I always cared about the fact that PF basically enforce ranged characters to be stand still machine-guns. IMHO, guns and crossbow should be slower to reload but with powerful shots, or something.
Now imagine how fun that would be...
Player: I shoot my rifle.
<next round>
Player: I shoot my backup rifle.
<Player proceeds to do nothing for the next 10 rounds, which take a whole lot of time to go through>
And let's not forget the fact that each additional weapon you have is another huge drain in your wealth...
Forum Meme: "Aggressively agreeing with someone", like Sissyl is doing right now.
I say "The setting is not realistic, but it is consistent".
Sissyl says "No, you're wrong <Proceeds to say an explanation essentially summing up to the same thing but only using synonyms like predictable instead of consistent>"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems we have the same problems here as with the GMPC vs NPC thread from awhile back; different definitions of the same word. In this case "realistic".
No, but the setting assumes the magic chapter's rules work, doesn't it? Which means, among many, many other things, that more powerful spells require more experience to cast. Someone with no experience casting meteor swarms would be expressly against these rules. See how that works? The magic system is predictable, and there is no magic involved that allows for a thousand attacks per second. Saying that because there is magic, nobody ever should complain about someone making a thousand attacks per second, that's just bull.
But it isn't just magic, for example: my example.
My fighter can fall 200 feet off a wall and stand up instantly. But the fighter can't climb back up that wall because it has a smooth surface. And that is supposed to make sense/be predictable because.... reasons....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, most of the realism arguments have nothing to do with magic but everything to do with quirks in the rules that determine everything else.
Mundanes really get the short of the stick in terms of capability.
Ideally, when casters start having greater narrative control, mundanes should have the power to ignore the narrative entirely.
I.e. "The evil caster has made this happen. I choose to power through this through sheer will."
But I'm going to stop now because if I go further I will invoke the darkest god.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, most of the realism arguments have nothing to do with magic but everything to do with quirks in the rules that determine everything else.
Mundanes really get the short of the stick in terms of capability.
Ideally, when casters start having greater narrative control, mundanes should have the power to ignore the narrative entirely.
I.e. "The evil caster has made this happen. I choose to power through this through sheer will."
But I'm going to stop now because if I go further I will invoke the darkest god.
Martials vs Casters(the god of derails)?? :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it isn't just magic, for example: my example.
My fighter can fall 200 feet off a wall and stand up instantly. But the fighter can't climb back up that wall because it has a smooth surface. And that is supposed to make sense/be predictable because.... reasons....
It's a good example and many would find it compelling.
Nonetheless, just because one part of the game strikes one as unrealistic but "acceptable" (due to playability, simplicity or whatever), it doesnt follow that unrealistic assumptions/outcomes in another part of the game will also be accepted. Someone could easily accept the unrealistic nature of hit points as a necessary evil (because they recognise the benefits of such simplification) but baulk at mundane creatures in the world performing outside real-world physical limits in areas other than damage.
Standards of verisimilitude and where one draws the line in terms of suspension of disbelief are inherently subjective. There isnt a correct amount of consistency/realism in the rules - different people will require different levels of consistency/realism in different areas of the rules, depending on their personal experiences and predilections.
I think one consequence of that is it tends to reinforce the idea that magic is strictly better than mundane - many would accept "unrealistic" mundane stunts on that basis alone. Personally, I prefer systems where magic >> mundane, so that motivation for climbing thousand foot cliffs doesnt carry much weight.
But it isn't just magic, for example: my example.
My fighter can fall 200 feet off a wall and stand up instantly. But the fighter can't climb back up that wall because it has a smooth surface. And that is supposed to make sense/be predictable because.... reasons....
It's a good example and many would find it compelling.
Nonetheless, just because one part of the game strikes one as unrealistic but "acceptable" (due to playability, simplicity or whatever), it doesnt follow that unrealistic assumptions/outcomes in another part of the game will also be accepted. Someone could easily accept the unrealistic nature of hit points as a necessary evil (because they recognise the benefits of such simplification) but baulk at mundane creatures in the world performing outside real-world physical limits in areas other than damage.
Standards of verisimilitude and where one draws the line in terms of suspension of disbelief are inherently subjective. There isnt a correct amount of consistency/realism in the rules - different people will require different levels of consistency/realism in different areas of the rules, depending on their personal experiences and predilections.
I think one consequence of that is it tends to reinforce the idea that magic is strictly better than mundane - many would accept "unrealistic" mundane stunts on that basis alone. Personally, I prefer systems where magic >> mundane, so that motivation for climbing thousand foot cliffs doesnt carry much weight.
The problem with that is the idea of what "really could happen," is based on what we believe humans "could do" in our world. Which is all well and good up to about 4th level. At 10th level the fighter should be so badass that he can dig his fingers into solid granite and scale the 200 ft wall in a matter of minutes. Because he is more than twice as awesome as anyone on earth has ever been.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that is the idea of what "really could happen," is based on what we believe humans "could do" in our world. Which is all well and good up to about 4th level. At 10th level the fighter should be so badass that he can dig his fingers into solid granite and scale the 200 ft wall in a matter of minutes. Because he is more than twice as awesome as anyone on earth has ever been.
He's more awesome based on physical punishment he can take - or various other mechanically derived limits, presumably - I've never survived to tenth level in PF, so I wouldn't know. :)
Again though, someone may be quite happy with those other superhuman feats but baulk at "unrealistic" rock climbing. Verisimilitude is not some measured on some objectively determined scale - some things slip by unnoticed, or at least accepted. Others make us stop and go "No way! That's just silly!" There's nothing inherently forcing one to accept some superhuman ability purely because you've previously accepted a different one. Maybe the fantasy reality is like ours in some ways and not in others - what "feels right" is always going to be subjective.
For example, hit points and group-allocated experience points jar for me. Any system with those in it always seems arbitrary and unrealistic. I can't claim that they "should" be abandoned though - merely that I prefer it if they are.
Similarly, the mega damage vs mega climbing issue you point to here might seem "the same" to you - in that, having accepted a fighter falling 200 feet you feel comfortable accepting he's able to gouge granite (I'm reasonably comfortable with that account myself, I think). That doesn't mean the rock climber who accepts the first for simplification reasons but discards the latter on realism reasons is wrong (nor guilty of supporting "bad design").
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A game is a game... "realism" tends to just be an excuse for some people to unbalance the system against others. "I don't want you to X because you can't do that in real life", it is the worst sort of biased garbage logic ever. They are just trying to stealth in House Rules that unbalance the already running game without any play testing or rule considerations by trying to disrupt suspension of disbelief. Am I sure of this? Yes, just look at the the "realism" people's targets. They attack single unrealistic things with complete disregard for other unrealistic things.
The problem with that is the idea of what "really could happen," is based on what we believe humans "could do" in our world. Which is all well and good up to about 4th level. At 10th level the fighter should be so badass that he can dig his fingers into solid granite and scale the 200 ft wall in a matter of minutes. Because he is more than twice as awesome as anyone on earth has ever been.He's more awesome based on physical punishment he can take - or various other mechanically derived limits, presumably - I've never survived to tenth level in PF, so I wouldn't know. :)
Again though, someone may be quite happy with those other superhuman feats but baulk at "unrealistic" rock climbing. Verisimilitude is not some measured on some objectively determined scale - some things slip by unnoticed, or at least accepted. Others make us stop and go "No way! That's just silly!" There's nothing inherently forcing one to accept some superhuman ability purely because you've previously accepted a different one. Maybe the fantasy reality is like ours in some ways and not in others - what "feels right" is always going to be subjective.
For example, hit points and group-allocated experience points jar for me. Any system with those in it always seems arbitrary and unrealistic. I can't claim that they "should" be abandoned though - merely that I prefer it if they are.
Similarly, the mega damage vs mega climbing issue you point to here might seem "the same" to you - in that, having accepted a fighter falling 200 feet you feel comfortable accepting he's able to gouge granite (I'm reasonably comfortable with that account myself, I think). That doesn't mean the rock climber who accepts the first for simplification reasons but discards the latter on realism reasons is wrong (nor guilty of supporting "bad design").
It is terrible design. Because 7 levels ago his weakling buddy wiggled his fingers and scurried up that wall faster than anyone could possibly achieve. In the subsequent 7 levels that weakling has started shaping reality to his own whims. Whereas, the fighter still can't climb the wall. That is bad design.
You may be willing to accept it in the system because you admittedly don't play mid or high level games. You really aren't in a position to comment on how the system behaves if you haven't played it, and have no basis for your claims on sound design. You also openly admit a bias against balance in favor of magic. Which is the "pathfinder forum meme that grinds my gears," part of the conversation. What is the fighter getting out of the deal? Or can we just go ahead and call him an NPC class now?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it's all said and then D&D is simply a more evolved version of a game of prented. With dice. So banning stuff in a game where one essentially throws realism out the window on general principles to me at least makes no sense. If a person wants to disallow say Leadership then just say so. I can tell you that banning stuff for realism at most tables will get you mocked at worst. A few raised eyebrows in the least.
If what makes no sense about the whole caster vs martial debate. Just because casters have access to magic they can break reality. Have a martial try and climb a smooth surface on a wall. Or leap from roof to roof easily in heavy armor suddenly breaks realism. In the end it's simply either wanting characters to remain in their roles even if it means nerfing martials. Or as it's put on these forums Martials can't have nice things.
Here are two joke feats I made at a table once during a break.
Grounded in reality
pre-requistes: Any martial class. DMs with the Martials can't have nice things feat.
If any martial class attempts to do anything other than swing a weapon. Or a combat manuever in a game session. The player must save vs DC 1000 or remain firmly grounded in reality. If by some miracle the DC is beat. Then a player can do other stuff then swing a sword or a combat maunever.
Improved Grounded in reality
pre-requistes: Any martial class. DMs with the Martials can't have nice things feat and It's not realistic feat.
the DC is now 2000
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never have and never will exclude everyone or anyone who has a difference of opinion when it comes to D&D or any rpgs. I freely admit I will never see eye to eye with everyone or anyone on certain subjects. I simply refuse to take anyone who tries to ban something on realism in a more evolved version of pretend and make beleive. If it's a rpg that is based on realism it's one thing. Playing in a fantasy rpg where realism is the exception not the norm. That never made sense to me when I began in this hobby and never will until the day I did.
Having played in the hobby since the mid 80s with a variety of players over the years. I can count on one hand the times I have been asked by players to ban something on realism. Even then never in a fantasy rpg. In D&D or any other fantasy rpg I have never had someone ask me to make it realistic or more beleivable. If anything players or DMs banning stuff based on realism is the minority. I'm not saying it's universal. But simply because it happens at certain tables is not a indicator that it's common. How many people here can honestly say their players have asked them to reduce or remove elements from a fantasy rpg simply because of realism or because it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Even then it's not the default setting it's something that has been houseruled. You want realism in D&D then their go the arcane and divine casters. As they break the laws of reality and suspension of disbelief.
I'm not saying I would not do as my players ask. Just that it's kind of a strange thing to ask in a fantasy rpg imo. Want realism play rpgs sent in the modern era. Forgot about playing superhero rpgs because if anything they break realism or supension of disbelief even worse than a fantasy rpg. A supervillain who can make himself as big as Godzilla. Would collapse into the hole he made because of his weight. While that is realistic and belivable it's certainly not very superheroic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think in the case of the realism vs magic thing, a lot of difference is opinion in how "grounded" fighters and mundane classes should be is based on what archetypes they are visualizing in their heads for how a class should be like. If you want your fighter to emulate Bruce Willis in Die Hard, Bronn from Game of Thrones, or other western action/Fantasy movies, than your threshold for what is acceptable ability wise will be lower than someone who might be using Wuxia martial arts movies or Neo from the matrix as their mental archetype.
Personally, Mundane martial should be boosted at the SAME TIME that classes like the Wizards should be nerfed. A lot of common complaints on the forum against some classes would be reduced if the Wizard could be more specialized and didn't have the ability to emulate every single class role in the game with preparation.
|
|
Which 4E and 5E to some extent did fix imo.
In my neck of the woods having games for 15 or was it 20 years. As a whole I almost never had a player ask that I tone down the game to make it more realistic or belivable. With Dms at most it was no guns or science fiction elements in the game like psionics. Gamers play rpgs to get away from reality imo. We live it every day of every hour. Speaking for myself I don't want to live reality in a rpg. Not unless it's one set in the modern day. Even then with some rpgs it takes away from what makes it fun. If I'm playing Call of Cthulhu pre-7E I'm not going to remove the insanity mechanic even if it bothers my players or breaks belivability. As losing one mind when facing what the Cthulhu Mythos has to offer is one of the main selling points of the game.
If you want the gritty grounded fantasy, you've got to stick to low levels in PF.
Or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Where a arrow if damage is rolled high enough can kill a character. Or Earthdawn where even a low level horror can cause a TPK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think in the case of the realism vs magic thing, a lot of difference is opinion in how "grounded" fighters and mundane classes should be is based on what archetypes they are visualizing in their heads for how a class should be like. If you want your fighter to emulate Bruce Willis in Die Hard, Bronn from Game of Thrones, or other western action/Fantasy movies, than your threshold for what is acceptable ability wise will be lower than someone who might be using Wuxia martial arts movies or Neo from the matrix as their mental archetype.The problem is it's increasingly hard as you go up levels to keep the martial as grounded as those characters. When you can punch out a rhino or cut down a 20' giant in seconds, you're not Bruce Willis anymore. Even if you're not as flashy as the wuxia heroes, you're way beyond mundane.
And that's with the current "martials can't have nice things" paradigm.If you want the gritty grounded fantasy, you've got to stick to low levels in PF.
There is certainly some element of handwaving you have to do with games, I am mostly just offering this up as one take on the Realism vs Magic debate. What breaks one groups sense of realism in a fantasy game isn't going to be even noticed in another group.
I probably muddled my point above using Bron, since Game of Thrones is far more realistic than say...the action movie genre. In action movies however (with or without Bruce Willis), characters are regularly surviving damage and events that would leave a person in the real world dead. Same thing with a lot of the feats they perform. If you can sit down in front of this sort of movie, you are probably pretty forgiving on this stuff.
A lot of the realism vs magic debate is really different people having different areas where their suspension of belief breaks down. Their are probably ways of boosting fighters that can keep them within those boundaries for a lot of people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Fighter (and other characters) were able to do even action movie (and martial arts movies) level stuff without spending Feats on them the game would change for the better enormously.
If the character with high Acrobatics could leap from wall to wall to climb a building, or the Fighter could knock out a man with an unripe Avocado from a hundred yards with a relative ease of success, there wouldn't be so many complaints I think.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is terrible design. Because 7 levels ago his weakling buddy wiggled his fingers and scurried up that wall faster than anyone could possibly achieve. In the subsequent 7 levels that weakling has started shaping reality to his own whims. Whereas, the fighter still can't climb the wall. That is bad design.
Not if your aim is to design a game where magic solutions are better than mundane ones.
You may be willing to accept it in the system because you admittedly don't play mid or high level games. You really aren't in a position to comment on how the system behaves if you haven't played it
Which is why I just accepted your characterisation of it without question, plus spelled out the limits of my experience with the relevant parts of pathfinder. I'm not commenting on a system, I'm commenting on the fact that people want different things out of games - what some consider "good" design, others will declare "terrible".
and have no basis for your claims on sound design.
Nonsense. You don't have to know anything about pathfinder to make a claim about what constitutes good game design. What a silly thing to say.
My claim was that someone may desire realism as a general principle and yet be willing to ignore the unrealistic nature of hit points whilst preferring realistic limits on climbing - all without advocating bad design. I don't need to have heard of pathfinder to make that claim, I just need to read the posts of people who believe that.
"Bad design" depends on what kind of game you want to design - balance between mundane and magical classes is important to many but not to all. Realism is important to some but not to all. Which of those should be preferred in cases of conflict is not an objective matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. If you're a game designer its a good idea to be clear about what sort of game you've produced. (I'd call it bad marketing rather than bad design, personally).
However, we were talking about gamers offering their opinions/preferences - someone who just plays RPGs and has personal preferences is entitled to state them without being held to the same standards of disclosure as a professional publisher (in my view, they're often ignorant of the fact that their preference for realism in particular situations has the effect of creating a power imbalance between the mundane/magical classes - you can hardly disclose what you don't know).
It is terrible design. Because 7 levels ago his weakling buddy wiggled his fingers and scurried up that wall faster than anyone could possibly achieve. In the subsequent 7 levels that weakling has started shaping reality to his own whims. Whereas, the fighter still can't climb the wall. That is bad design.Not if your aim is to design a game where magic solutions are better than mundane ones.
You may be willing to accept it in the system because you admittedly don't play mid or high level games. You really aren't in a position to comment on how the system behaves if you haven't played itWhich is why I just accepted your characterisation of it without question, plus spelled out the limits of my experience with the relevant parts of pathfinder. I'm not commenting on a system, I'm commenting on the fact that people want different things out of games - what some consider "good" design, others will declare "terrible".
and have no basis for your claims on sound design.Nonsense. You don't have to know anything about pathfinder to make a claim about what constitutes good game design. What a silly thing to say.
My claim was that someone may desire realism as a general principle and yet be willing to ignore the unrealistic nature of hit points whilst preferring realistic limits on climbing - all without advocating bad design. I don't need to have heard of pathfinder to make that claim, I just need to read the posts of people who believe that.
"Bad design" depends on what kind of game you want to design - balance between mundane and magical classes is important to many but not to all. Realism is important to some but not to all. Which of those should be preferred in cases of conflict is not an objective matter.
It's not nonsense, you literally have no gameplay experience at that level. You are theory-crafting that the issue isn't real based on a loose concept of what makes sense in your head and dismissing the actual play experience of people who are expressing a concern.
At low levels the issue isn't as apparent. If you are extrapolating your experience with those levels and think that it stays that way you are sorely mistaken; but even if you aren't doing that you are still making statements about the system from a place of no experience. Quite literally, you are ignorant of the experience. You have no ground to discount the experience of others NOR do you have the topical authority (based on your ignorance) to challenge the assertions of others with experience.
I'm glad you are happy playing pathfinder sub-10th level. Don't question the statement other make about high level play though, your statisfaction with the low levels should not inform your opinion of higher levels that have very real issues that need to be addressed.
I haven't made any claim about how pathfinder plays at any level. I'm not theory crafting at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The martial-caster disparities aside, my primary pet peeve comes down to having to show carnal restraint while ultraviolence is free to be much more graphic, less as a matter of puerile titillating versus gory catharsis and more that the cultural norms that govern the movies rating style of classification ensures that examination of fictional races in a manner that would venture into some the more sensationalist headlines out of, say, Cosmopolitan magazine, would require more wariness of corrective action than discussion the color of viscera or miscellaneous violently extracted organs and their resultant humors.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
... or (I think) to put it more clearly, "why is sex bad but violence okay".
Frankly I'd prefer less of both overall, hence why my games tend to be firmly rated PG at worst. Yes the heroes beat up the dragon, but it's about as visceral as the Prince battling Maleficent.
I admit I've never had a problem with the situation. But then I'm a prude and pretty much everybody knows that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "sex is annoying and violence is okay" is because
1) People don't tend to graphically describe their violence. It does happen occasionally, but most GMs and players I know just give, at most, a brief description. When my antipaladin was torturing someone, I simply said I was torturing him, I didn't bother to say in what ways - it's really not necessary for the story to progress to know how. I don't mind if a player says they sleep with the barmaid. I DO mind when they feel a need to share that they gave her a piledriver for twenty minutes before moving on to butt play, etc.
2) Few people have violence preferences - there aren't really people who do like lacerations but aren't a fan of bruising or punctures. Sex is a totally different story. Peo people do not want to hear the sexual fantasies of someone they are not sexually interested in.
I don't thinot country of origin has anything to do with it, and it's a rather presumptuous assumption to think it is due to a prudish country. It's not that sex offends me - it's thinking about you that I'm really not interested in. Yeah, it's your character, but when the guy/gal describing the action is sitting three feet from me, it's kind of hard to make the disconnect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it's all said and then D&D is simply a more evolved version of a game of prented. With dice. So banning stuff in a game where one essentially throws realism out the window on general principles to me at least makes no sense. If a person wants to disallow say Leadership then just say so. I can tell you that banning stuff for realism at most tables will get you mocked at worst. A few raised eyebrows in the least.
Actually it depends on what you are banning, why, and that specific table. Everyone I have gamed with has ideas they think would ruin immersion for them in the game. They like most people just use the word "realistic", which as I stated above is not really what it is really about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The martial-caster disparities aside, my primary pet peeve comes down to having to show carnal restraint while ultraviolence is free to be much more graphic, less as a matter of puerile titillating versus gory catharsis and more that the cultural norms that govern the movies rating style of classification ensures that examination of fictional races in a manner that would venture into some the more sensationalist headlines out of, say, Cosmopolitan magazine, would require more wariness of corrective action than discussion the color of viscera or miscellaneous violently extracted organs and their resultant humors.
I'm pretty sure this is for pathfinder forum memes that grind gears, not problems with the first world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The martial-caster disparities aside, my primary pet peeve comes down to having to show carnal restraint while ultraviolence is free to be much more graphic, less as a matter of puerile titillating versus gory catharsis and more that the cultural norms that govern the movies rating style of classification ensures that examination of fictional races in a manner that would venture into some the more sensationalist headlines out of, say, Cosmopolitan magazine, would require more wariness of corrective action than discussion the color of viscera or miscellaneous violently extracted organs and their resultant humors.I'm pretty sure this is for pathfinder forum memes that grind gears, not problems with the first world.
Hey, at least they stopped the hardcore derail on realism.
Really, around five posts into that someone should've realized, "Hey, maybe we should take this to a new thread actually dedicated to this topic, and let people get back to the intended subject."
A small derail makes sense, but if you find yourself posting three or more replies in the same thread to an off-topic subject, it might be time to make that suggestion.
And that kind of behavior grinds my gears about the forum.
See? On topic. :-P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "sex is annoying and violence is okay" is because
1) People don't tend to graphically describe their violence. It does happen occasionally, but most GMs and players I know just give, at most, a brief description. When my antipaladin was torturing someone, I simply said I was torturing him, I didn't bother to say in what ways - it's really not necessary for the story to progress to know how. I don't mind if a player says they sleep with the barmaid. I DO mind when they feel a need to share that they gave her a piledriver for twenty minutes before moving on to butt play, etc.
2) Few people have violence preferences - there aren't really people who do like lacerations but aren't a fan of bruising or punctures. Sex is a totally different story. Peo people do not want to hear the sexual fantasies of someone they are not sexually interested in.
I don't thinot country of origin has anything to do with it, and it's a rather presumptuous assumption to think it is due to a prudish country. It's not that sex offends me - it's thinking about you that I'm really not interested in. Yeah, it's your character, but when the guy/gal describing the action is sitting three feet from me, it's kind of hard to make the disconnect.
Another thing, at least personally speaking, is that sex is a behind-closed-doors thing. People go off in privacy and do their own thing, and frankly that's where it should stay.
Violence on the other hand is inevitably something that people will get exposed to in the open. From something as simple as childhood brawling to war and such on the news, it's an unavoidable open and visible truth. It's not necessarily a good thing by any means, but simply a fact of life.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If violence was something shameful and not celebrated, and sex admitted to be a simple fact of life, perhaps the world would be a better place?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd still not want to see it in public. It's bad enough as-is. -_-
|
|
Well banning stuff because of realism is a PF meme imo. I can understand and respect wanting to ban something because a person dislikes. Just say so. Using realism as excuse to not come across as being restrictive is not fooling anyone. In my current game I have a Alchemist who can toss more than one bomb at once. It's a legal build. Is it realistic no. Then again in the default setting of the game it makes perfect sense.
as for violence and sex being spoken at the gaming table. It also depends on the comfort level of the table. I don't want intimate sexual details of what is done with characters at the table. Or what players do outside of it. Neither do I want to game with 20+ year olds who hide behind fake innocence either. If simply hearing " I made love to my wife yesterday" bothers or offends that's not normal social behavior imo.
|
In my home games, I am as likely to disallow magical solutions for reasons of verisimilitude as I am mundane ones. I have a very clear feel for how the laws of magic behave and they are as immutable as the law of gravity.
That's like, Worldbuilding 101.
On the other hand, the only Golarion I GM is PFS, and at those levels this isn't an issue.
The martial-caster disparities aside, my primary pet peeve comes down to having to show carnal restraint while ultraviolence is free to be much more graphic, less as a matter of puerile titillating versus gory catharsis and more that the cultural norms that govern the movies rating style of classification ensures that examination of fictional races in a manner that would venture into some the more sensationalist headlines out of, say, Cosmopolitan magazine, would require more wariness of corrective action than discussion the color of viscera or miscellaneous violently extracted organs and their resultant humors.I'm pretty sure this is for pathfinder forum memes that grind gears, not problems with the first world.Hey, at least they stopped the hardcore derail on realism.
Really, around five posts into that someone should've realized, "Hey, maybe we should take this to a new thread actually dedicated to this topic, and let people get back to the intended subject."
A small derail makes sense, but if you find yourself posting three or more replies in the same thread to an off-topic subject, it might be time to make that suggestion.
And that kind of behavior grinds my gears about the forum.
See? On topic. :-P
I was making both a joke and a stab at society. Have I mentioned I'm a Misanthrope?
I was making both a joke and a stab at society. Have I mentioned I'm a Misanthrope?
It's okay, I understand. I was simply seizing the opportunity to make both a joke and a not-so-subtle plea that they stop the damn discussion on realism, (which I was the one to bring up in the first place as something that annoys the abyss out of me) and return to the initial subject, things on the forums that grind your gears (like epic derails, which I also mentioned, which kind of makes it doubly annoying), possibly continuing the discussion of realism in the game, what constitutes it, whether martials can have nice things, and all the other dead horses that come with it in another thread that will inevitably reach a thousand posts of talking in circles where not a bloody person changes their opinion in any way, but rather digs their heels in and further cements their initial position, leading you to wonder why the discussion occurred anyway, until you realize it's the internet, and your faith in humanity drains away a little more than it already was low, despite you thinking you couldn't think anyone less of your fellow man, so you decide to watch humorous animal videos, because at least there's something to brighten your mood just a little bit.
Nice to meet you Misanthrope, I'm a Cynic.
Oh, and you can add the italicized text to the initial forum subject :-)
I swear overall I actually have fun here and like most of you anonymous blocks of text!
Meh. On the subject of "Sex and Violence" in my games, I really don't give a flyin' hoot how far you go with it myself. Then again, my fiance and I are pervs, and both of us wonder about people's reactions to perfectly normal aspects of the lives of the animals we call human.
Also, sex isn't just for behind closed doors anymore. Look at all the porn, and actual Gen-con sized+ conventions for porn and toys ('marital aids'). About the only reason I can think of for the most basic level of wanting to do it behind closed doors is so that someone else doesn't try and join in (as I suspect it was in ancient times of caves and tents).
Personally, it just doesn't seem realistic to me to have a game with romance, but no sex, in any case. I'm aware the two can exist independently from each other, but come on... This is a pseudo-middle ages game we're talking about here, with many towns having a brothel (at least in most APs and Modules), and the Callistrian temple acting as one when there isn't!
That said... As for memes that grind my gears? It's when every dead horse in this game gets dredged up, has Gentle Repose cast on it so S&Gs, then gets dragged into a generally topic-open thread like this, because it's no fun beating on the skeleton of a dead horse, it needs meat, of which there are trails and piles of it everywhere you look across the landscape.
Also, sex isn't just for behind closed doors anymore. Look at all the porn, and actual Gen-con sized+ conventions for porn and toys ('marital aids'). About the only reason I can think of for the most basic level of wanting to do it behind closed doors is so that someone else doesn't try and join in (as I suspect it was in ancient times of caves and tents).
..........
That... was something I could have happily gone my entire life without knowing existed.
*headdesk*
That's enough internet for today.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, sex isn't just for behind closed doors anymore. Look at all the porn, and actual Gen-con sized+ conventions for porn and toys ('marital aids'). About the only reason I can think of for the most basic level of wanting to do it behind closed doors is so that someone else doesn't try and join in (as I suspect it was in ancient times of caves and tents)...........
That... was something I could have happily gone my entire life without knowing existed.
*headdesk*
That's enough internet for today.
You don't just strip down and have a casual orgy with strangers on the bus?
What a boring life you must lead.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, sex isn't just for behind closed doors anymore. Look at all the porn, and actual Gen-con sized+ conventions for porn and toys ('marital aids'). About the only reason I can think of for the most basic level of wanting to do it behind closed doors is so that someone else doesn't try and join in (as I suspect it was in ancient times of caves and tents)...........
That... was something I could have happily gone my entire life without knowing existed.
*headdesk*
That's enough internet for today.
You don't just strip down and have a casual orgy with strangers on the bus?
What a boring life you must lead.
Im so tired of orgies myself.... I game to get away from real life.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What a boring life you must lead.
I know this was meant in jest, but I'm actually very happy with how boring my life is. I get enough excitement for my life out of writing, reading, and gaming. All of which (usually) allow me to choose how little "unwanted content" I have to experience.
I discovered in my mid-twenties that I wasn't interested in sex, sexual relationships, marriage and/or children, and it severely de-complicated a lot of my life compared to prior.
Now I'm just sick and tired of seeing and hearing about it everywhere, being shoved in my face all the time by advertisements and just general media attention of all kinds, and consider the whole thing highly overrated. And that's just in the US, whereas nearly everybody from everywhere else in the world keeps telling me we're too prudish and repressed. Severely kills my desire to do any travel elsewhere, unless I were to take some extreme measures to avoid interacting with the majority of local people. (That and my overwhelming phobia of plane flights. I can barely handle the 3-4 hour ride from Tennessee to Arizona or vice versa. I couldn't ever handle overseas flight. And boats are more expensive.)
We've got just as much sex, but we feel guiltier about and try to pretend it's bad outside of socially approved contexts.
And considering it's the stuff outside those contexts that I dislike and want to avoid, hence my complaints.
That's kind of my whole point. At least in the US there's a sense of a token effort, even if it's pretty much ineffective.