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. 22,870 posts (23,791 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 22,870 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
There is a very obvious problem with doing anything movie-wise in Menzoberranzan. Drow have dark skin. How much cruelty, demons, murder, and the pure evil the city is described as do you think you need to make national news about racism?

I wonder how much of a problem that would be if the Drow were given an unusual skin tone.

"This movie is racist against dark purple people!"

Apparently, poking around the net, purple is a common color for pictures of Drow. Not sure why.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:

Just please, no one in blackface.

We don't need to set Hollywood back sixty years just to make a movie. :-)

Honestly? I think it has to be blackface. Just not really "blackface.

They're not "black". An African doesn't look like a Drow. You'd need to put makeup on an African actor anyway.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
There is a very obvious problem with doing anything movie-wise in Menzoberranzan. Drow have dark skin. How much cruelty, demons, murder, and the pure evil the city is described as do you think you need to make national news about racism?

Depending on how it's done, I doubt you'd get very much.

Other than dark skin, drow don't really resemble Africans. Facial features are different. Hair is different. The skin color isn't actually much like real African "black".
Even their evil doesn't match racist stereotypes. The culture doesn't match racial stereotypes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am somewhat curious as to how those changes in arms deals compare to changes for countries that didn't donate to the foundation.

Does this reflect an overall change in arms sales policies or other changes in the political situation? Or just Clinton corruption?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I just find it hard to believe that so many refuse to accept that situation arise where the circumstances of events, random luck, and power differentials lead to morally grey choices where there is no option C that permits a virtuous response to a morally correct situation that is not virtuous because it ends in the harm of more people.

It destroys realism and it is actually far more realistic than always believing there exists a virtuous solution to all problems.

But we're playing a game. A game where situations don't "arise", they're created by the GM.

Sure the GM can create situations where there is no virtuous response. The GM can contrive a situation where torturing innocent children is the only alternative to worldwide catastrophe if they want to. But there's nothing inherently realistic about it. It's being made up by the GM, just like the case where heroism always works.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

With fights so often rocket tag, by the time you realize you're seriously outclassed, you've probably got several people down. How long do weak encounters last against your party? How many would escape if they tried to run in round 2?

Of course the GM can set things up so any given too tough encounter can be escaped or avoided. That's usually what people mean when they complain about this - My first level party saw a giant through the trees and charged it, then complained when they died.

I'm cool with that kind of thing. I generally prefer not to fight even weak random monsters, unless I've got some reason to or can't avoid it.

Some level of discretion needed is fine - whether it's running or avoiding the fight in the first place. But the GM can't just throw killer encounters at the party. They have to be set up to be survivable, by running or avoiding or something. And they shouldn't be blocking the party's goal. There shouldn't be strong character motivation to take them on anyway. If they're holding the MacGuffin the party needs, there has to be a way to get it. "They're too tough, let's go home. We'll just have to let the plague run its course." is not a satisfying conclusion to the night's gaming.

All of which means the "more real life type situations" really are just as managed as the standard balanced encounters. Just a little more subtly. And, wrestling this back towards the topic, it's still a matter of adventure design, not system design and thus isn't likely to be addressed in Starfinder.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thaine wrote:
Grond wrote:
Browman wrote:
On the store side of things, FLGS need to adapt as businesses always have. Gaming cafe/ store seems to be the new way to go, along with a healthy supply of magic cards and Friday night magic.
This is exactly how my FLGS does it and it is doing amazing business. They have had to move locations once and are looking to move again just to have more tables for people to play.

Alcohol.

A game store in the city near me got a liquor license and opened up a bar area in the adjoining storefront. I think this is the future.

I really hope not. Adjoining storefront maybe, though I don't see how that really works.

First, I'm not really interested in gaming with drunk strangers.
Second, tying gaming to alcohol cuts off bringing young people into the hobby.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hrothdane wrote:
I'm upset about it being remade because it's a transmisogynistic movie made by a transmisogynist that gets hero worshipped like it's not problematic.

It's problematic as hell. And a pretty horrible movie in all sorts of other ways.

OTOH, the culture that I saw around it, back in the early 90s, when I went fairly regularly for a couple years, was as inclusive as nearly anything at the time. So my associations with it are good.

But yeah, remaking it? WTF? It's a horrible movie. A remake won't be able to capture whatever it was that made it a cult hit and certainly won't be able to turn it into an actual good movie.


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.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Philo Pharynx wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Is it possible the furor is dying?

Oh, I never thought it was a furor. Just a noisy minority.

After all, the Hugos have been recognizing women before most of the Sad Puppies could read. I've read LeGuin, McIntyre, and many of the others. They won because they wrote great books. Not due to politics or some other agenda.

Well, it became a furor because the Puppies (mostly the Rabid variety) organized to wield more influence than they really should have had. Definitely a noisy minority, but one doing a decent amount of damage in the short run.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
The actual voting statistics were interesting - the Rabid Puppies group appears to be about 430 people (based on how many people voted for Vox Day as best editor), which is enough to muck up most of the nomination process but not enough to impact the actual voting.

A couple of analyses of the numbers.

The rough conclusion of both of those was somewhere around your 430 for nominations, but probably below 200 for final votes. The final vote was most obviously from the Vox Day for Best editor tally (165 had him listed first).

Traditionally nominations are far lower than actual votes. That this is reversed for the Rabid Puppies suggests that a lot of them didn't buy a new membership this year. You can nominate with a membership to either last year's or this year's con. Voting requires a membership for this year's. Is it possible the furor is dying?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

The main problem I have with PF is the managed encounter system or preference vs a more like real life type situation where most parties think that no matter what they have a chance at every encounter and if they do not then there is a problem.

ie Godzilla happens and low and mid level PC's should get out of the way and not expect since it is an encounter that they should be able to defeat it.

Well, that's very much an adventure design issue, not a system issue.

Personally, I like "real life type situations" where Godzilla happens and the low level PCs get squished like all the rest of the screaming extras. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thaine wrote:

My family and I would love to see the Drizzt books made in to a TV series on HBO. The game of thrones writers would have blast with menzoberranzan to play with and later I'd love to see Jarlaxle and Entreri interacting together on screen.

Back to the original topic, it's not the twilight of Pathfinder, it's the twilight of the whole table-top role-playing industry. We are living in a geek renaissance right now where there has been a massive surge in popularity (and sales) in everything from comic books to board games. Despite this, table-top role-playing sales have been stagnant without the same surge of new blood. And this doesn't bode well when everything else tangent is on a massive upswing.

I do think that given the serial episodic nature of most D&D games a TV series would be a better fit than a single movie. Whether that's HBO or a Netflix series or whoever.

I wouldn't particularly care for Drizzt, but I think it would work for pretty much any D&D series. I'd actually love to see a series that started grim and gritty, goblins in the sewers style, and escalates over several seasons to epic dragons and demons extraplanar fantasy.

As for the original topic, there's really been no surge? Even with the release of 5E?


6 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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Isn't that the Writer's job? Converting a module is still a decent headstart

I guess. It seems to me not to give you that much and to leave a lot of the pitfalls of previous attempts wide open.

Plus, to be honest, most modules make pretty lousy stories. The constraints of them being a game, not fiction. You're probably going to wind up ripping out everything but the barest outline.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I think WotC will likely leverage the upcoming movie (2017? 2018?) to increase their sales. Deciding to do this looks to me like a no-brainer effort and should raise the tide for other RPGs as well.

Given the abysmal track record of D+D movies so far, I would not be betting the farm on this. How many failed movies will it take to get WOTC to stop beating this dead horse?

Instead of making movies titled "Dungeons and Dragons", I wonder if it ever occured to them to anchor a movie around a popular novel series instead, like maybe a set of books that keeps hitting the best seller list?

Or converting the right module series.

The problem with converting a module is that it essentially only gives you half the story. You've got the villain and his plot, but no protagonists. No characterization. No character driven plots or subplots. No relationships.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
The fellowship of the Ring is basically a band of adventurers, just not serially/professionally.

I can't really comment about most of the others, but if you think the Fellowship as a "band of adventurers", that's far and away from anything anyone else is talking about here.

I see your "just not serially/professionally" caveat, but that's basically what we're talking about. I mean, they're "adventurers" in the sense they go off on an adventure, but that applies so broadly it's not really useful.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Careful their Reince... you're in danger of making it seem like the e-mail probe might have something to do with the election.

In fairness, it does. If there is some kind of smoking gun in those emails, I want it to come out before the election.

Since I doubt there is, I actually suspect it would better for Republicans to drag the release out, let them keep hinting there was something damning there.

Obviously, care should be taken with any such public release to keep from releasing anything that's actually secret.

The problem is that neither Priebus nor anyone else knows whether there is anything 'criminally significant' in these messages or not. However, he obviously doesn't care. He wants them released ASAP regardless... because it has always been about taking Clinton down politically rather than there being any plausible basis for doing so legally.

Of course.

Nonetheless, though his motives are wrong, he's right that they should be released before the election rather than after.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Werthead wrote:
I was happy just to be nomin...er, longlisted. Of course, it would have to be in this year in the most heavily over-trolled category. Sigh.

Your spot on the list is well deserved, and goes a length of way to make the whole category less depressing. I hope you get to the top of that list one day :)

As for the big category - I won't be reading The Fifth Season because second-body is way too annoying to bear for any literary work longer than the text on a safety sign. However, Uprooted is now on my list - I loved the early Temariere novels. though lost interest in the series as quality declined dramatically in later parts. I assume the author is capable of greater things, and perhaps this change of context to a standalone fantasy is just what she needed to get good again.

I liked Uprooted a lot. More than Fifth Season.

Fifth Season was more ambitious though. But then I don't have a particular problem with second-person. I think it worked well here. And was only present for one of the three narrative perspectives. Probably less than a third of the book overall.

Definitely going to pick up the sequel. (And more of Novik's work as well.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Rednal wrote:
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.

"Republicans have called for the quick release of the emails as some states begin early voting just one month from now.

'The process for reviewing these emails needs to be expedited, public disclosure should begin before early voting starts, and the emails in question should be released in full before Election Day,' Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus said in a statement."

Careful their Reince... you're in danger of making it seem like the e-mail probe might have something to do with the election.

In fairness, it does. If there is some kind of smoking gun in those emails, I want it to come out before the election.

Since I doubt there is, I actually suspect it would better for Republicans to drag the release out, let them keep hinting there was something damning there.

Obviously, care should be taken with any such public release to keep from releasing anything that's actually secret.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

I'm actually working on a setting in which "adventurers" are a thing in-universe, so no, it's not (inherently) a meta-game construct. It's only a meta-game construct if the setting doesn't include it. Which was kind of my point.

Fair enough. I meant that it's added for meta game reasons, which doesn't mean it can't be given justification within the setting.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.

Obviously, your game might be the exception - where the PCs focus on just one kind of task by intent and everyone's happy with that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So we're back to: "Regulation is bad or at best pointless and we should just let efficiency take care of the problem. Not that we know if there's a problem because Chaos."

Or am I still off.

And you think we can deploy nuclear fusion on a large scale in 4 years?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:

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.

I don't know, that is simoply not the kind of game I play. I'd probably say your hypothetical employer is looking for bounty hunters.

An individual adventurere migh describet his personal abilities in a certain way, sure, but as a group, I have no problem with them describing themseles as adventurers.

But again, I don't usually play games where the PCs are hired as bounty hunters or the like. Sounds boring. I prefer a campaign that has an actual plot that involves the characters in some personal way, beyond "I'm just doing what I'm paid for".

Agreed.

And if they describe themselves as bounty hunters to get the "hunt the bandit lord" job, obviously they're not going to get the "stop the undead rising from the old tomb" job, since that's not bounty hunter work.
"Adventurer" is a broad term because the kinds of jobs PCs do are very broad.

Mind you, if I was trying to get hired by an adventuring group, I'd describe my particular skills, but I'd still be looking for the "adventurer" job. The group is a group of adventurers. Each has their speciality within the group.

Of course, as you say, that's if we're a company hiring ourselves out for work, with has been very rare in games I've been in.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't think it was actually "give the award to Zoe Quinn" as "have Zoe Quinn accept it for him". Still a nice slap in the face to Gamergate.

He does seem to be trolling them: www.therabidpuppies.com

As for the Hugos in general: The Fifth Season absolutely deserved it. Interesting story and characters in a very distinct setting with a very different "magic" system and a kind of experimental structure.

Sandman and Jessica Jones were pretty much givens, I'd say. The Martian wasn't have been my choice, but I'm not at all surprised it won - it's more classic SF than the others.


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.


2 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.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

For those who are having trouble parsing my position on Climate Change.

Here's a link to someone else who understands that change is irreparably underway, and a short quote therefrom.

RS Mag wrote:
Atmospheric scientists increasingly believe that the exceptionally warm waters over the past months are the early indications of a phase shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a cyclical warming of the North Pacific that happens a few times each century. Positive phases of the PDO have been known to last for 15 to 20 years, during which global warming can increase at double the rate as during negative phases of the PDO. It also makes big El Niños, like this year's, more likely. The nature of PDO phase shifts is unpredictable — climate scientists simply haven't yet figured out precisely what's behind them and why they happen when they do.

Since we don't know what we don't know (note the bold portion of the quote I provided), trying to model or stop AGW is, as they say, merely academic.

FAQ:
Are you saying we should not bother to stop AGW?
FA:
Right. Because it is already too late.

FAQ:
Should we continue to attempt mitigation of CO2 emissions?
FA:
Yes, and here's why.

So basically, climate is chaotic and we don't understand it, so there's no point, but we should mitigate CO2 anyway because sometimes environmental regulation boosts the economy.

Or am I still misreading you?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Furthermore, it doesn't really change the larger picture. Even if the group in question operated that way, in order to stop the raiding in the long term, the party would have to follow the trail back to the central village and there run into the original dilemma.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
Captain collateral damage wrote:
OK, sure, if a GM was an incredibly mean he might throw this at a paladin and make him fall no matter what he does. But if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him. But if a GM was in any way reasonable he wouldn't have the paladin fall if the sacrificed the few to save the many.
Everyone in this city may, or may not have eaten infected grain that will turn them into ravenous, murderous undead in a matter of hours. To save them from what they will become, and prevent the loss of life- can a paladin kill them all before they turn?

What part of "if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him" did you not understand?

Yes, a GM can set up no-win paladin falls scenarios. No, they shouldn't do so.
.
Mind you, you could use a similar scenario, but one with a way out. A way to save at least those who hadn't already turned into monsters.

Your last point is what I'm saying. Being a paladin in a no win scenario doesn't excuse you from trying. As long as you tried and didn't "Oh. We must cull the city". And actually agonized over your decision, I wouldn't fall a paladin. Sometimes there isn't a way out irl, though. Why should there always be a way out in the game?

Because it's a game.

For the same reason you don't just kill the party off with overwhelming force - which happens in real life too.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

The likelihood of Orcs not participating in raids in aa raiding village is very slim.

If this justifies the paladin murdering raiders & possibly (though rarely) innocent families,

then the killer
murdering criminals and their families
Is justified

Its not "murdering criminals and their families" by any stretch. You haven't done any historical research on how raiding cultures work.

A raiding village isn't just a normal village that launches raids. They are set up, specifically, for that purpose. No farms, no general stores, no orphanages, no schools. They are raiding villages.

The non-combatants aren't there. The people not participating aren't there. Their families aren't there.

How these work is there is a central village somewhere else. That central village is a normal village. The raiding village is a mobile village set up by the raiders. They raid for a time, then, eventually dissolve the raiding village and return to the main village with the spoils.

Then, when the time comes to start raiding again they form a new raiding band, they set out, they create a new village, then the cycle continues.

Also, in particular, the poster referenced "Orcs."

You need to stop acting like Orcs are like normal player races where most people are neutral, basically good. That isn't how it works. Orcs are, for the most part, evil. So yes, you have some non-evil Orcs, though rare... And they wouldn't be in a raiding village... Or even part of Orc culture.

You aren't going to find good Orcs in an Orc village. Not even children. Their culture would kill them or drive them out. That is even mirrored in our real world.

Raiding cultures were known to allow members who wouldn't participate or who didn't have the drive to do it, who weren't violent enough, to be killed. The same is true of evil races in Pathfinder/D&D.

Children who didn't have the desired violent streak were outcast and ostracized for being "weak" and were often cast...

The poster also didn't specify "raiding village" whether in proper historical context or not. He in fact mentioned women and children being present, so it's obviously not this thing you describe.

Nor, in my experience, do the vast majority of GMs or module authors stick to this concept - witness any of a hundred scenarios where the PCs follow raiding humanoids back to their village, complete with women and children.

Personally, I wouldn't call the thing you're talking about a village at all - "base" or "encampment" are clearer.

It's not a bad basic approach to dealing with humanoids though - if the party's expected to kill all of them, make it a war party or camp of some kind. If you're going for some kind of negotiation or other non-slaughter solution, then you can use the actual home village.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:
Captain collateral damage wrote:
OK, sure, if a GM was an incredibly mean he might throw this at a paladin and make him fall no matter what he does. But if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him. But if a GM was in any way reasonable he wouldn't have the paladin fall if the sacrificed the few to save the many.
Everyone in this city may, or may not have eaten infected grain that will turn them into ravenous, murderous undead in a matter of hours. To save them from what they will become, and prevent the loss of life- can a paladin kill them all before they turn?

What part of "if your GM does that then you should stop playing with him" did you not understand?

Yes, a GM can set up no-win paladin falls scenarios. No, they shouldn't do so.

Mind you, you could use a similar scenario, but one with a way out. A way to save at least those who hadn't already turned into monsters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Rednal wrote:
If I were to guess, people might be worried about repayment - that is, what you're going to do if you can't repay the people you owe and can't find anyone else who's willing to take on your debt and give you a chance.

And, of course, you've answered your own concern; that's the difference between personal and commercial debt.

Quote:
(Probably a lot of individual experience talking there, especially from people who've had personal debt and suffered as a result. They may not always be fully informed about the differences between personal and commercial debt.)

If Trump Ice Cream Shoppe goes toes-up -- as, let's face it, a lot of Trump's investments have -- he signs some paperwork and walks away from the wreckage, leaving the Chinese (or whatever sucker partner he roped into this venture) holding a whole bunch of paper, but no money. As Turin pointed out, "Satan doesn't want the house, he wants the payments." The last thing the Chinese need or want are two hundred and fifty failed ice cream shops on leased property and ten thousand gallons of melting Trump branded ice cream.

Ironically, this gives Trump more control over the Chinese than the Chinese have over him. They will probably throw more money at him to prevent him from giving them the ice cream....

Of course China knows they don't want the ice cream and knows Trump's history of getting out of debt through bankruptcy - often walking away with a good chunk of change himself, thank you very much. If I had a suspicious mind, that might make me wonder why they invested in him in the first place - especially given that he's had trouble lately with more traditional investors.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MadScientistWorking wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:


Save vs Death is relatively common at low levels simply because a lot of the save vs suck is really just putting your character into a position to die. Paralysis is such an annoying status effect especially when the cause is something that can rip you to shreds.
Except that with any luck the rest of the party can distract the thing from killing you and finish it off themselves. Which is why save or suck isn't as bad as save or die. Even more so for the ones that just impose penalties rather than make you helpless.
Trying to save what is effectively an inert blob from being murderized is a heck of a lot harder than you give it credit for especially when scenarios actually decide to spread over encounter budget with multiple monsters. Also, most paralysis effects I've seen at low level are every one must save so in theory the entire party can just be incapable of doing anything.

Well, mostly I meant distract them by continuing to try to kill them. If the GM chooses to have the monsters finish off the helpless and thus no longer threatening inert blobs rather than focus on the actual threats, I guess that's his choice.

Obviously if it's a TPK situation that's different.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MadScientistWorking wrote:


Save vs Death is relatively common at low levels simply because a lot of the save vs suck is really just putting your character into a position to die. Paralysis is such an annoying status effect especially when the cause is something that can rip you to shreds.

Except that with any luck the rest of the party can distract the thing from killing you and finish it off themselves. Which is why save or suck isn't as bad as save or die. Even more so for the ones that just impose penalties rather than make you helpless.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Oh obviously he can't win that way, but it might be less embarrassing than continuing to talk.

The only embarasment to trump is losing.

If that.

Any way he wins is justifiable to him. It doesn't matter what he does, if he wins it was part of the game.

He has no shame or morals. He'll happily set the court system to throwing a little old lady out of her house rather than pay her for a property for his limo parking.

That's what I meant - a more embarrassing loss. Losing even more hugely.

Seems to move in that direction every time he cuts loose.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
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.
You don't run a campaign by burrowing into a hole and hide out until Election Day. Clinton needs to keep herself visible and active, because the battleground states are exactly that... a battleground. And you don't win battles by staying put.
OTOH, it might be Trump's best plan. :)
No it's not. He has to raise himself out of the pit he's been digging with women and minorities. Nixon may have won with the Angry White Male vote, but Trump can't count on that being the victory strategy this far into the 21st century.

Oh obviously he can't win that way, but it might be less embarrassing than continuing to talk.

Let his surrogates talk. Run ads. Put out press releases. Maybe even let him out for scripted appearances. But for god's sake don't let him interact with anyone. And keep him off twitter at all costs.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
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.
You don't run a campaign by burrowing into a hole and hide out until Election Day. Clinton needs to keep herself visible and active, because the battleground states are exactly that... a battleground. And you don't win battles by staying put.

OTOH, it might be Trump's best plan. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:

RE: Extreme vetting Trump's supporters

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

He could have applied some of that extreme vetting to his ex campaign chief. Just saying.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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."

LOL

Hard to believe that anyone could poll worse among African-Americans than McCain and/or Romney vs Obama, but Trump is doing it. His 'ceiling' seems to be about 4% and some polls have rounded down to 0%. Basically, he's within the margin of error on not having any African-American support at all.

Though... it is also hard to believe that he really IS doing a little better with Hispanics. Only ~85% of that demographic hate him.

For context, here are exit polling numbers for the last 36 years:

1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21
1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24
1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39
1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36
1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51
2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27
2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18
2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36
2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44

If he gets 15% of the Hispanic vote, that'll be half of what Republicans normally get.

Also worth remembering that the Hispanic vote has been growing over the years, so it's much more important than it was for even Bush.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
The honest answer is that "Hispanic" covers a pretty broad demographic and some of them hate Mexicans too =P

And somehow are misled into thinking that Trump distinguishes when he rants about Mexicans being rapists.


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."

1 to 50 of 22,870 << 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.