Go watch it.
Seriously. Drop whatever you're doing and go watch it now.
Edit: Alright. Maybe not quite that good. You can afford to wait for some free time. But absolutely worth watching.
John Woodford wrote:
It's not just a 3.x thing, though I'll agree that it does help. But I've been playing with non-disposable characters since pretty early in 1E. Basically as far back as I can remember, it's been about the story and the characters, not about survival and the thrill of finally getting a character to high level.
I suspect the big change since Gygax wrote this is that people do the same thing, but they're playing their character, not their class.The concept is the same, but it's more nuanced and flexible now. Not all the fighters are the same. Nor all the mages.
But the general rule remains:
Make sure that your actions, decisions, and behavior as a player are faithful to the role of the PC you are representing.
So am I seriously reading that magic enhancements are such an integral part of the PF dynamic that you cant really play without them? Player skill and ability will falter at some point in the face of the higher threats?
For quite awhile, you can get by by just fighting weaker threats. If you're using mostly humanoid, classed enemies, then you can just not give them items either and things will stay fairly balanced. Casters will dominate more and sooner, that's about all.Monsters generally aren't heavily equipped but have the equivalent built in. Your PCs will be hit more often and fail saves more often, as well as taking longer to bring the monsters down.
Various forms of DR will start to be a problem though. Less so if you let your PCs get weapons of special material, particularly adamantine one - but that starts to run into the same thematic issues as magic.
You're also going to have problems with some of the utility items, but that's harder to quantify.
Dan Armstrong wrote:
Or leave the mechanics discussion out of it and say that attempting to kill or threatening to kill legal characters based on their class/race/whatever is not allowed in PFS. And that walking out on games at the last moment is allowed, but isn't going to be appreciated by the players or the event coordinator.
If you think gunslingers are unthematic or overpowered, that's fine. It's your opinion and it's completely up to you. But if you aren't willing to put that aside and be an impartial Judge, then PFS isn't the place for you. At least not in open games.
And that's basically it for me. I'm fine with fantasy with guns. I'm not comfortable with essentially pirate-era (or later) firearms in a world where everyone else uses swords, bows and armor.Especially if these guns are only used by an elite handful of adventuring types and even the more primitive ones haven't been broadly adopted for war, where the "fire once then spend a minute reloading" nature works much better than for adventuring.
And since this is obviously a strawman, the opposite really must be true: There must be no real substantive differences between the groups. No particular reason to choose one or the other.Might as well just stop paying attention.
Sure, both are made up of politicians. I'm certainly not saying the Democrats are shining pure examples of all that is good and just in the world.My point in that whole post, which you seemed to skip over, is that there are basic differences in the party pitch to the voters which make their behaviors different. Democrats need to make government work which makes them more inclined to compromise even when Republicans are in control. Republicans claim government is a bad thing, so they're perfectly fine breaking it when Democrats have a majority. The filibuster is a better tool for the current Republican party than for the current Democrats.
As for your more specific points: Nixon was to the left of Obama on some points and to the right on others. Economically to the left, to the right on civil rights, LGTBQ issues, etc. And that's mostly because the country has moved, not so much because of anything about them. Nixon was pushing an economically more liberal country in a conservative direction, while capitalizing on white racist reaction to the Civil Rights era. Obama is nudging a much more economically conservative country back towards the left, if nowhere near as fast as I'd like, while consolidating gains on LGBTQ rights, if again somewhat reluctantly.
I doubt "ReaganCare" would get anywhere with a Tea Party President/Congress. Maybe if public pressure was high enough that something had to be done. It was conceived in a right-wing think take and signed by Romney in Mass, but it was mostly designed to counter pressure for real health-care reform. You'll notice it was never taken up again after it was proposed as an alternative to HillaryCare. In Mass it was also used to get something Romney would accept, rather than force him to deal with a less business friendly alternative.
As for gerrymandering, Republicans tend to go much farther there, at least these days. I believe most of the states that now draw districts in a non or bi-partisan fashion tend Democratic.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Meh. There are differences between the parties. Pretending they're exactly the same is just as childish, if more cynical, as claiming they're good guys and bad guys.
There are certainly corrupt Democrats. Even many of the not actual corrupt ones are in politics for the power and the perks. Freely granted.
But the both the fundamental platform of the parties and their pitch to voters differs and that affects how they cooperate and how they use tools like the filibuster. Democrats claim that government works, that it can and should help people. Republicans claim that government is the problem and that it should get out of the way. Big government and small government if you will.
But I suppose that's just "ideological zealotry" and "absurd hyperbole".
And by "stack the courts" you mean appoint judges to fill vacant seats, with the advice and consent of the Senate as is a President's prerogative and his duty, then yes, the Democrats will be stacking the courts.
And the Republican could use similar tactics even if the Democrats hadn't done so. In fact they have. As I said above, while they did not remove the filibuster for nominations back in 2005, they threatened to do so and only avoided it when enough Democrats backed down and agreed not to filibuster. Remember the "Gang of 14"?
But fine, it's the Democrats opening the doors. Whatever.
Everyday after learning spells, I take it?
That drops it to about the same chance of losing it as a spellbook. But you still can't make backups.
Though I'd agree that a Stone Familiar pretty much negates this problem.
Well, given all the flame threads about how horrible it is when a GM doesn't allow any particular class or race in every game, I'm not sure it's quite as simple as a non-issue. Rules bloat certainly sells product, but it can also be a problem for some people.
And as new product builds on other new product, it becomes harder to take somethings without others: APs/scenarios making use of new classes/races/other content means you have either learn it and use or change it. If they don't make use of new stuff, then those rules are essentially being abandoned.
No. All classes are collections of abilities. Some are just collections of abilities.
the main thing to me is vs something like skeletons if the character normally uses clubs or blunt weapons its fine but if they use something like a sword and switch to a club when they see them failing a knowledge check or have never seen and fought skeletons before that would be using player knowledge and just not cool. you cant punish a character for doing something they normally do but you can stop them from using player knowledge to gain a unearned advantage.
Except that's one of the things that seems kind of obvious. Stabbing the skeleton or shooting arrows at it seems kind of stupid.
If it's a new player who's never read the bestiary, will you still be down on him for using player knowledge?
It's also kind of weird because with a small investment in Knowledge you can easily know that basic skeletons are best fought with blunt weapons, but won't be able to guess that it's also true of giant skeletons (higher Cr=higher skill roll).
Similarly with dragons: Am I really more likely to recognize a wymrling and know it's strengths and weaknesses than a legendary ancient dragon? When they're the same strengths and weaknesses?
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
You can and you can't. You can avoid acting on your metagame knowledge, but you can't act as if you didn't know it. For example, you can't guess based on character knowledge when you already know something out of character.If I knew nothing about the mechanics for skeletons, I could still guess that arrows wouldn't work well and feel justified in trying a club instead. But if I already know they have DR 5/bludgeoning am I metagaming to have my character make the same guess?
The black raven wrote:
Because some people like the monks flavor and abilities but think it's far too weak as a combatant and not sufficiently effective at other roles to make up for it.
Having a better unarmed combatant reduces the pressure to actually improve the monk, so those who like the class but think it's weak won't be happy. OTOH, I doubt the monk actually had much chance of being fixed short of PF2.0, so it probably won't make much difference.
"To many classes!!!" <drinks>
Oh, and as far as your party is concerned, I support ambushing them. Not steamrolling them, but giving them an incentive not to camp out for a day right outside the gate to the big-bad's throne room. Including more time sensitive scenarios will also discourage impromptu camp-outs. If the big-bad is setting up a ritual to sacrifice the prince to some dark power, the party risks finding a dead prince in an empty room should they rest. The NPCs can be every bit as mobile as the PCs. If they're literally just sitting around twiddling their thumbs until the party gets to them, the players have every reason to take their time and play it safe.
I'd be careful with the ambushes. They have the potential to backfire: leading players to think they have to back off and rest even sooner so they have the resources left to deal with a potential attack.Time limits work much better, but can't be used everytime without being obvious and repetitive. The bad guy just up and leaving with the treasure and/or the McGuffin can work too.
More fundamentally what's the real issue? Are the players novaing on weak encounters where they don't need to? Do they know that? What's their perception of the situation? Maybe you're running a harder game than they really want. Their comfort level for perceived risk is lower than you think. Back off a little bit and they'll keep pushing through. Maybe not.
Also, what do they know about the dungeon? Do they know that they're coming up on the last boss fight or could they think they've still got a slog ahead of them? Could make a difference in deciding to rest. It all looks obvious when you're GMing and know everything, but it isn't always from the player's POV.
I've never liked the "resting in a random room in the dungeon" thing, but I also don't like the "pushing ahead and dying" thing either. And the retreating to a safe place to rest isn't always feasible.
Different GMs, of course, but still...
Are you the DM? Increase the power of the encounter for every 8 hours the PCs rest. If no reinforcements can be recruited, the bad guys can scatter Alarm spells, traps, and so forth, around them.
Ah yes, that works well. What's the reaction to that likely to be?
"Whew, that was tough! Good thing we were fully rested when we started that fight."
Unless you can make it really obvious he wouldn't have been that tough if they'd gone straight in.
There's no good way to do this. In a perfect world, a perfect society, then maybe. But in the real world? Not even close.
Of course there is. Education. Opportunities for women. Equality for women. Access to and education about birth control.Birth rates drop.
The ship had been shown hidden before I think. Could be wrong. And it showed up in Asgard as it decloaked, IIRC.
And he still stabbed an invisible space ship to death. That gets points.
Well, obviously Loki wasn't dead. Just like it was obvious that he hadn't betrayed Thor at the start of that sequence. I wasn't quite sure whether he'd told Thor that or not, though.
I got that part, but I still don't understand who told what to whom. America has told China a lot of crap. China has told America a lot of crap. So far, so crappy. To which "they", specifically, and to which crap, specifically, was yellowdingo referring when he said, "They only told..."etc.?
You're attempting to make sense out of a yellowdingo post.This can't end well.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I've never heard of any such thing and it would be a horribly unethical experiment.
There's no particular reason this can't work on a racial or cultural level: This is the God of our people. Other gods may exist, but we belong to this one.Whether that's a humanoid race or a nation that a god has adopted.
Or it shows how pervasive the male bias is. Hermoine may be the "most intelligent, competent, capable and most importantly sane" of the main characters, but her life revolves completely around men: her closest friends are male, her mentors are largely male, even the main enemy is male.This is partly because Harry is the viewpoint character. It's possible Hermoine has all sorts of female bonding going on, it just isn't presented to us, because we're seeing through Harry's eyes. But that's the point, it isn't presented to us.
Consider the reverse Bechdel test, which all of those movies (and the vast majority of others) pass with ease. It really does say something, not about individual movies, but about the industry as a whole.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if there's a direct connection.If those guarantees of rights were a bad idea after all.
It's not as if they actually have really given us those rights throughout the country's history anyway. They've always had to be fought for. It's not like we really had freedom of speech or assembly when they were locking up the pacifists and the communists and the union organizers. It's only been recently that freedom of religion has really meant more than Christian (and maybe Jewish) religion.
And sometimes the fact that we all know we have these rights because it says so obscures the fact that we really don't have them. And it turns the struggle for actual, practical rights into a legal battle where we try to convince Justices that the Constitution means what we think it does and then accept their decisions, right or wrong, when it's actually a social and political battle: Convincing the people and leading them to demand rights from their representatives. Changing the minds of the people is where change actually happens. That's where the fight always really is.
Whatever the words on the peace of paper might say.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Seriously?I know other people have responded to this, but since you were talking to me:
It doesn't do that. It's not supposed to do that. No one will try to use it to do that. It doesn't matter what vulnerabilities are in the system, unless you think someone is going to hack in, add new functionality, convince the insurance companies to rely it and then use it to kill people. But that's just stupid.
It's a website to sign up for insurance and apply for subsidies. That's it. It's complicated because it needs to follow different regulations in every state, since insurance is regulated by the states, as well as federally and interface with all the insurance providers and with the IRS and several other government programs, but it really does just let you sign up for insurance. Once you've done so, it's up to the insurance company to deny you coverage. Which they've done quite happily in the past, but will now be a little more restricted.
And frankly, I'm really going to find it hard to take you seriously anymore. You come in here fearmongering about the ACA and the exchange website and you don't even have a basic understanding of what it does? You haven't done the most basic research about it? Why should I listen to you on anything?
Chanur is brilliant. One of my favorites of hers, along with Morgaine.
If anything it gets you even deeper into alien culture/psyche. Several of them. For me, deep enough in that the humans seem weird when you meet them. Which is a weird experience.
Along with good, tense, gritty space action.
I really do fall somewhere in Kirth's excluded middle.
There are usually certain key features of the setting/campaign that are pretty set in stone. Those aren't going to change. If everyone is dead set on breaking them, we won't play that game.
Example: I've got a setting in mind to make use of the psionics rules and guns, neither of which I'm generally fond of in more generic setting - personal preference there.
And some feel if you're only motivated by survival and loot, you're not a hero either.
Some people in game might mistakenly think you are, but they don't know anything about the GM setting things up for you either.
And in anything but the most sandboxy of games, the GM is setting things up for you anyway. Not by fudging rolls or pulling punches maybe, but by setting up the challenge so you can handle it.
And of course, I've said repeatedly, I mind the heroic deaths that much. It's being killed by a rabid badger on the way to rescue the princess that bothers me.
To twist the usual response back at you, What kind of hero are you if the only thing you might value as much as your life is your stuff?
More seriously, this lies at the root of our difference. I want my characters to care about things. That's a good part of what I play for. Death being too common interferes with that. Focusing too much on the constant struggle to avoid dying around the next corner interferes with that too. At least for me.
And maybe for you too? If your players aren't motivated by anything but survival (and loot), maybe that's partly because your gamestyle is so focused on short term survival.
I've had characters devastated by the loss of an NPC. I've had characters devastated by having to kill an NPC they thought was a friend. Hell, I was devastated by that. But that's what I play for. The emotional attachment. And, for me, the kind of casual death you advocate makes that emotional investment harder.
Just for the record, though you were probably exaggerating for effect, it wasn't near 80%.Approximately 52%. And the polls have swung a lot since then.
It may not be possible to have no chance of arbitrary death, but it's certainly possible for a GM (or a group) to increase or decrease that chance. Even reduce it so far that it practically doesn't happen. Or increase it to Dungeon Crawl Classics levels.And that has everything to do with trap lethality, dungeon design, monsters, etc.
So, just to pose an example, if I claimed that black people were inferior to whites and shouldn't be given the same rights or status in society, then you would say than anyone who labeled me as anti-equality or anti-black was a jerk and intolerant?
That's just weird ... and stupid.
I'm all for Voltaire's "right to say it", but I'm also all for calling out bigotry and hatred for what it is.
I'm waiting on next AP, not buying world wound due to content and changes I'd need to make for my younger, preteen players.
And just to add to this: Depending on how many of these younger players you have, there's a good chance at least one of them is gay. Depending on how young they are, he might even suspect it already. They will almost certainly soon know people who are openly gay if they don't already, either their peers in few years or adults.Censoring the concept is pointless and presenting it in a positive light might even help.
What you need to change for pre-teen players? It's not like there's explicit sex scenes or anything. The mere existence of gay or transgender people?And of course, all of that is trivial to change.
Honestly, for young players, I'd be more worried about the nasty demonic weirdness going on than about NPCs relationship. Though at least the first issue wasn't that bad. Not as much as some of the Worldwound stories.
Given that such threads often consist of a couple people going "Eewww. Gay." and a whole bunch of people going "Thanks Paizo!", I don't see it a bad deal. I'm sure if they actually saw their sales drop off when they touched on controversial topics, they'd react to that. Some flames on a message board, nah.
I wouldn't say supporting same-sex marriage is a requirement. Complaining too much about Paizo being inclusive will get you some feedback. No one's going to quiz you on it before letting you run a game though. I might hesitate to run a module here that if you felt the need to strip homosexual relationships out of it. Some people might be wanting to play because they'd heard about it. Luckily the vast majority of Paizo's content it just wouldn't come up. And any home-brewed stuff no one will even notice unless you use it as an anti-homosexual marriage platform.
Put far more succinctly than I did.In a similar vein, women would have been under Treasure.
Yeah, seriously it's not like the plot really revolves around it. Handwave one of them to male, drop the trans part entirely and run everything else exactly as written. No need to even change stats or encounters.
And then come here and tell us all about how you aren't prejudiced, you just don't want any of the icky gay in your gaming.
Gnoll Bard wrote:
And more, that those couples being married, and thus conferring both a measure of societal approval and more stability, legal protections and benefits also helps those children.
Because it's not like homosexuals aren't going to raise children. Unless we take far more drastic measures than simply banning same-sex marriage (or even civil unions). They've been raising kids for a long time. Even back when homosexual activity was illegal, which wasn't really that long ago.
That's one claim. And it's usually a figleaf for "Because God" or "Icky!"
You can tell because the same groups have been fighting against QTBGL rights for decades, gradually falling back from actually outlawing homosexual activity to finally fighting civil unions and now marriage. The claims and the arguments change based on the winds of public opinion, but the basic attacks on gay people don't.
John Kretzer wrote:
I can adapt to them, but I don't like them as much. I dislike the paranoid behavior and tactics that are often suggested to adapt to them. And too frequent death ruins my immersion and many of the things I play for.
That said, I don't want "plot armor" and "special treatment" either. I don't want to be the one character in the game who can't die. I don't want a game where we all should be dying, but the GM keeps fudging so we don't, which is what some posters seems to be envisioning.
Immortal Greed wrote:
I'm not angry. I'm a little irritated with the constant refrain of "Why are you playing if you won't play like me?", but it's no more than that.
But to respond, what if the game doesn't have trap filled dungeons? Pathfinder doesn't. Pathfinder doesn't have dungeons at all. It has rules for traps and for dungeons. It has modules you can play that have traps and dungeons, but there's no requirements anywhere for the GM to make heavy use of them.
Any more than every session of the game must consist of a dungeons with a trap and 2-3 fights with the last one being a boss fight.
My character's actions and motivations are different than mine. Given sufficient reason, he'll go into the trap-filled dungeon and play the brave hero. At least until I get bored with it and give up on the game.
I want to play the hero. I want to buckle swashes (or is it swash buckles?), swing from chandeliers, duel my arch-rival, rescue dragons from evil princesses, etc. I don't even mind dying heroically in the process. I'm not fond of slogging step by step down a corridor throwing summoned animals in front of me to see if they blow up. Or dying to a lucky roll in a random encounter on the way to the dramatic showdown.
It's a different style of play. People like different things. That's okay. There is not One True Way of Gaming.
Josh M. wrote:
D&D/PF has a myriad of options for dealing with traps. If you don't want an "arbitrary death," take better precautions. Hell, grab a wand of Summon Nature's Ally 1 and just send weasels and varmints scampering about the dungeon, if you don't feel like having an actual Rogue in the party.
And that's exactly what I don't want to do. I don't like that approach to gaming. I didn't like it back in 1st edition when it was about sending horses and hirelings and I don't like it now. I don't find traps fun to deal with. I don't enjoy playing in a trap heavy game. I don't like the paranoid attitude they encourage.I don't find it fun.
I don't enjoy losing characters to them, much like I don't like losing characters to random encounters or mooks. I don't even particularly care for too many irrelevant resource draining combats, but at least those generally allow a bit more interaction than the traps do.
But thank you for telling me yet again that I'm having badwrongfun.
There are great advantages in society for being more attractive. (Particularly for women, similar things play out in other ways for men.)
"Attractive" is necessarily a comparative thing. Back in the distant past, all a young girl would have had to compare herself too was other women she actually met. Now she is given constant images of women selected out of hundreds of millions as the most attractive and those images are further enhanced even beyond that somewhat natural level.
And there's an entire industry devoted to "helping" women look more like the "ideal".
The message is "you aren't attractive if you don't look like this and your only worth is how attractive you are." And you're surprised when some do stupid, destructive things to do so?
Immortal Greed wrote:
We like the same things. Dangerous dungeons does not mean heavy roleplaying and complex plots have to go out of the window (and on to the pit of halberds).
No. Actually we don't.
While you may also enjoy heavy roleplaying and complex plots, I specifically said I don't like the trap/combat heavy deadly dungeons crawls you seem enamored of. I find that either the frequent death of characters or the tactics and attitudes they encourage interferes with what I want of my gaming.
Immortal Greed wrote:
Again that's great if you like that kind of thing.I can do it once in awhile. Beer and pretzels gaming, as far as I'm concerned. Don't put much thought and no emotional investment into your character. Just a token to move through the dungeon and laugh at the inevitable deaths. It can be fun, but it's not really my thing.
Again, it's not that you think your style of gaming is cool that's the problem. It's the heavy implication my preferences are badwrongfun.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Of course it changes the calculus.
Now it's an obvious allegory for the European conquest and exploitation of Africa and the rest of the non-European world. Bonus points if the invaders take slaves as well as killing and raping.
You can't write a story about conflict between white and black cultures without running smack into the real world racial conflicts that have been so much a part of the last hundreds of years. The more you make the two cultures caricatures the worse it will be. The more you humanize them the less it'll be prominent.