|
|
|
 Recent posts by
yoda8myhead:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erik Mona wrote:
My concern is that if we feed an RSS of the blog directly to twitter, it will include just the title of the blog and the first few words, which will often sound like nonsense. I suspect that might be even MORE annoying.
The current RSS feed that we pull from the blog onto the main page of the wiki just lists the title. That might be a product of the wikimedia plug-in that does the aggregating, though, rather than the feed itself.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Also, if we want to feed the blogs to Facebook, *and* we want to feed other Facebook content to Twitter, then adding the blog directly to Twitter would either double up the blog (if we didn't also remove the Facebook feed) or eliminated the non-blog Facebook content (if we did remove it).
That's confusing. I think the solution is to add everything manually. Where are those interns?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tarlane wrote:
A couple things could play a part of that, I think. A rogue only has reason to take charisma because they want to increase their social skill bonuses, but a cavalier has several abilities that get some boosts due to charisma(not to mention them wanting it for handle animal as well), and I think that would lead to your average cavalier to have a higher charisma then your average rogue, and thus be naturally better in social situations.
How does that distinguish a cavalier from a paladin or sorcerer, then, who both should (in theory) have high Charisma scores? They have Diplomacy and Sense Motive and Bluff as class skills. I can see the high Cha argument applying to bards, who are supposed to be able to easily move through high society, but other high Cha characters aren't explicitly described as such, so what distinguishes the cavalier in this regard? It just seems like all their powers are combat focused, while their intent is to have social abilities in addition to skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kobash wrote:
On one hand, we are unproven to Paizo and unknown to you, which means you're really taking a leap of faith on selecting someone who's only a name on the boards to follow through and give you a good product. On the other hand, many of us submitting scenarios have never gone through the process of development with you or anyone else at Paizo, which means we don't know what you expect. There are a few posts floating around the message-boards that give advice, but most seem ambiguous and I'm guessing that's intentional in order to prevent limiting our creativity in pitching a good story.
I think the advice posts may be more on the ambiguous side not to prevent stifling of creativity, but to make the pitches more representative of a writer's ability to write. If the open calls were structured such that you simply follow the formula Josh provided in the call, what in the formulaic pitches would distinguish a writer with the chops to do a scenario from one without? You're right that everyone who submits (for the most part) is new to Paizo, so it's even more important that they get a good sense from the pitch of what each writer is capable of. It's a subjective decision no matter what, so the more of a prediction of the final product the pitch provides, the easier it is to "trust your gut."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kyrt-ryder wrote:
yoda8myhead wrote:
There are some very prominent gay characters in the game (including at least one iconic and one BBEG) yet these aspects are never sensationalized, exotified, or exploited. If only our society as a whole took the same approach in real life.
You know, I'm going to finish reading the rest of the thread before I comment on the subject matter, but I HAVE to ask.
Which Iconic is this? I never noticed it mentioned anywhere.
They haven't revealed which one(s) yet. They might never do so. But both Wes and James have said multiple times that at least one is gay. I suggested at PaizoCon that Merisiel and Seltyiel were the two PCs most likely to hook up and was told that might be the least likely pairing, so that might be a hint. In any case, I think which one it is makes less a difference in the overall tone of the setting than the fact that they aren't afraid to have NPCs that represent alternative lifestyles. In real life we don't know each and every person who is gay and it doesn't impact our daily lives. I like that the same is true for Golarion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for putting your submission up for critique. Please take the following as constructive criticism so that you may have better success in future attempts.
Some of the flavorful setting elements here seem disjointed as well, like a former follower of Aroden, a deity who died over a hundred years ago. I assume the follower is an elf or half-elf but either is a strange fit for the god of humanity. The Harbingers of Fate are an awesome organization, but they seem forced here, as does the Pathfinder Society's involvement. In general, I get the feeling that the scenario is name-dropping proper nouns from the setting rather than really building a solid adventure within it. Much of what you've got here hinges on specific NPCs, history, and organizations, and while all that is what makes Golarion so awesome, they should never overshadow the PCs and the immediate adventure. If this were moved from Absalom and the Minotaur Prince were swapped for a generic macguffin, would the adventure still be enough to motivate the Pathfinder's on?
You've got an interesting artifact here, but you spend a ton of word count on how it works when what's most important is what the PCs experience going through the adventure. Even if they were solving the mazes themselves, how exciting would it be to solve the problem with a simple intelligence check or even worse, have players sitting around actually following a maze. It would make a cool entry into a magic item book but seems wrong for the hook of an adventure.
I make this suggestion every time people submit and it could just be a pet peeve of mine, but you waste soooo much word count with repetition of encounter details. The same word count could be better used to tell the story the PCs will experience as they move from encounter to encounter and less on CRs, DCs, tiers, and the same monster name used multiple times. You only have 750 words to hook Josh on your adventure. Do you really want to use seventeen of them on "Tier 1-2: caryatid column *3/4HP, missing one arm / Tier 4-5: caryatid columns (x2) *3/4HP, both missing limbs"? You spend only 28 words in the body of the text to this encounter. You could add over 50% more words to tell me why the columns are there, their tactics, and evoke the scene. Does "Tracking/Perception" need to be listed twice? If the adventure summary lists that they are tracking a blood trail, make it sound like something every PC will want to be a part of. If it's not that important a part of the adventure, maybe it would be reduced to a single skill check mentioned in the background of a cooler encounter. In either case, now they just suck up several sentences worth of words which could make the reader say "that is f*!#ing awesome!" No one says that about repetitive lists of monster names, CRs, and DCs.
Josh has said that he can teach people rules but can't teach people how to write, so the next comments may not be as relevant to his actual decision-making process, but if you put mechanics in there, expect them to be taken into account. In this case, there are some weird balance issues, like one tier doing RP while another fights? How will that be written in the scenario? Will it really be two different encounters? You've also got details about the caryatid columns missing limbs, I assume so that they are a lower CR--why not use an existing template to alter their stats? Do single skill checks constitute encounters (namely tracking or jumping a fissure)? If they are full encounters, can eight encounters fit into a 4 hour convention time slot?
In general, I think you've got some really cool stuff here. I think that, if developed, it could be a really memorable adventure. But the pitch doesn't grab the reader by the balls and make them want to play it RIGHT NOW, which is what it needs to stand out among the competition and get developed in the first place.
Again, I hope you take this as constructive criticism, and remember that I'm just another guy like you and it's Josh who makes the calls. I hope this is helpful and that you keep submitting to future open calls. Best of luck if you do!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
World of Dusk wrote:
It just felt somewhat like an omission, with extra feats, spells, classes, magic items etc. all making it in.
While players could play a PC of a non-core race, that seems more like an addition to put in a GM book, as it's ultimately up to the GM if a race exists in their setting or not. A GM certainly has final say over whether a class, feat, or spell exists as well, but these seem like smaller potatoes compared to a new race. I think it was actually an error on WotC's part to release so many new races in player-oriented books and I'm glad to see Paizo holding back when it comes to race glut. (Though I would still like to see a Rakasta/Litorian/Catfolk for PFRPG and specifically in Golarion, but I know that's almost guaranteed not to happen.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yoda8myhead
(Pathfinder Chronicles Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber),
