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. 13,856 posts (14,655 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 13,856 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I don't particularly think the official rules are terrible. I think they'd probably work fine for an all child game or for someone actually interested in playing a sidekick Shortround style character (though I can't really imagine why anyone would want to.)

They are obviously not intended to produce characters on the same power level as normal adults characters. That's pretty much the point of them.

As for actually allowing it, I'd consider it, based on what type of game I was running. The first question I'd have though, especially for a kid as young as an equivalent of an 8 year old human, which I believe was the proposal, would be: How do you intend to roleplay this character? As an actual 8 year, even if an incredibly smart and educated one, or as a miniature adult? If the later, why bother? And if the former, that's going to be incredibly disruptive, if everyone else isn't really on board with it. Third graders, even brilliant ones, are still working on basic social skills, emotional control, impulse control, delayed gratification and similar things.

There's a really fine line between not even bothering to roleplay a kid and just being a constant pain for the party.

A kid in the 12-13 range or even closer to normal starting age, I'd have a lot less trouble with. Especially if the kid came with a "had to grow up fast" backstory - which is a little hard, but not impossible, to match with a brilliant child with a very early education in magic.


Pendagast wrote:
Wrath wrote:
If nothing else Pendagast, your previous career and experiences have increased my respect for you tenfold. My hat goes off to anyone who deliberately goes into dangerous situations to,rescue/ recover other people.

wel it's not all that… movies make it seem much more glorious.

Yea, Ive seen people fall out of aircraft and survive… Im just saying they weren't traveling at terminal velocity and/or have had mitigating circumstances.

I don't fish the internet for random tidbits of dubious information, I go off things Ive seen and/or experienced, or in absence of that, multiple credible sources that have no reason to be parroting each other but happen to unilaterally agree "yes this happened".

There is too much crap in writing (on the internet or previously in print) that is just rumor, unwitnessed or theoretical.

All sorts of "fantastic" things came out of WW2 stories…but you have to think that people who were alive at that time also believe "war of the worlds" was a real truthful radio broadcast, and hiding under your desk at school would save you from nuclear bombs.

The ENTIRE "Red Scare" was a myth developed and spread by that generation, a myth that contributed to our foreign policy for 4 decades, and cost americans their edge in international economics.

So, pardon me If Im cynical as to unsubstantiated claims that I don't bee live simply because they are in writing, or someone said so, especially if they are in direct contradiction to things I have actually seen and witnessed.

It has long been my experience, that MOST people skim what they read, find what they have been looking for (already made up their mind on an article) and only glean from it that portion of which the want to believe.
It;s only gotten worse with the internet and the fact that anyone can author anything on it, and make it look "real", simply by the fact that nothing else "contrary" comes up on a search engine.

On the other hand, a lot of planes got blown up during WW2. At a guess, more in those few years than ever before or since. If you were looking for examples of really unlikely survivals, that's when you'd want to look.

But yes, they all had some explanation for that survival: trees, long snowy slopes, something. And an awful lot of luck.

But PF characters could step out of the plane at 30000' over hard packed desert, suck up the 20d6, land in the middle of the battle and start fighting. Because they're awesome.


Rynjin wrote:
Breaking news: The main perpetrators of discrimination are people.

To summarize the summary of the summary: People are a problem.

More seriously, isn't the existence of discrimination more of an issue than who's doing it.

Who's doing it is important when it comes to figuring out how to stop it, but it's too often taken as an excuse either to lay blame or to take offense.

A study recently linked in one of the other threads showed that grad students with female names got less offers and lower paying ones than students with identical records and male names. On the surface this could be taken as yet another "blame the males" thing, but it also showed no significant difference based on the gender of the hiring professor.


Adjule wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ffordesoon wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Surely a system that's easier to teach and to run is more portable, not less?

Not necessarily. Easier to introduce to new people, but the more it is reliant on GM choices the more assumption clashes there will be when playing with different people who are already familiar with the system.

I don't think this is anywhere near as much of an issue with 5th as sunshadow21 does, but it's at least theoretically an issue.

Isn't that technically every version of D&D (Pathfinder included)? Same with many other systems (I can only assume on that). No 2 DMs will allow the same things, and even those that do, there is no guarantee that it hasn't been changed (house rules). Saying there's too much reliance on the DM's choices in one system and is the reason to not play it, seems rather absurd.

But as has been said many many times in this thread and many others, it is OK if a system isn't for you. You don't like a system, there's nothing wrong with that. Once you figure out that much, it would probably be best to move on.

True. All systems will have some variation and any GM can add houserules, but that doesn't mean there's no difference in how much variation is common.

Mind you, I don't think this is a big deal. Just trying to clarify what was meant.


Pendagast wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Because the fall can do less damage than a 5th level character can have. Duh.
NO DUH, it doesn't. To fall far enough to actually REACH terminal velocity it would NOT do less damage than what a 5th level character can have,,, DUH

He said 'can', not 'would'.

Pendagast wrote:

Ummm I think you're thinking of urban myth.

Im a former paratrooper. I don't recall anyone falling for nearly 6 miles and living.

Here you go.

Read the Article,

SHE didn't fall, she was in the plane that crashed from 33,000 feet.
Entirely different than a person falling OUT of plane and hitting the ground with her body alone.

That's surviving a plane crash, not surviving a fall.
There are ALOT of people who have done that.

No there aren't. Not the kind of plane crash that supposedly was. The kind where the pilots are kind of in control on the way down, sure. Not the kind where the plane blows up in mid air and you're in one of the sections in free fall for 33000'.

Edit: Yes, as I said above, it's disputed and most likely not true.
The same article links to several other cases of people falling a couple of miles and surviving, which makes essentially the same point, whatever that was.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


Pendagast wrote:

Ummm I think you're thinking of urban myth.

Im a former paratrooper. I don't recall anyone falling for nearly 6 miles and living.

Here you go.

This is disputed. There are claims it was a coverup and the plane was actually shot down (which is what was being covered up) from a much lower altitude.

Regardless, there are a number of other long fall survivors linked in the wiki entry. None as long, but all well over a mile.


Ffordesoon wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Surely a system that's easier to teach and to run is more portable, not less?

Not necessarily. Easier to introduce to new people, but the more it is reliant on GM choices the more assumption clashes there will be when playing with different people who are already familiar with the system.

I don't think this is anywhere near as much of an issue with 5th as sunshadow21 does, but it's at least theoretically an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Except conservatism is the exact opposite of machiavellian. The brand of conservatism I subscribe to seeks to expand everyone's productivity and wealth. Not just the wealth of the prince which sounds more like a concentration of power in the hands of a few which is a leftist goal. Big government vs small government and all that.

Also I am not truly right wing in the sense most people think of. According to my last political alignment test I am a conservative leaning moderate. But that's mostly fiscal conservatism. I am solidly middle of the road on social issues and slightly left leaning on government regulation.

Yes I favor a small but much more effectively run government capable of truly policing businesses rather than the left's big government solution of relying on corrupt bureaucrats who in the past have been largely ineffective at catching anyone other than their political enemies.

Which if we're building strawmen, is nicely matched by the right's "small" government solution of cutting social services, outsourcing what remains to inefficient well-connected business and running up the debt while pretending tax cuts will increase revenue.

Concentration of power in the hands of a few isn't a leftist goal. It's occasionally a leftist means, but there have been plenty of rightist dictatorships.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Aranna wrote:

So your saying I don't see BBC bias because I share their views?

Well, either you have view that are kind of similar, or the BBC's ideology and bias is pretty close to the hegemonical ideology.

In fairness, Aranna sees things from a much more rightist viewpoint and has different views on other channels: I think NPR is at best centrist, she calls out "massive leftist bias", etc.

It may be more that the BBC doesn't directly as much with hot-button US issues and thus avoids bias more obvious to Americans.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Leaving analogy and marketing behind, which sections are you talking about? Specifically, which division of the video game industry is catering to women?

As far as I can tell, relatively little of the design portions of the game industry are catering to women or to men, with the notable exception of children's games (e.g., Mermaid Barbie Adventure).

The marketing, of course, is catering to whoever bought the game that the designers ripped off to create the current me-too game. If you're selling a WoW clone, you sell to the people who bought (or are likely to have bought) WoW, and if you're selling a Farmville clone, you sell to the people who bought Farmville.

OK. Then we're in different worlds. Or we have entirely different ideas of what "catering to men" or "catering to women" means.

Is a franchise that doesn't even have the option of a female avatar, while offering plenty of customization other than that, really catering equally to men and women?

Is that not a design choice?


MMCJawa wrote:

Does a DnD movie need to define itself as being completely different from all other fantasy movies? I don't think so, or at least I don't think it needs to in order to be successful. There are lots of genres and sub-genres...what generally makes a movie stand out from other movies of its type is the directions, plot, and characters, and in genre flicks the world-building and special effects.

If they make a good movie and market it well, it will stand out. Especially since big-screen fantasy movies have been so hit and miss.

I would like it to have something to do with D&D other than just being a fantasy.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Your argument is basically that the industry is sexist and that's driven by consumer demand.

Which might even be true, but it's still admitting the sexism.

Actually, my argument isn't that the industry is sexist and that it's driven by consumer demand.

It's not clear that the industry is sexist. What is clear is that there's strong divisions in the industry, in the same way that there are divisions in the wine industry -- most wine is bought by females, but most pinot noir is bought by men. If you think that you'll make more wine sales by trying to market pinot noir to women (and white zinf to men), you're thinking exactly backwards. Affinity group marketing works by using established groups, not by breaking such groups. (And this isn't even affinity group marketing --it's just "me too" marketing.)

But those divisions aren't necessarily sexist, and catering to those divisions is also not necessarily sexist.

Leaving analogy and marketing behind, which sections are you talking about? Specifically, which division of the video game industry is catering to women?


Shifty wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Is that a complete non-sequitor or am I missing something?

It was making the point that the 'good fantasy' out there is not somehow linked to a set of rules mechanics. I just can't see how you could have a good 'D&D' movie that is tied into a rules set.

I think you could take the settings and some of lit as a start point, but then you need to just toss so much out its no longer D&D. "Low fantasy" is where it is at, epic spellslinging high end stuff is just a CGI festival. Michael Bay would love it, and Uwe Boll is just waiting to get his hands on it too.

The Lord of the Rings movies were based on the books (based on..based on..) but in no way shape or form constrained or shaped themselves on the LOTR RPG.

Well obviously. They were based on the books not the game. (That particular game was at least partly based on the movies, iirc.)

I actually think high fantasy spellslinging might be the niche a D&D movie could use to distinguish itself, CGI-fest or not. More than just dropping a few name and place references.
There's nothing that says you can't do good story-telling and special effects.
I guess if you want a generic low fantasy movie with Elminster playing the wise old mentor role instead of Merlin or Gandalf, you could do that.


Shifty wrote:

What rules set is Game of Thrones running with?

A variant of the one in Martin's head.

Is that a complete non-sequitor or am I missing something?


Shifty wrote:
One has too much story for 90 minutes, the other not much of a story at all :p

Fantasy epics are at least 2 hours these day :)

I did suggest up thread that a tv series might be better for a full 1 to 20 campaign arc.

For a movie you've got to be a bit more focused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
At its heart, the problem is that a ruleset is something you apply to a story, not a story in itself. To make a Dungeons & Dragons movie is not going to work until you put something more to it.

But that said, there's got to be something that makes it a D&D movie rather than just a fantasy movie.

Obviously, it needs good story, engaging characters, cool fight scenes and all that. I agree it doesn't need to slavishly follow the rules set , but what distinguishes good fantasy movie from good D&D movie?


Liam Warner wrote:

Except that they could take me I'll hop off a gutter without a second though, a low well after checking the ground and if I was desperate maybe a one story house since while I know it'd injure me I know I could survive it. A character in a fantasy world may feel hopping off a house isn't worth a second thought from experienc. Look at carrying capacity an average human with 11 strength can push at most 115lbs for a 5th level character with 21 strength (18 +2 ability bonus +1 4th level) that's not even a light load and they can push 5 times that amount at 520 lbs (so 5 times as strong)? That's you walk into the village and see someone trying to push s log off a friend so you casually pick it up and toss it aside.

Our experiences dictate what we know we can do if someone dives off a roof to escape a pursuer and realises it doesn't hurt only jolts them they may well jump off roofs whenever they see an advantage to it. Admittedly that's not the same as just trying a fall from 30000 feet but for lesser values well what they survived in the past will influence what they believe they can survive and how they approach problems.

Yeah, we learn from experience what we can do and PF characters will do the same. But that doesn't apply to these kind of freak outliers.

All I'm saying is that the evidence that people have survived really high falls in real life doesn't have anything to do with PF characters doing the same. The real life people survived by extreme luck and by something being there to break their fall. None of them would do it again because they couldn't count on either the luck or there being something to break the fall. High-level PF characters know they can walk away from the drop every time.


Aranna wrote:
thejeff you are wrong here. Why do you think like somewhere around 90% of minimum wage workers make MORE than that after a year of employment? It obviously has nothing to do with government intervention. Those companies could forever keep people at minimum wage and stay in governments good graces. NO they earn more than that because they now have on the job skills and their company now values their labor at a higher rate. A rate the company sets based on the market. Since they CAN keep wages lower than they currently DO and yet refuse to do so completely invalidates your post.

Because rewarding people for staying and developing skills is good for retention whatever level you start at? Even in states or cities that have raised the minimum wage, the same pattern happens. Most people who stay get a raise after a year or so. Even from companies who fought the wage hike.

More generally, the "rate the company sets based on the market", takes into account the minimum wage floor. They want to retain the slightly more experienced guy by paying him a little more than he'd start with elsewhere. Move to a lower minimum wage and they'd still want to pay a guy with a year's experience enough to keep him from wanting to start over at another company, which means a little above minimum.

That's what all the conservatives mean when they talk about "distorting the market". It's not that you are forced to pay employees an artificially high wage until they become valuable enough to earn a rate set by the market. It's that the very market rate itself is changed by government action.


Liam Warner wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

It's called terminal velocity because at that point any gain in speed from gravity or momentum is negated, or rather terminated… the point at which no more speed can be reached.

And no, by the current rules set, I do not see how a fifth level character falling from THAT high could survive the fall, without magic or a special character class ability (slow fall, feather fall, levitate..something like that)

It should be noted that there are documented incidents of people falling, without a parachute, from great heights and surviving. The record, I think, was 33,000 feet.
aw the joys of modern medicine.

Actually I believe it had more to do with freak circumstances like a large snowdrift or tree and survived doesn't nescessarily mean they wanted too.

@TheJeff

Technically speaking they did the only difference is in the modern world to fall that distance for tactical purposes they used a parachute whereas in a fantasy world they use featherfall, slowfall or just rely on their ridiculous preternatural toughness

But that's the point. They wouldn't just assume they could survive the fall. It's not that those who survived were the equivalent of high level characters. They just rolled all 1s for damage.


Aranna wrote:
The cost of labor is set at most levels by the market. Dropping minimum wage completely will not change what people are payed except at the lowest level of jobs and even there it likely wouldn't fall very far if at all. They NEED to have a first world incentive to attract workers. At a dollar a day no one would work and you couldn't run your business.

And the same argument would be made a few years after we raise the minimum wage to $15.

I suspect it would be equally wrong then. Without government intervention, there is no floor. Of course there is intervention other than minimum wage - people won't take a job for much less than they can get through various safety net programs, especially if you lose the benefits.

It wouldn't be immediate, of course, just the beginning of a downward spiral. Justified by the drops in prices, but leading them, since so much of the cost of goods isn't dependent on local labor.


Aranna wrote:
Actually true center is BBC since they have no skin in the political game here.

Actually true center is RT since they have no skin in the political game here.

Actually true center is Al Jazeera since they have no skin in the political game here.

I should let it go because BBC is in many far left of any US programming, but the logic makes no sense.


Aranna wrote:
But the real question is are the people who have to pay for that pay increase cool with it? Because the middle class are the ones we should ask if this is ok. They are the ones who will pay higher prices without an increase in wages.

So what? They'd get even cheaper fast food if we dropped the minimum wage to 3rd world levels.

Is that a good enough reason to do so, even if the middle class wanted it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

It's called terminal velocity because at that point any gain in speed from gravity or momentum is negated, or rather terminated… the point at which no more speed can be reached.

And no, by the current rules set, I do not see how a fifth level character falling from THAT high could survive the fall, without magic or a special character class ability (slow fall, feather fall, levitate..something like that)

It should be noted that there are documented incidents of people falling, without a parachute, from great heights and surviving. The record, I think, was 33,000 feet.
aw the joys of modern medicine.

Aw the joys of statistical outliers.

Unlike a midlevel PF character, I doubt any of them would be willing to do it again for tactical advantage.


More importantly though, if the argument is simultaneously that sexism isn't a significant problem in the gaming industry or community and that it would be a disaster for a company to put out a game with less T&A and/or more female characters, that's blatant nonsense.

Your argument is basically that the industry is sexist and that's driven by consumer demand.

Which might even be true, but it's still admitting the sexism.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Werthead wrote:


THE PRODUCERS was a (fictional) stage play deliberately designed to fail so it would earn the backers a substantial insurance pay-out.

Goodness, no. It was a real movie about a fictional stage play for which the producers sold 25,000% of the profits to backers. Insurance didn't enter into it; it was outright fraud of the backers and a violation of the fiduciary duty at a number of levels.

What thejeff -- and you -- are proposing is similarly a violation of the fiduciary duty on behalf of the game developers, who are supposed to be making profitable games.

If you're seriously suggesting pandering to the people who aren't going to be buying your games anyway, no matter what you do, I can only assume you're working with Bialystock.

Don't blow it too far out of proportion. The original suggestion was
Quote:
even these games - especially when recent CoD games go in for asymmetrical warfare in a big way - don't really have an excuse for not featuring more female characters or try to appeal more to female gamers. CoD did actually lean a little towards it (if only slightly) in GHOSTS, so it'll be interesting to see if that trend continues in ADVANCED WARFARE, given it's much more of an SF game and thus is not constrained by dubious notions of 'realism'.

I don't think that qualifies as pandering or that an attempt to draw a little more of the female market is "a violation of the fiduciary duty". Making Call of Duty: Romance edition in nice pink box with hearts and flowers would, but no one is suggesting that.


Freehold DM wrote:
Indeed, the story I heard about this was quite different. No cosplay mentioned, and something about swinging a sword around and then running away. I'm not saying the cops were right here, but I'm thinking there's something up.

Not so much swinging the sword around. Apparently he was stopped by the cops and was being questioned when he drew the sword and lunged at them.

Or so the official story goes.

I tell you. These dangerous black kids. Always attacking armed cops for no reason.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Werthead wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
They do have "excuses" (or rather, reasons) why they've avoided the extra step: significant success without taking the extra step, few women play the games, decision to focus on additional mechanics (new weapons, vehicles, misc tech, etc.) in lieu of female models, and likely a publisher resistance to risk the inclusion of one element at the cost of other elements (e.g. mechanics or graphic improvements) that will be included by competitors. With the way some "critics" react, it's little wonder that publishers are wary of including female avatars out of a desire to avoid the inevitable "violence against women" accusations (despite the thousands of male character deaths piling up on scoreboards).

Yup, because the violence inflicted against the female avatar in TOMB RAIDER (all eleventy billion of them), PORTAL or METROID was a big controversy.

Wait...

You've just named three games where a female is the protagonist. Despite maybe getting beat up occasionally, the woman is the one doing the major ass kicking. And what do you think the male to female ratio is for players of those games?

Is it better to make and try to market a game for women that men probably won't end up playing?

As was said earlier on, better than that on games where female avatars weren't an option. At least on Metroid, since that was the one referenced earlier.

And that's the point. Also that "violence against women" really only comes up when it's about beating up helpless victims, not when it's a female avatar getting hurt.


Mikaze wrote:
How this hasn't been on the news more than it has is infuriating, to put it lightly.

It's just one more black kid killed by the cops. That's not news.

If you want news, you need riots over it.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Subparhiggins wrote:
If there is anything a child character could conceivably do as well as an adult, its magic.
except there is no situation where a child prodigy version of a character wouldn't be gimped in comparison to it's adult self.

Except in Yu Yu Hakushu, which flat-out states that its main character will never be more powerful than he is currently at age 16. To the point where its even implied that if he ever tries to harness the same level of power at a later point in his life, his body will temporarily rearrange itself into its younger form in order to harness that level power.

We see another, significantly older main character do the same exact thing moments before this is explained in the story.

In a nutshell, all of your "conceivable notions" of what people can and should be able to do at a given time are thrown out of the window wherever fantasy is involved. Not even magic spells, but fantasy in general. Because that's what this is. Fantasy. Not, "I'm going to adhere to some of the real world's rules some of the time and then bend others so hard than they snap in two," other times.

16 is much closer to adult than the child prodigy we started talking about.

And there's nothing anywhere in the PF rules, even the magic ones, that support this kind of approach to character growth. Characters get more powerful by experience and learning over time. They don't get less powerful.

That said it's certainly possible for the rules of magic to work that way. Diane Duane's delightful young adult "So You Want To Be a Wizard?" books do. Wizards in that setting are at their most powerful when they first become wizards, usually as children. The younger the more potent. When the need is very great, particularly young children are called. Older wizards have to make up for their lack of raw power by more skill and finesse. It's actually one of the nicer excuses for having children go off on adventures that I've seen.


Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Fromper wrote:
trollbill wrote:
I guess she didn't expect her statement to draw Agro.
"Aggro" is another pre-MMO term from MUDs. I've never played an MMO, but I do know a few of these from my mudding days.
Isn't aggro also surfer slang? I thought that is where it came from.

I've also heard in fairly old English football context.

It's an obvious shortening that's probably being invented independently many times.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Stebehil wrote:


Most major cities have hourly connections, and the trains are fast, up to 250 km/h on special tracks built for this kind of train. So, I really can do without flying - the distances in Europe are generally smaller anyway.

If you wonder why Americans prefer to drive... taking public transport here will, at MINIMUM, double your travel time.

Thats where its even possible. You still need a car to make it "point to point" . The 20 dollar cab fare to go 4 miles to the train station to take a train to go to albany could almost cover my gas there and back.

Except for the commuter rail lines, where they exist. Those are generally much faster than driving. And far, far faster than driving would be if they weren't there.

I don't go into NYC often, but when I do, I'll often drive and pay to park by a rail station and ride in from there.

Even in your example: A 4 mile bike ride to the station and then into Albany isn't so bad. :)

But yes, public transportation here is pretty bad, outside of a few metropolitan areas. Doesn't mean it could be built up, just that it's currently bad.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ah yes, that's a nice bit of logic: No reason to add female characters because few women play the game.
Actually, it's very good logic and fairly standard in the marketing universe. If you're in a niche business to begin with, trying to branch out to other markets is usually the kiss of death.

It's good marketing logic.

It's lousy moral logic.


Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:


Oh, well. It worked out. But I doubt all 6-year-olds responded as admirably as mine did. (Gotta admit, I was peeved, but proud.)
And I've never ridden another form of public transit that was so utterly cut-throat.
Well, increasing pressure put on passengers by airlines is largely responsible for the cut throat nature. The ever increasing/unweildyness of overhead luggage? Well, I remember when I was a kid, even domestic flights allowed you to check a bag usually 2 for free. Now you are looking at 200 bucks more if you want to check bags. So people cram as much as they can into their free carryone luggage.

And the deregulation of the airlines back in the early 80s(?) is responsible for that pressure.

That largely hasn't happened in Europe, which is why several of you have mentioned how much nicer planes are over there.


Scott Betts wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:

I don't trust anyone who asserts that they're relying on "facts" as a form of asserting their authority. Especially when it's pretty obviously presented in opposition to anyone who disagrees. Sort of a "You can't argue against my argument because it is based on FACTS" thing.

Sommers may have "facts," but she's also interpreting a lot of them in a dishonest manner. Also, how is "I talked to a bunch of gamers and they said they don't care who you are as long as you love games!" any sort of valid point?

Anyway I give this video 1/10. Try harder, leave the gender essentialism in the garbage.

Could you elaborate on the facts that she is interpreting in a dishonest manner?

Also:

Quote:
I don't trust anyone who asserts that they're relying on "facts" as a form of asserting their authority.
This seems like a silly thing to say. You're essentially saying that evidence (generally taken to be the most valid basis for one's authority on a subject) is in fact one of the least valid grounds to base one's authority on. What would be your preferred basis? Popularity? Wealth? Physical strength?

There's a difference between actually relying on facts, which generally involves presenting those facts and showing how they make your argument and just saying you're relying on facts, which I believe mechaPoet is talking about.

Which I can kind of see here as well. That's what bothered me about the Fact Check article particularly. They very thoroughly fact check a bunch of claims that I'd be basically willing to take as given and imply, without ever actually stating, that this shows how serious Sommers is and how seriously you should take her argument because Look at all that she got right and how stupid or biased anyone would have to be argue with all this evidence.

Except nothing there and very little in the video itself actually even tries to support what I assume the conclusion is supposed to be: That there really isn't much sexism in gaming and it doesn't really matter anyway because it's just guys being guys and the women complaining about death and rape threats are just being silly.

If I'm wrong here, someone please tell me what she's actually trying to argue and how she supports it. Maybe my comprehension is completely shot. But nobody here seems to have actually spoken to her argument.


John Robey wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Snorter wrote:

OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.

You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?

Wait. You get advantage for having a trained skill?

Did I miss something that huge? I've only got the Basic document, but I don't see it.

Trained just gives you your proficiency bonus as far as I can tell.

At 9th level the basic Rogue archetype Thief gives you advantage on Stealth at half speed, which really suggests to me that you don't always have it.

It's not the trained skill that gave advantage in this case, it's the extra effort the player put into using it. Rather than just doing the baseline "creep forward quietly," the player used the environment to enhance their chance of success. Hence, advantage.

That's what I'd thought, but Snorter was saying you got it just for being trained in a skill, so the whole situational approach was pointless.


Acedio wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

Nothing says you can not destory the item. If you want to keep the item intact and remove it without powerfull spells...

Well that would be something different.

Saying the item is immune to sunder makes a very powerful item and beyond the description of cursed items in the CRB

To expand on this good piece of advice, it's important to remember that Cursed Items are really just malfunctioning versions of a specific crafted item. They are created when there's a failure during crafting. I believe (I think there's a chance another GM might disagree) that while the cursed item in question has a specific condition for removal, it doesn't apply if the cursed item is destroyed. The CRB rules for Cursed Items say that some cursed items return if discarded, but it says nothing about what happens when they are destroyed...

So no worries there!! But I agree it seems a little counterintuitive.

I'll say.
Necklace of Strangulation wrote:
It cannot be removed by any means short of a limited wish, wish, or miracle

Or you can just cut it off, long before it actually kills anybody.

I really don't think that's the intent.


Calex wrote:

As I sit here and look across the room at my bookshelves, I see fully 75% of my favorite fantasy and sci-fi authors are women. They are some of the best story and character creators I have ever encountered. Now imagine if you could have that imagination, and the kind of organization and discipline it takes to write like that sitting behind the screen at your table.

What an awesome thing that would be.

I don't have to imagine it. One of my favorite fantasy and sci-fi writers is female and one of my favorite GMs. Sadly she hasn't had time or energy to run anything in a long time.

Writing and GMing take up the same kind of creative energy.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

At this point I've simply resigned myself to knowing that flying isn't a glamorous experience. It's oddly liberating. It's a twisted sort of enlightenment falling under the "things I cannot change" category. I basically just put on my headphones and try to zone out for a couple of hours. I read mostly.

If you want a glamorous experience, you need your own luxury jet. Or at least a company one. That's how the glamorous people travel.

Otherwise, even if you're travelling on business or paying for first class, you're really dealing with mass transit.


Kolokotroni wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
And also there is the fact that European airlines have real competition. Eurail. It is an entirely reasonable option for a European traveling within Europe to take a train instead of plane. Competing with Trains means comfort has to be a priority. Because there isnt a monumental difference in the time it takes to fly vs take a train from london to paris. But for the price of a plane ticket, I can probably get a cabin on a train if I shared it with one other person (I generally dont travel alone). A few hours longer travel time is generally worth the comfort of train travel to alot of people.
God, I'd love to have a good rail system in the US.
Me too. If there was, I'd never friggan fly domestically. Ever. Unfortunately, what we have blows, and is barely treading water because americans for some reason dont like trains.

Talk to Detroit. :)

What kills me is that we had a great railroad system for its day, and we killed it. If we'd kept it and upgraded it as tech improved, we'd have a world-class one now.

Without real HSR it might still make sense to fly long domestic routes. Coast-to-coast and the like, but all the short hop stuff would be pointless.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I said "perfect world" not "realistic."

However, business class only solves the legroom issue and that only to a small degree. It does not solve any of the other issues.

Wait, have you had an 'unwashed masses' experience in business class? I generally fly business class when I go domestically, and pretty much have experienced exactly what you have described, no kids, quiet, lots of booze, and everyone kept to themselves. Have you experienced something different?

I've seen kids in first class sometimes.

And you're still slowed down by the struggle to stow bags before takeoff. You do get to leave while the hoi polloi are struggling to get their's out though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
And also there is the fact that European airlines have real competition. Eurail. It is an entirely reasonable option for a European traveling within Europe to take a train instead of plane. Competing with Trains means comfort has to be a priority. Because there isnt a monumental difference in the time it takes to fly vs take a train from london to paris. But for the price of a plane ticket, I can probably get a cabin on a train if I shared it with one other person (I generally dont travel alone). A few hours longer travel time is generally worth the comfort of train travel to alot of people.

God, I'd love to have a good rail system in the US.


Kolokotroni wrote:

I am a large man. I am somewhat overweight, but my issue on airplanes isnt related to that, its that I am large. My legs and hips are thick, not because of fat, but because I play soccer, and I run. My shoulders are wide. I could be anerexic, my shoulders would still be wider then the typical airline seat.

My size makes flying 'economy' very unpleasant, in particular because the size of my legs, hips and rear end means I am effectively elevated compared to most people. This makes reclining an issue for me since regardless of my posture, this will bring the seat in front of me in contact with my legs.

We all know airlines have in recent years added seats to coach to up profits. That means less space. For example, recently I flew from new york to europe. I made the mistake of flying united to london, but on the way back I flew luftansa. It was the same 747 plane, but there was a dramatic difference in the leg room between united's flight and luftansa.

Most of the airline seats were initially designed for the amount of space luftansa and most european carriers allow between seats. Typical american airlines have significantly less room now. So the fact that you are able to recline, doesnt really make it ok.

The seat isnt being used in the manner it was designed for by the airlines. Particulary on domestic flights, if you recline, you are being a jerk. Plane and simple. Unless you have some sort of medical issue, you are placeing your comfort above that of the person behind you. In my book that is never ok.

It's all part of the competition for lower airfare. Less room between seats means more seats on the plane. As much as everyone complains about service and space and everything else, people consistently go for the cheaper option, probably without realizing what they're driving.

Are those european carriers regulated in the ways that US carriers no longer are?


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Pan wrote:
On the topic of waiting for baggage, its actually gotten sooooo much faster because nobody checks anymore. I probably should shut up about this little secret but I have been off the plane and had my bags in hand before people on the plane have gotten out while waiting for overheads to come down and get out.
The few times I've had to check a bag I've had the opposite experience. I flew into Dallas a few weeks ago and it took 30 minutes to get my bag. The poor girl from the car service kept having to have the driver circle the airport.

Yeah, last time I had checked baggage we got out, from fairly far back in the plane, though without any great struggle with bags that I remember, walked forever through the airport to get to the baggage claim, then still waited a good 15-20 minutes before bags even started coming.


NobodysHome wrote:


EDIT: It's gotten to the point that we *always* drive the 7 hours to L.A. because even though the flight is technically 90 minutes, adding getting to the airport and through security (1 hour), the inevitable delay due to oversized carry-ons (15 minutes), car rental (30 minutes), and driving where we're going (30-60 minutes), we're suddenly perilously close to taking just as much time by plane. *And* it costs more.

Of course, you'd lose much more time than the oversized carry-on delay if you had to wait for baggage.

Mind you, if I got to bring a carry-on bag and no one else did, that'd be great. :)


NobodysHome wrote:
Pan wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


Bigger problems with people who take up all the luggage space for carry ons......
don't even get me started on carry on baggage and overheads.

The airline world would be vastly improved if the overhead bins were removed entirely.

- Tall people would have more head room while seating themselves.
- We would all no longer have to stand there stupidly in the aisle as some asinine hoarder tried the infamous lift-n-stuff of a 50-pound oversized bag into the overhead bin. Over. And over. And over. Again.

I have come to loathe the overhead bins as few other things in my life, as far too many passengers are willing to stop the entire boarding process just to get their "The store said it was legal size" overstuffed bag into the overhead bin.

Good lord no. Then I'd have to deal with baggage every time. And I travel light. Never had any problem fitting my bag into the bin.


BigDTBone wrote:
Agreed, I was making a larger comment about general editorial bias. Morning Joe definitely is bent to the right, and I'm sure that when Fox reads the AP newswire verbatim, if you close your eyes so you can see their purposefully distorted charts, and try to filter the anchor's inflections, it may not be completely right leaning. But, there will still be selection bias...

Yeah, I just get irritated seeing MSNBC portrayed as the liberal equivalent of Fox, when it really isn't anywhere near so partisan, even given that the mainstream "left" in the US is much less extreme than the mainstream "right".

There are far more voices on MSNBC that will attack Democrats from the right than there on Fox that will attack Republicans from the left.
The widespread theory that MSNBC is "leftist" lets that turn into "Even MSNBC thinks the Democrats have gone too far."

And Fox news being less extreme doesn't really push it past the second category.


BigDTBone wrote:
Aranna wrote:

CNN is a leftist organization... I am surprised they went anti-union. I guess next time they should consult labor contract lawyers before de-unionizing. Just to make sure they don't violate any agreements in doing so.

CNN only appears to be a leftist organization when you look at it in the context of the current American political landscape and it's peers.

To illustrate:

Tea party wing of Republican Party - extreme right, flirting with fascism.
Other Republicans - very very right, Machiavelli
"Centerist" Independents - very right, Roman Senate
Democrats - right, cautious conservatism.
"Radical Liberal" Democrat - actual political center, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Rachael Maddow.

Fox News / AM talk radio fits in that first category.
WSJ/Washington Post fits in that second category.
NYT/CNN/National Network News fits in that third category.
NPR/HuffPo fits in that fourth category.
MSNBC/Daily Kos fits in that fifth category.

Anything that Comrade Anklebiter links to will be an actual left organization, aka rag.

I'd only quibble that while MSNBC does have some shows that fit in the fifth category, it's also got some that swing much farther right - third or maybe even second. Its actual news coverage also isn't nearly as skewed, probably in line with the NYT/CNN. (In fairness Fox isn't as bad with their news as their pundit shows either.)


ElementalXX wrote:

Rule of cool is the rule of fantasy games

Selective Realism is damaging

Perhaps, but it's got to be Cool to everyone. If your concept breaks the GM's fun, the game won't last. If your concept breaks the other player's fun, the game won't last.

And some grounding in realism is necessary. Though a surrealistic RPG might be interesting. Hmmm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think that's easily handled with a brief explanation, maybe a bit of a planning session or something.That's a bit of what might help distinguish D&D from generic fantasy without delving into rules minutia.

Another thought is just high magic in general. Most of the recent fantasy movies have been relatively low magic or at least low protagonist caster magic. (Harry Potter aside.)
Wizards tend to be enigmatic mentor types who don't do a lot of actual combat stuff to give the real fighter heroes room to shine. If a D&D movie can emulate mid-level party dynamics where the spell casters really get to shine, but don't yet overshadow the thugs, that could be a way to stand out.


Snorter wrote:

OR for having Stealth as a trained skill.

You got one, or you got all? Same difference.
And if the target is trained in Perception, or has any situational advantage whatsoever, the whole description is for nothing, whether you had one benefit, two, or a dozen. All cancelled out.

Given that any PC who intends to be stealthy, such as Rogue or Ranger, will automatically get 1 instance of advantage from their class...why bother trying for more?

What am I missing?

Wait. You get advantage for having a trained skill?

Did I miss something that huge? I've only got the Basic document, but I don't see it.

Trained just gives you your proficiency bonus as far as I can tell.

At 9th level the basic Rogue archetype Thief gives you advantage on Stealth at half speed, which really suggests to me that you don't always have it.

1 to 50 of 13,856 << 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.