't participate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

GURPS can handle all of those genres without breaking a sweat, but it doesn't have broad appeal as it is marketed really poorly, even the name is uninspiring!

GURPS can. As well as superheroes, fantasy, spies, and damn near anything else.

OTOH, it usually does so by giving you specific source books on top of the basic rules. You still need different rules for Lensman and Star Wars.

Hero does pretty much the same thing.

I'm not entirely sold on the concept of generic games, though I've played both GURPS and Hero. I tend to find that different genres are actually better served with different rules sets. Rules can help establish the proper tone for the genre.

1 to 50 of 5,810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.