Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 14,374 posts (15,173 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 14,374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

captain yesterday wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler'd because or my quantum state of potential sleep deprivation aside, I recognized it for the off topic it is!

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
It's also fairly common for young kids to behave differently, often better, away from their parents. Possibly he's on his best behavior elsewhere which is stressful and thus melts down when he comes home to you where he knows it's safe. Or knows that it's safe to push the boundaries with you while it might not be elsewhere.

It's also possible that they know the medical science on Ebola and know they're not contagious until they're symptomatic, so there's no point in quarantining themselves. And that Ebola doesn't spread by the kind of casual contact we're talking about here and that even when the earliest symptoms show up, they're only a threat if you're dealing with blood or maybe vomit and feces, and they're not yet dealing with vomiting and diarrhea.

Again, Duncan was wrongly sent home from the Dallas hospital with a fever of 103 and spent another 2 days with his family before coming back and being admitted. He was much more symptomatic than this doctor was when he was out. None of his contacts were infected, even those he was living with.

No one is going to come down with Ebola from Dr Spencer's bowling trip or subway rides. No one is going to come down with Ebola from nurse Vimson's flight or shopping. Hopefully, Bellevue is better prepared than Dallas Presby was and none of the staff will be infected. They're off to a better start at least.

The only person I'm at all concerned about would be Dr. Spencer's girlfriend. I believe they're already monitoring her. That's still very unlikely.

Edit: As I understand it, he was following MSF's protocol which requires self-monitoring, but does not suggest quarantine.


I wonder if it's that when the kids of really strict parents do rebel, they're more likely to go all the way? They'll be in big trouble anyway for the small infractions, so why stop there. While the children of looser parents might go part way without worrying too much about consequences, but still know there's big trouble if they go too far.

Obviously some won't rebel and will stay well-behaved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
More importantly, it's a bad sign. It's one player saying "I don't care what you've proposed for the campaign." To which the simple response would be "Why do you want to play in it then?" Maybe the answer is kick that player out. Maybe it's ditch the campaign...

If the players all agreed "no catpeople" in advance, and one guy rolls one up anyway, yeah, he's being a jerk. By all means kick him out.

On the other hand, if one or more players roll up catpeople, why would a DM at that point suddenly choose to insist on a "no-catpeople" campaign, if that's the opposite of what the players wanted? Just to "show them who's boss?" That makes no sense to me. If the DM announces a "no catpeople" campaign AFTER the players have already made catpeople characters, then the DM is being a jerk, and the players should depose him.

It seems like we've had this conversation in at least 16 other threads, though, and it always comes down to people reading that and saying "Doesn't matter what the players want. Me DM. Me decide." Which I guess is fine, if you can still manage to attract and retain players.

Since in the example at hand it was specifically Campaign first, then player objecting, I don't think we really disagree.

In some cases, there will be miscommunication and a player will come up with something the GM hadn't specifically forbidden, but that still screws up the GM's plans - which could be class, race or a more general concept. That's a little harder to handle. It's still usually easier for the players to change than for the GM to rewrite entire chunks of background to accommodate a player's whim. In other cases, it might be an easy change. Everyone should try to be flexible. I just think it's usually easier for a player to come up with a different character concept than for a GM to come up with a different campaign.

Of course, some GMs do campaigns pretty much on the fly anyway, with little planned out ahead of time. This argument applies much less in that case.

You'll might also note that even in the post you quoted I said: " Maybe the answer is kick that player out. Maybe it's ditch the campaign idea and run something more generic. Maybe it's time for someone else to run something. Maybe the campaign idea can be stretched to accommodate."

Of course this post will probably still be read as "Doesn't matter what the players want. Me DM. Me decide."


In worse news, there's a case in Mali now. An orphan girl who came back from Guinea. Hopefully they caught it in time and are on top of it enough to prevent an actual outbreak there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Terquem wrote:

The one I have the biggest problem understanding is why it would be "bad" to restrict some player options because of the setting

DM Bob: Okay, guys and gals, this adventure centers around the party searching out the clues to the mystery of why the world no longer has "Cat-People," okay, so what are you thinking?

Player Steve: I am going to create a Cat-person

DM Bob: Steve I just said the world has no cat-people, it's the whole theme of this adventure

Player Steve: Flips table and kicks chair - damn self righteous old school bastard doesn't understand how the game is supposed to be played

Not to encourage the I'm-The-Uniquest-And-Most-Special mentality of PC creation, but I think you could probably figure out a way to make your game more interesting by having the last remaining cat-person be part of the party searching for the reason the rest disappeared. Don't you think so?

A lot of DMs get it in their heads that their game is going to have a certain few immutable characteristics. That's silly. Each of your players is roughly 20% of the reason you all are gathering to play the game. You can accommodate them - and, at worst, you're merely sacrificing the holy inviolate purity of your personal fantasy world headcanon, which no one except you really cared about anyway.

There's a difference between sacrificing the purity of your headcanon and sacrificing the main plot of the campaign. If the plot of the campaign is about finding out what happened to the catpeople, then depending on what the answer to that is, having a player be the last remaining cat person might or might not work. You might have to throw away the entire backplot of your campaign to make it work.

More importantly, it's a bad sign. It's one player saying "I don't care what you've proposed for the campaign." To which the simple response would be "Why do you want to play in it then?" Maybe the answer is kick that player out. Maybe it's ditch the campaign idea and run something more generic. Maybe it's time for someone else to run something. Maybe the campaign idea can be stretched to accommodate.

Now if the player asked about the possibility and doesn't flip out if told it wouldn't work, then there's no problem.

Even when the only problem is "sacrificing the holy inviolate purity of your personal fantasy world headcanon, which no one except you really cared about anyway", if the GM stops caring about the game, the game dies. So that's kind of important. Obviously it can be taken too far, but so can the idea that all campaigns must be generic kitchen sink games with every possible option available for players.


yellowdingo wrote:
do you still think people working with ebola shouldnt be locked in a glass room for thirty days before being alowed out?

Yes I do.

Get back to me if people actually start getting infected during the time you would have locked them up. Which they won't because Ebola doesn't work like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


Then to this earthen Bowl did I adjourn
My Lip the secret Well of Life to learn:
And Lip to Lip it murmur'd - "While you live
Drink ! - for once dead you never shall return.

How long, how long, in infinite Pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute?
Better be merry with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit.

You know, my Friends, how long since in my House
For a new Marriage I did make Carouse:
Divorced old barren Reason from my Bed,
And took the Daughter of the Vine to Spouse.

And lately, by the Tavern Door agape,
Came stealing through the Dusk an Angel Shape
Bearing a Vessel on his Shoulder; and
He bid me taste of it; and 'twas - the Grape!.

The Grape that can with Logic absolute
The Two-and-Seventy jarring Sects confute:
The subtle Alchemist that in a Trice
Life's leaden Metal into Gold transmute.


Simon Legrande wrote:
thejeff wrote:

If both are actually colluding on a outright goal of stopping entrepreneurs, both together of course. Since most governments are at worst playing both sides there, most of the time that would be corporations, who will naturally want to stop entrepreneurs if left unchecked by some other force. At least competing entrepreneurs.

Remove government, shift all the power to corporations and then we'll be in an entrepreneurial paradise?

I'm not entirely sure I'd consider "barriers to entry for would be entrepreneurs" the only or even the most important measure anyway.

I didn't expect you would, most people don't. That's how we end up where we are. Sure corporations want to stop competition before it even starts, but they can't do that without a government to help them out.

Corporations would become as large an powerful as they are if there was no government to help them get that way? How about banks, they're one of the things safe to hate on these days aren't they?

Meh, I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind here anyway. I know it won't happen.

The idea of there being no government is kind of ridiculous anyway. The first thing that happens when there is no government is that all the people who want to be in charge fight over it until someone wins and he becomes the new government. Small enough groups can get by with informal arrangements, but those don't scale up well.

Technically, you're right. Without government, there wouldn't even be corporations, since corporations are chartered by governments. There would just be powerful people with the ability to impose their will on others. Simply by force or by denial of access to resources.

Some of the older, more socialist anarchist approaches seem to have some validity, though those still have problems with scale. Modern libertarian individualist anarchy is just fantasy.


boring7 wrote:
Eh, kinda. Even the backwoods parts of the world have AK-47s here on Earth, Arms dealers get around because there's always a blood diamond buck to be made. Suspension of disbelief is still possible, but don't dismiss it as unchallenging.

So?

If you don't want AK-47s, just don't have them in your setting. Don't worry about what the rest of the world that you're not going to deal with in your game has because it's never going to come up. Or work it out when it does.

It only becomes a problem if you want to cram all the various possibilities into one setting at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are they optimized or did they just roll well for stats and are now higher level?

Hercules didn't optimize, for example - he got a whole bunch of bonuses from being the son of a God.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:

Once upon a time I was young and idealistic. I voted in every election that came along because I thought it would make a difference. Then I grew up and decided that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil; and let's be honest, that's every election these days. I stopped voting then.

If you think your vote actually means something, good for you. I still think it's funny when I look around the Internet and find people foaming at the mouth about corporations running the country and then wanting more of the government that makes it possible.

And then there's those who think that if we just got rid of government (or at least shrunk it small enough) somehow the corporate power would go away.
I'm sure there are, just don't count me amongst their numbers. Power doesn't disappear, the way it's used changes. Who do you think creates more barriers to entry for would be entrepreneurs: Corporations, Government, or both colluding?

If both are actually colluding on a outright goal of stopping entrepreneurs, both together of course. Since most governments are at worst playing both sides there, most of the time that would be corporations, who will naturally want to stop entrepreneurs if left unchecked by some other force. At least competing entrepreneurs.

Remove government, shift all the power to corporations and then we'll be in an entrepreneurial paradise?

I'm not entirely sure I'd consider "barriers to entry for would be entrepreneurs" the only or even the most important measure anyway.


Simon Legrande wrote:

Once upon a time I was young and idealistic. I voted in every election that came along because I thought it would make a difference. Then I grew up and decided that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil; and let's be honest, that's every election these days. I stopped voting then.

If you think your vote actually means something, good for you. I still think it's funny when I look around the Internet and find people foaming at the mouth about corporations running the country and then wanting more of the government that makes it possible.

And then there's those who think that if we just got rid of government (or at least shrunk it small enough) somehow the corporate power would go away.


boring7 wrote:

Honestly I've watched and enjoyed aneough anime that schizo-tech doesn't faze me that much. You have a dude with a sword fighting an ogre with a cannon-sized musket fighting a halfling with a lightning gun and it's fun!

But at the same time I can dig if it's not your speed, and that maybe it doesn't make any dang sense that the super-rich and really powerful dude ruling a nation that does have some amount of trade is still rolling around with pikes and bows when there's a dude been selling AK-47s for 300 years. (That was hyperbole, BTW)

Really, what matters is that you have some kind of explanation (no matter how phony-baloney) that explains WHY the floating egalitarian continent of hypertech that sprinkles adventurers across the land like a jackpot machine doesn't leave a noticable amount of after-market tech in the markets of Master Trading and Shipping Archipelago even though they sail *literally* around the entire world. Maybe strong magic causes tech malfunctions except when you're a major PC or NPC, maybe Hypertech Continent has a really stupid but really well-enforced Prime Directive, whatever it takes.

Or maybe the place you've decided to set your game is the top tech in the world. Maybe it's not isolated and the tech really isn't that different at least for the major world powers. Maybe some other place has laser rifles and your area just has swords but you don't care because the campaign isn't going to take you out of that region.

If you make a setting for a particular campaign and don't try to cram all your different settings into one world, then it doesn't matter. Make the part the PCs interact with consistent and there's no point in worrying about the rest.


Terquem wrote:

I don't create plots for any of my games

I create situations

Plot is what happens when good players meet those situations

I don't create plots. My villains create plots. The PCs try to foil them.

Or antagonists, sometimes they're not really villains.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I can see the advantage to having one big setting where the PCs can wander around the whole thing as they see fit (or as the needs of the campaign and their abilities drive them) and interact with old PCs or at least their legacies. It's not really a big draw for me, but I can see it.
What's the advantage to cordoning off settings, but still putting them in the same world?

Not much, but a technologically uniform Holiday Inn world isn't a tremendous advantage, either. The "planet of hats" is a standard but discredited trope common in badly written sci-fi, and I'd hope no one's actually suggesting that it's something that should be imported into FRPGs.

The minor advantage with "cordoning off" parts of the world is that you can tell interesting stories about crossing the cordon, as indeed James Clavell did. If you're publishing a world, this creates opportunities for your buyers. If you're developing for home use,.... well, you're at least trying to avert the "planet of hats."

Sure. If that's the kind of campaign you want to play, go for it. I'd probably develop a new setting for that, rather than mush two existing settings together, ignoring the bits that don't fit.

It's not so much the "planet of hats" thing as developing the setting for the campaign you want to run in it. There may be other stuff in other parts of the world that doesn't come up in this campaign or this campaign may be a globe-trotting kind of affair that touches at least briefly on most of it.

Honestly, I'm not really sure how the "planet of hats" comes into it, unless you're just hung up the guns example. Even if you expand to a full world, you're just as likely to wind up with "countries of hats", especially since most of the places are likely to be very thinly sketched. The fact that the only thing you see of this setting is the Old West, because that's where you are, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Again, I tend to develop campaigns and settings together, so the setting will be right for what I want to do with that campaign. That may include the gods and planar cosmology or the length of history of the world. If I was developing a Japanese-like setting, I'd want the cosmology and pre-history to reflect Japanese myth. If I wanted to play in a Bronze Age Greek setting, I'd want to use that mythology as the basis. Now you could jam them both on the same world and decide one or both of those mythologies isn't true or they're both true but there's some deeper thing behind them, but that's going to be a retrofit, unless you build it all upfront with both games in mind. It's also not likely to come up unless you do decide to do a crossover.


ShadowcatX wrote:

Everyone optimizes their characters. When you assign your stats, or roll anything other than 3d6 in order, you're optimizing. When you choose a class, you're optimizing. When you pick feats, you're optimizing.

Some people simply optimize to a greater or a lesser degree than other people.

As everyone is aware and as someone feels obligated to point out every time it comes up.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:


One issue is, I don't care for the mixed technologies that Golarian has. If I play in a given "world", I want that world to be consistent technology wise. For example, as stated, I designed Kaidan for the Japan-analog game. However, I'm dabbling on a homebrew Supernatural Old West setting with rifles and revolvers tech. I really wouldn't want Kaidan, and this proposed Old West setting to exist in the same world, or in the same timeline. I don't want "we've got revolvers on this side of the world, but in Kaidan, muskets and single shot pistols is the most advanced tech."

Yeah, I could see that. There's no way that in the same world, you could have revolvers on in one part of the world and single-shot muzzle-loading weapons in another.

Oh, wait. Earth, 1836. Samuel Colt patented the modern revolver in 1836, and at the same time the contemporary Japanese were experimenting with flintlocks.

There are -- literally -- more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Of course, you can do it.

That doesn't mean you have to want it. And really, if you want the different regions to be separate for different campaigns, why say "They're on the same world, just in different parts, so there's no connection."? What does it get you?

I can see the advantage to having one big setting where the PCs can wander around the whole thing as they see fit (or as the needs of the campaign and their abilities drive them) and interact with old PCs or at least their legacies. It's not really a big draw for me, but I can see it.
What's the advantage to cordoning off settings, but still putting them in the same world?


RDM42 wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The whole "make one campaign world with everything you might possibly want in it and set all your games there" has never appealed to me. It works for a published setting, in a way, but our home campaigns have been in much more varied settings. It allows each to have a very distinct feel and theme.
Agreed. While I can appreciate the verisimilitude provided by a campaign setting with known history, due to many campaigns run in it over a long period of time, I'm a creative guy who enjoys designing custom settings, and I'd actually get bored of a given setting, after a single campaign within it. Creating new immersive worlds is an activity I enjoy as much as playing or running a game. I could never be satisfied playing in just one world over and over again - and is probably the reason I've never campaigned in Golarian, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc.
You realize that is sort of like saying that because you've been to Texas, you are now bored with the entire United States. Or that because you've been to Russia, you are now bored with Earth?

Not necessarily. Depends on the changes you want to make and the scope of the campaigns. Even if the changes can be crammed into the same world by using an entirely different part with no contact, what's the point? It might as well be a different world.

Especially once you start playing around with different gods and cosmologies, it becomes kind of silly to put them all in the same world.

It's the same reason many fantasy writers write stories in different
settings. Some like to focus on one, but many don't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:

If players want to be bland, fine. But as a GM I reserve the right to give out exactly as much story and detail and effort as the players are willing to put in. If you refuse to roleplay, why should I? If the players want to be bland and just kill stuff with little to no in-character talking to eachother or npcs or even basically describing what they do, expect the GM to do the same.

Again, you get the same level of quality you are willing to put into the story. Do you want WoW where there are quest NPCs clearly marked and the dialog means nothing and you just want the quick quest objective and map marker so all you need to worry about is your build and power rotation which you just look up in forums anyway, or do you want to play in a world where what you do and say actually matter?

Is there no middle ground at all?
not one that wouldn't result in a fight. The wall between playstyles has hit the stratosphere, any attempts at scaling it is seen as an attack.

Only on the boards, not in real life. Or even in actual games on line.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Eh, if we're going that far I'd rather the GM roll up a couple sets and let the players pick from them rather than waste time with the players rolling. But I can see how some people want to roll their own numbers, even if they may get vetoed.

Everyone rolls a set, everyone uses any of the sets rolled.

The only drawback is that the power tends to go up as the number of players does and works poorly if you've only got one or two players.
Choose your rolling method based on number of players.


I've never done it or been in a game where it's happened in a D&D/PF game. Our campaigns have all been set in separate home-brew worlds, designed for that campaign. With different histories often tied to the major villain's motivations.
The whole "make one campaign world with everything you might possibly want in it and set all your games there" has never appealed to me. It works for a published setting, in a way, but our home campaigns have been in much more varied settings. It allows each to have a very distinct feel and theme.

It did happen in a Cthulhu game of all places, since those are all set in roughly the same setting: Our world + monsters. One of my old Cthulhu characters showed up to give a little assistance in a later game run by another GM. He's a very friendly ghoul living under an old graveyard in Boston.
In some ways it's a bit easier in that system, since there isn't the gap in power as there is in D&D based games. Even though he'd become a ghoul, he wasn't ridiculously powerful compared to the current PCs, just a little more knowledgeable. And creepier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

Yeah I'm coming to learn that I had a fairly atypical, extremely tame college experience. Granted I was only in college for a grand total of about thirteen months, split over about three years, before I eventually dropped for good because I couldn't handle working and going to school at the same time and working paid rent.

But all my roommates were either classmates or friends/classmates of current/former roommates, so I consider the entire eight years and change I was out there with them as as close as I'll get to the experience. And none of us were super social and would rather spend our nights hanging out playing D&D, video games, telling stories or brainstorming/worldbuilding at IHOP or Denny's at Stupid O'Clock AM, or watching a movie than going to parties and getting drunk/high.

Fantasy was our drug of choice. Well, that and caffeine. I miss caffeine.

We did similar things. We just added a little alcohol to the mix. Not usually during the games themselves, but in the hanging out and geeking out sessions.

The occasional larger more organized party, but still more as socializing among friends than as "Let's get a random bunch of strangers together and get smashed!!!!".

Mostly in someone's dorm room or occasionally an off-campus apartment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OTOH, there's a middle line as well. I didn't drink or have sex in high school, largely because I was the geeky social outcast, but I did both in college, but without going overboard.
I drank, I got drunk, but there have only been one or two occasions that really went too far. I did some things I regretted later while drunk, but I never got in any serious trouble. I've done some things I regretted later stone cold sober as well.

Pre-marital sex, but not casual sex. I had good fairly long relationship s with 3 wonderful girls in my college years, one of whom I'm still close friends with long after. No STDs. No pregnancies.

No regrets.

I guess the point is the alternatives aren't straightedge or debauchery. There's a whole world in the middle.


Not sure on the guy with the beard. It's only a quick shot, so it's hard to tell without context.

Pretty much no comic storyline as far as I know - other than generic creation of Ultron, but it doesn't really have anything to do with that, since Pym and the Vision aren't involved.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
all official facebook pages soon released the trailer after the "leak"... coincidence? I smell marketing....

Or it was going to be out soon anyway (it was ready after all) and one it was out, there's no point in pretending otherwise. Might as well get the traffic to your sites.


Barachiel Shina wrote:
The Golux wrote:
Don't most advanced firearms not need to be reloaded every round anyway? Is Reloading a revolver putting in one bullet, or is it refilling all the slots in the cylinder?

It's a Move Action to refill ALL the slots in the cylinder.

MY problem is I have player with a Gunslinger who uses a Rifle. His character has sentimental attachment to the rifle, naming it "Skarlet", and doesn't plan on giving it up for a Pepperbox Rifle. What he wants is to be effective at higher levels with it, meaning he wants to be able to reload it as a free action.

Problem is the rules for advanced firearm reload times is all screwed up, no one knows what exactly is what, no one knows if Rapid Reload is legit, etc. He doesn't want to go Musket weapon and then Musket Master, he wants the rifle partially to avoid Musket Master archetype.

Do you want him to reload it as a free action?

If you do, house rule it. Or torture the rules until you convince yourself it's RAW. Whatever works for you. It's your game.

You're already using the non-standard advanced firearms anyway. Make them work.


Barachiel Shina wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Barachiel Shina wrote:

How is the firearm "advanced" in any way if the reload times are SLOWER than that of an early firearm? And what I mean by slow is, there is no way to reduce it to a free action?

What would Lightning Reload do? Would it allow someone to reload an advanced firearm to full capacity once per turn as a free action? It doesn't state that it works on chamber-loaded firearms, only barrel-loaded ones.

Man advanced firearms suck. Stuck with a slow reload just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame. People would rather stick to early firearms, which makes no sense on reloading faster than advanced.

"...just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame."

"...just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame."

"...just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame."

What I meant is it is lame to only make ONE shot at up to 5 range increments when you can just use Deadeye with an early firearm to shoot and load as free actions. Yeah Deadeye uses a grit point, so take a couple of Signature Deed feats and you're good with that.

So use a revolver or a pepperbox rifle to get 6 or 4 shots without reloading.

Then use a move action to reload completely next turn.

Or just house rule it, like everyone else does.


Barachiel Shina wrote:

How is the firearm "advanced" in any way if the reload times are SLOWER than that of an early firearm? And what I mean by slow is, there is no way to reduce it to a free action?

What would Lightning Reload do? Would it allow someone to reload an advanced firearm to full capacity once per turn as a free action? It doesn't state that it works on chamber-loaded firearms, only barrel-loaded ones.

Man advanced firearms suck. Stuck with a slow reload just to shoot five range increments as a touch AC. Lame. People would rather stick to early firearms, which makes no sense on reloading faster than advanced.

5 range increments as touch isn't anything to sneeze at. With the larger capacities for some, they're also faster to shoot until you do invest in Rapid Reload.

But mostly, they're a hacked on optional system that they recommend against using. Most likely it's an oversight that Rapid Reload doesn't work properly with them.

So just house rule it to work and everything's fine. Unless you're an absolute stickler for RAW, in which case you're screwed. Unless you're an absolute stickler for RAW but you're willing to accept baroque explanations for why it really works the way you want it to, in which case, go for it.


Danbala wrote:

It looks like D&D 5e didn't beat Pathfinder in the month that the PHB was released:

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/29999.html

I am genuinely surprised. Are sales weaker than expected? Is that why Hasbro didn't even mention the D&D release in its earnings summary?

That's for all summer and covers total sales, I think.

D&D5 had essentially one product for that whole time.


Barachiel Shina wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Barachiel Shina wrote:
If the advanced firearm loading time rules are taking reduced time from metal cartridges into account, then reload time for an advanced two-handed firearm should be a Standard Action, not a Move Action.
Since you always use a metal cartridge, the difference is moot. It's a move action to reload an advanced firearm, one-handed or two-handed.

Then reloading a one-handed advanced firearm should be a free action.

Nothing is explaining the two step reduction for two-handed firearms and the one step reduction for one-handed firearms.

It's not a reduction. It's a rule.

srd wrote:
It is a move action to load a one-handed or two-handed advanced firearm to its full capacity.

It's even more of a reduction for some weapons, since you reload not one shot, but to capacity.

You're inventing an intermediate stage from which it is reduced. That's just how it works. Reloading any advanced firearm to full capacity with metal cartridges is a move action.

If you don't like it, house rule it. It's an optional thing anyway.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Torath wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
You certainly don't get to fluff your feathers about salary and free time as some sort of measuring stick of how well you turned out. Take your salary and divide it by the lowest paid person working in your company (you can even adjust them to full time even though you probably only let them work 27 hours to prevent them from claiming benefits status) and if the answer is 50 or greater then you are a terrible person. I didn't make any assumptions about you before (because if you even said anything I didn't notice) but now that you have opened your mouth I'll feel free to draw conclusions about you based directly on your own words.

Ah, again with the generalizations. This time with pay and being terrible should you make some arbitrary ratio more than someone else? I'll say that is again rather general and certainly can't apply to everyone (Though I myself don't fit your category so might still not be terrible, at least by this measuring stick.) I fear the only correct conclusion you can draw is that I'm a bit of a troll. :) Oh, and that I often have a differing opinion than someone who categorically states 'If some arbitrary condition X exists you (or some other random person, parents etc.) are a terrible person.' I've never seen a good formula for finding terrible people and doubt this is it.

I don't think you are a terrible person, though perhaps someone with whom I occasionally disagree. I'd say you do have strong opinions, or at the very least a strong way of expressing them.

Oh, as a side note, I don't have nearly the free time you perhaps have assumed. I just give up sleep for Pathfinder. :) This post does have me thinking Tengu for some reason...

In closing, I took no offense at all at your statements towards me. I just disagree that parents, in general, are bad if they allow their children privacy or permit them to do "bad" things and learn from the experience. Even in that, perhaps I have misread and that isn't your position at all. If so, I'm sorry I chose you...

You were the one who brought up "I'm an executive at a fortune 500 company. I make a fine salary" as evidence of how well you turned out.

I don't know anything about you personally, but I don't that kind of success as proof of anything much. There are some really horrible people who make an awful lot of money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Transitioning to TTRPG's, Pathfinder doesn't have any rules that directly relate to the plot. There are rules for killing monsters. There are rules for climbing walls. There are rules for talking to NPC's, but only in a pass/fail method, not in a plot directing concept. The rules of Pathfinder push you to consider how you will defeat monsters. The rules themselves do not ask you to consider WHY you are defeating monsters though.

The WHY in PF is left up to the GM and players to determine for themselves, with no mechanical considerations inherent to the game. This is why it feels like there is a disconnect, because there is very literally nothing connecting the two aspects of the game.

There are other games that exist that directly put into mechanics the WHY. Burning Wheel for example requires that each player put several plot advancing goals on their character sheet. When the player pushes those goals they receive rewards that can improve their characters or help them achieve those goals.

Another aspect of Pathfinder is that it doesn't have anything that determines consequences. This is entirely up to the GM and players. You killed a monster, but what does that mean in the game world? Nothing, unless you agree that it does.

Fiasco takes a different approach. At the end of each scene someone is responsible for determining whether a scene ends with a positive or negative outcome. These positive and negative outcomes get distributed as dice which oppose each other. Each player rolls their collected dice at the end and comes up with a result tally. That tally (measured mostly as a distance from zero) determines that nature of your characters story ending. The game tells you if something good or bad happens. As a player, you then get to describe what is good or bad in the eyes of your character.

Pathfinder is a system that is primarily concerned with combat. Sure there is technically only one chapter assigned to combat, but a lot of text in the other chapters is either concerned with sub-rules about combat, or a method of determining characteristics that will then be used primarily in combat. If you want Pathfinder to be a more plot driven game, you need to add rules that actually interact with how the plot is driven.

While narrative mechanics certainly work for some people, they're not actually necessary to play a more plot or character driven game. I prefer and have played many such in many non-narrative based systems: Various editions of D&D/PF, CoC, Champions, Amber all come to mind. Just because the mechanics focus on combat doesn't mean the game has to. Amber probably worked the best because the mechanics mostly get out of the way, despite still being focused on conflict.

At the same time, I've never been fond of the narrative mechanics I've seen, despite them being supposedly aimed at the style I prefer. I like to immerse in the character as much as I can and make decisions for him and based on his understanding. Most of the narrative mechanics break me out of that: Deciding what happens as a result of my actions isn't a character decision. Especially when that involves deciding what other people do or how they react.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You basically just defined protesting. You are now saying that ALL protests are just a%!!*+&s, regardless of what they're protesting. Protesting is showing up and causing a scene to call attention to an issue.

Do you think that police brutality, corruption and abuse of power is something we should accept quietly? Or do you think people should stand up to them and call attention to their wrong doings?

The other aspect of what he did is help lend his voice to what other people were already doing. He didn't start that protest or was the sole organizer. He showed up to lend his voice and credentials, to show support for the locals and help magnify their cause.

Some random guy gets arrested in a protest in Ferguson, it just gets lumped in with the numbers. Cornel West, a former Harvard professor gets arrested, you get additional art and column space nationally, helping maintain a higher profile for the situation.

Really what I get from you is that the people of Ferguson should shut up and accept their lot in life. That people outside of Ferguson should stop thinking about the topic and let it go away. That's what I get from you when you say "this isn't newsworthy". You might not intend that, but that's how it comes across.

The vast majority of protesters did not go there with the intent of being arrested. Thousands of people showed up. A couple dozen got arrested. That one of those guys is remotely famous is not special news, any more than the dozens of other people getting arrested is news. That he went specifically to get arrested is what makes him a jerk.

I'm all for them protesting. I love the fact that they are going to public venues like baseball games to disrupt normal life. That should be front and center headlines. One guy in the protest, even if famous, is filler.

Planning to be arrested is a common protest activity. A lot of people don't do it because they can't afford to be arrested. Assuming it's organized and planned and not because the arrestee was being violent or something, it's generally considered positive by the protesters. If the people protesting in Ferguson don't think he's an ass for doing so, why do you have to?

Him being there and getting arrested helps them get those headlines you want them to have.


I don't think there's any reason to assume that the load times for advanced firearms were written to never be actually used. Since you have to use metal cartridges with them, it makes no sense at all for them to publish a reload time which could never be used.
As written, reloading any advanced firearm to capacity using metal cartridges is a move action.

It also makes little sense to me to stick an intermediate step in there where it's really some other, undefined, action which can be set to a different type of action (standard for two-handed or move for one-handed (or two-handed used by a musket master)) (And would that be to capacity or for a single shot?). Then to always reduce that imaginary intermediate step to a free action.

Bah. That's what I meant by "You can try to concoct some wacky explanation why the rules don't actually say what they say".
You're not using it in PFS. House rule it so it works the way you want it to.


Same book, but with Advanced firearms as an optional system that may not have been considered when modifying Rapid Reload for the main assumption of early firearms.


Barachiel Shina wrote:

That makes no sense.

So it is possible for me with Musket Master to load EARLY two-handed firearms as a free action. (Using Rapid Reload and alchemical cartridges). It is possible for me to load EARLY one-handed firearms as a free action.

But it is not possible for me to reload ADVANCED firearms as a free action, not even with Rapid Reload?

Yes.

That's how it's written.

It's easy enough to house-rule around and there's no real reason not to do so. PFS isn't an issue, since you won't have advanced firearms in PFS anyway, right?

You can try to concoct some wacky explanation why the rules don't actually say what they say, but you might as well just house rule it.

My assumption is that Rapid Reload (or the change to it for firearms) wasn't written with advanced guns in mind, so that's what I'd fix.


Barachiel Shina wrote:
blahpers wrote:

Way too much "getting pissed" in this thread. : /

Advanced firearms require metal cartridges to work--they're the only ammo type you can use with them. It would be rather silly to state that their default reload time is a move action but to never actually have that reload time come up. I can only conclude that it's a move action to reload an advanced firearm, full-stop.

Edit: Yeah, the wording of Rapid Reload technically makes it not work for advanced firearms. C'est la vie. At least you don't have to blow a feat.

So does that mean advanced two-handed firearms only require a Standard Action to reload? Normally they need a full round but this implies a TWO step drop. So then he is it one-handed advanced firearms also require a Move Action but not a free action?

How can one reload an advanced two handed firearm as a free action then?

RAW, you can't.

srd wrote:
It is a move action to load a one-handed or two-handed advanced firearm to its full capacity.

All our speculation about deriving the reload time from "like early, but with cartidges automatically figured in" is just speculation. There is no "They started like this, but then dropped by so many steps." You reload them to full capacity with a move action using metal cartridges.

Personally, as a house rule and probably RAI, I'd allow Rapid Reload to work to drop reloading to a free action, but as written, it does not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Heaven knows that I hate the Democrats and gun control, but...

Just Guess What Ferguson Police Found on Missouri Democrat Who Has Sponsored Several ‘Anti-Gun’ Bills…

Those anti-gun bills?

"The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action has dubbed several pieces of legislation sponsored by Nasheed “anti-gun,” including an amendment that would require gun owners to report a firearm stolen within 72 hours.

"Nasheed also reportedly pushed for a bill that would have required any 'parent or guardian of a child who attends a public, private, or charter school shall notify, in writing, the superintendent of the school district, or the governing body of a private school or charter school, that such parent or guardian owns a firearm within thirty calendar days' of enrollment."

I linked to The Blaze because it was one of the few far right websites I could find that didn't refer to Senator Nasheed as "a lynch mob ho" or some other disgusting slur.

One of those websites did, however, have a link to something called Vote Smart which appears to detail her anti-gun voting record. Looks like she voted against school employees being able to carry on school property; stand your ground; prohibiting federal enforcement of firearms regulation; something about state employees being able to keep guns in their cars.

Just the results of some cursory googling, and, again, I hate the Dems and gun control, but unless there's something I'm missing, her "anti-gunness" seems a little overblown.

If you've ever opposed anything that the NRA has supported, you're "anti-gun".

Or pretty much, if you're a Democrat.


That would be Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed. She was arrested for failing to move out of the road during the protest. No charges reported yet.

I haven't seen a reputable source for the "carrying a gun and drunk" part.


Davor wrote:

I don't think it's a matter of sex, but rather a matter of work. I don't think I've ever met female player with the drive to not only enjoy the game, but to achieve the level of system comprehension and put in the extensive work required to DM, at least without a lot of assistance.

My wife has DM'd solo games for me a few times, and we had a lot of fun, but when I'm the one who knows all the rules, it ends up with me as the GM, but I'm running characters and she's playing the encounters.

Now, that's not to point out women I've met as being poor players, but rather that there are fewer women I've met that want to devote the time and effort to the system than there are men I've met. But then, players of both sexes tend to be a bunch of lazy scum anyways. :P

Anecdotal evidence of course, but I sort of agree and sort of think you're completely wrong.

Most of the female GMs I've played with (and players too, but to a lesser extent) have been less interested in system mastery and extensive rules knowledge than some of the male GMs. That's not an matter of drive or hard work in my experience, just of a different focus. An awful lot of hard work can go into the campaign and adventure design and that has to be done for every game, not just a matter of getting the rules down once.

The female GMs I've played with generally favored more rules light systems over things like D&D/PF anyway. As, in general, do I.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:
Hama wrote:
Mechanics aren't art. They are mechanics.
Duchamp might argue otherwise. Or maybe he was just trolling the art world with the fountain.

I think I'd agree that mechanics aren't art. Any more than the rules of a sonnet or a haiku are art.

The games we make using those rules can be art.

I think there are exceptions to the rule. Ars Magica.. for instance, the casting rules and the magic system are themselves a work of literary art, and the atmosphere of the game setting is literally baked into them with it's liberal use of Latin derived terms. Amber Diceless's game terms are literally carved from the setting itself and really can't be filed down and used elsewhere without the near total rewrite the Shadow and Gossamer folks did, which created another baked in set of rules.

Possibly. As Muad'Dib said above, some tools can be works of art in themselves.

Though we're actually approaching a serious philosophical debate here: Possibly the difference between art and art forms? Painting is an art form. Even a bad painting is considered art, just bad art. OTOH, some specific things, despite not being examples of a type normally considered art, transcend that and become art on their own.

I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing I am though. When I said "game", I meant the actual performance art, if you will, of a particular instance of the game being played, probably over multiple sessions, not anything about separating rules and setting

I haven't actually played Ars Magica, but ADRGP is one of my favorites. Despite what you say, it's also probably the game I've seen played with the most house ruled changes and in a very broad range of different settings. Practically every game I've been in has rewritten the powers to one extent or another, even if they were set in Amber. It's common to do because the rules are so simple and run on GM interpretation rather than mechanical interaction.


magnuskn wrote:
. Admittedly, Sunspot and Manifold have kinda kept to the background, although that seems to be changing with the new storyline, where all sorts of weird stuff is going, including a time-jump of several months. We may be heading towards some sort of reset, I fear.

Possibly, though I suspect it'll be limited to that particular Avengers storyline, since I haven't seen a lot of crossover outside it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
I can only say that's a schtick that is kept in x-comics, not something you see much outside of it. Which is the problem, really. Also, it's no longer the 70's, which is a bigger problem- the comics you remember are not the comics that are being read now, and marvel has noticably backslid. What worked as diversity in 1978 doesn't work in 2014.
This is entirely devoid of fact checking. Marvel has most assuredly not "backslid" on their integration of ethnicities and gender orientated characters.

And when was the last time you saw any of the characters you mentioned hanging with Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Spidey and Wolverine in a book that wasn't being put out to make Marvel side cash but was actually paying the bills- mainstream Avengers, X-Men, Spider-Man, Thor?

Not recently beyond a cameo, I'll bet.

Yeah, well. New characters by definition need to establish themselves. In the current Avengers line-up (across all major teams), there are Roberto DaCosta (Sunspot), Nightmask, White Tiger (Ava Ayala), Sunfire (Shiro Yoshina), Shang Chi, Manifold (Eden Fesi), Luke Cage, Blue Marvel (Adam Brashear), Power Man (Victor Alvarez) and, oh, yeah, Sam Wilson, the current Captain America.
Loved some of new avengers stuff, will read more. Note that you stated this is *across* the major teams, still a very good chance these characters are in the background saving civilians while the forerunners get full page splashes as they punch villain du jour in the face.

Of course, that's not really backsliding. That's how it was back in the day too. In fact, those are the same big name characters you want them hanging out with now as they were back then.

You're also moving the goalposts. Those new characters may not be the mainline characters paying the bills, but neither are new male white characters. They definitely are, as you requested, hanging with those headline characters in the mainstream books.

It's a chicken or egg question. Has Marvel spent decades putting up minorities as niche characters and deliberately keeping them in those niches (or at least not pushing to make them breakthrough bills-paying characters), or have they kept trying and failing to make minority characters into those breakthroughs, but found it hard to do. Maybe even harder than turning a new white male hero into a breakthrough.

What are their recent successes at pushing anyone up into those leagues? Of the 5 you listed Wolverine was the most recent and he debuted in 1974.


Muad'Dib wrote:
Hama wrote:
Mechanics aren't art. They are mechanics.
Duchamp might argue otherwise. Or maybe he was just trolling the art world with the fountain.

I think I'd agree that mechanics aren't art. Any more than the rules of a sonnet or a haiku are art.

The games we make using those rules can be art.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Ideally, I'd think you'd want the game mechanics to inexorably lead to the types of stories you're trying to tell. The old Victory Games "James Bond 007" game did this perfectly -- some of the mechanics were incredibly wonky, but if you actually followed the rules, you pretty much always ended up with an experience that seemed like it came right out of a James Bond movie. In that case, the mechanics meshed seamlessly with the flavor.

In the case of Pathfinder, the mechanics don't really lead to the stories that the APs describe, and so on; you often end up having to work against them to get the story to work. That's not Paizo's fault by a long shot -- I love their adventures, I just feel that starting with 3.5 edition wasn't the best mechanical chassis to tell them with, because it too often leads places where the APs don't go.

In a perfect world, the mechanics would work with the precision and power of a mechanical bull, with no part out of place and no malfunctions and no O&M needed, and the flavor over them would be so seemless that you'd think you were looking at a real animal. Unfortunately, no such high-fantasy RPG has ever been designed that I know of.

Also, the more you do that, the more limited and focused the kinds of games you could play with that system would be. People play APs and even more railroaded campaigns with PF. People also play wide open sandbox campaigns with PF. Along with everything in between and some others off in strange directions.

That's a feature and it's part of the broad appeal. The other approach is also a feature, but it does get you a narrower appeal.


M'Ress wrote:


Elves, and Dwarves: Both of these races are much LONGER lived than humans and yet both are supposedly rarer than humans, Which at FIRST would seem to be counter-intuitive. IF a matted pair of elves, or dwarves, is capable of one offspring every... 10 to 12 months for any real percentage of there lifespan? The elves should be overrunning your game world… and they aren't. and neither are the Dwarves nor the Hobbits. So the answer must be one of the two elements above. Either elves have a vary narrow window of fertility. (Say 12ish years following puberty?) Or go for extended periods between fertility cycles (A child once every two to three hundreds of years?) The only alternative to this set of possibilities may be an incredibly high rate of infant mortality within the race (80 plus percent?). And when you think about this 3rd alternative this, has the potential to make elves the most tragic of all the races available for the PCs

If the longer lived races don't reach reproductive age at the same rate as humans do, then however long they spend reproducing won't begin to keep up with the geometric growth of the shorter lived races.

One long-lived couple having children regularly for hundreds of years, but starting around 100 falls far behind the number of great-grandchildren a human could have by the time she reaches 100.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Gark the Goblin wrote:

Yeah, rules-lawyering has always been the GM's label to apply. And it's usually much more extensive than two sentences of back-and-forth.

That said, none of my games have ever had restrictions against rules-lawyering. Even as kids we could sense when debates got tedious and the other players wanted to move on. And we'd just move on.

I think more than anything I hate the idea of someone "banning rules lawyers" because if you are having problems with rules lawyers it's almost certainly because you are having problems with the rules. In my experience, DM's who bend rules for story reasons every once in a while don't even get challenged on the calls (even by people whom other GM's have labeled rules-lawyers) and even if someone says "how did they do that?" The GM need only say "they can do that." If you find yourself having rules arguments that are longer/worse than that then you should take a deep look at (1) your system mastery, (2) the kind of game you are running.

Most of the rules lawyering I've seen or heard about is a player trying to get away with something, not the GM having problems with the rules.

Now, if you keep running into a lot of different rules lawyers arguing with your rulings, it might be your problem, but if it's one guy who always argues, it's probably him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Coming back to this thread, I must admit that I am somewhat offended by the title, on behalf of Marvel Comics (although my only association is as a fan with a 25+ year history of reading their comics).

Especially in the last 15 years since I returned to Germany from my seven year stay in Paraguay, it has been quite noticeable that Marvel has taken care to diversify their roster of new characters, both in the aspects gender, race and sexual orientation. In about every new team of young characters (Young Avengers, New X-Men, Runaways, New Warriors, Avengers Academy, Avengers: The Initiative, the guys with Cyclops revolution team currently) the cast is very diverse in all of those aspects. Hell, Marvel has included lots characters of various nationalities and ethnicities since at least the seventies. Just look at the rosters of the New Mutants, Generation X and other X-Teams. Marvel is also rolling out new ethnically diverse solo characters all the time, like the new Ms. Marvel, Kamala Khan or in the past Anya Corazón, Araña.

So, yeah. The title could have been chosen quite better.

I was just thinking the other day that 'Giant Sized X-men' cast of the 70's was pretty culturally diverse. German, Russian, irish, Canadian, African, White, Black, men, women, the whole she-bang. First member added next, Jewish girl...

Arguably the most popular X-team ever, and the well they always run back to.

So yeah, nothing new.

Pretty diverse: 1 woman. 1 black (same as the woman. That's a Two-fer). 1 Asian (who leaves in the next issue.) 1 Native American (Who dies 2 issues later.) 4 white males, admittedly of different European ancestry.

Jean comes back and hangs around off and on, leaving them with 1 or 2 women to 5 or more men most of the time.

Which was actually good for comics at the time and the X-men did get even better over time, but let's not idealize it.


Rynjin wrote:

There's no point to a game without good mechanics. If you put all your effort into the story, and neglect the gameplay, you have made a poor game, despite how amazing the story may be.

Which is why I consider game design to be harder (but more fun!) than directing a movie, writing a novel, and so forth...but maybe I'm just biased. =)

Artemis Moonstar wrote:
@Rynjin: I'm dying to know what you consider free-form RP then.

Cooperative storytelling.

Fun, but not a game.

It's basically the fine distinction between a game, and "play". It's very hard to concretely distinguish between them, but the distinctions are there.

The main principle is that a game has rules, play does not.

EX: When you played with action figures as a child, and made up stories, and fought battles, and all that. That was play.

When you play with action figures as an adult, make up stories, have concrete limitations to what can and cannot be done, and roll dice to determine outcomes of actions, that is a game.

I've never played any completely free-from RPGs, but I've played some pretty rules-light ones and I didn't find them at all like cooperative storytelling. The games I've seen that come closest to cooperative storytelling have narrative mechanics to drive that. Not really free form at all. Or even rules-light, in some cases.

I've certainly, even within older D&D frameworks, spent entire sessions in roleplay without any dice rolled or mechanics used. In some cases those sessions and the roleplayed interaction was as crucial to the campaign as any mechanics heavy combat.

I would much rather ditch mechanics and play a campaign out free-form, than ditch the story and all the fluff and just play straight mechanics. That may be too reductive to be meaningful though.

1 to 50 of 14,374 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.