Now, I suspect that there's nothing Paizo can do about this, but I thought I'd ask just in case there might be some tips that I might actually do on my end (that doesn't require admin rights).
I can't sign in from my work computer - I can access the site just fine - and I can sign in to a bazillion other websites - but I can't actually "sign in" to my account here.
This occurs for both Firefox and Chrome:
Chrome: 43.0.2357.132 m
(Yes, I've cleared my cache and cookies in both.)
Any tips that I might be able to try, that doesn't require admin rights? (Thanks in advance!)
Bill Dunn wrote:
Apples and oranges. Picking tactics or spells poorly usually doesn't block progression in an adventure. Being unable to solve a riddle or puzzle tends to be a blocker. That justifies additional treatment to enable PCs to get past the obstacle.
Untrue. That's only if the adventure has been designed that way. That's an adventure design problem, not a riddle problem. (I can do that too, with a big adamantine wall.)
James Jacobs wrote:
I mean... we don't require every player at the table who plays the mighty barbarian to perform feats of strength each time she wants to smash down a door or swing an axe. Why would we require the player at the table who's playing the Intelligence 20 bard who's got skill focus in all the Knowledges to rely on the player's likely less-impressive knowledge in order to solve a riddle? Makes no sense to me.
Then why do you allow the player at the table to choose a wizard's spells? They aren't wizards, can't cast spells, and aren't (necessarily) super intelligent. Why do you allow the player at the table to choose a fighter's tactics? They're not (necessarily) tactical soldiers.
(There's lots of good reasons for groups to not use riddles - but the above examples aren't actual reasons... as they're entirely inconsistent. I'm having a bit of fun here, but the above is inconsistent - and everyone will draw the line somewhere... differently.)
Haydon Mehmet wrote:
We're cool with it. Our group also understands it's the real-life flesh and blood players playing a game, not non-existent fictional characters.
If the players can choose their wizards' spells and/or choose their tactics in combat, they can solve riddles, too.
(We're not super-uber into "rp" so much that riddles would mess with it.)
The players deviating from a set adventure to pursue what entertains them, does not make them 'dicks' no matter how much cash one spends on a pre-packaged adventure.
Yes it does, if they all agreed on the set adventure.
(Of course, the degree of "deviation" - and how they communicate that deviation - is really what matters here.)
Just saw it recently... and I liked it way more than the first Avengers.
I particularly liked the sense (and scenes) of camaraderie, which is very much appreciated for an actual team.
It was also funny throughout - and that's what I'm looking for in most of my action movies these days (especially superhero action movies like this one).
Ultron was one of the best villains ever. Interesting and - again - funny... and the fact that it was a robot/AI made it even better. (Though I admit, Loki is no slouch: "If it's all the same to you, I'll have that drink now.")
Black Widow and Hawkeye still suck and are boring - but I will concede that Hawkeye was made way better in almost every way in this one (not hard to do, admittedly) - humor up a notch, and the family part was really great as well.
I was okay with Captain America being blasted (at the truck scene, right?). It just made him look more badass, and that's what I want to see out of my superheroes.
OLD SKOOL, man. OLD SKOOL. They just keep coming back for more. "GM is god" and all that.
I saw someone mention GM's and cheating, so I figured I'd add my $0.02. A GM can not cheat. GM's are the god at your table and they can do what they want. I almost always roll behind the screen and if I think a miss would have been a hit, it will be. Especially if I need to knock a player off of their high horse. To me this is no different that adding the advanced template to creatures.
OLD SKOOL! (Yes, the "K" is correct.)
I've found a healthy flogging of players before the game starts goes a long way towards a good game, as well.
Just make sure the nails are extra-rusty.
(And if you're not at least occasionally kicking them in the crotch, can you really be sure they're enjoying the rest of the game, when they're not being kicked in the crotch?)
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Every single time they announce an AP, no matter what it is, people say "I'm cancelling my subscription!" By the time they've announced it, it's already way too late for them to change it because a few forum denizens threaten to cancel. I don't know what people are attempting to accomplish.
LOL. You don't possibly think the messageboards are actually for accomplishing things do you? LOL again.
Even the hint of trying to stifle the expression of opinion on an internet messageboard is bad form - and reflects poorly on you. Stop that.
...and remember that imaginary people doing imaginary evil things doesn't hurt anything in reality.
Turns out, that's not an excuse. (And even Paizo admitted there are actual lines, and they wouldn't cross them.)
I'm wondering here - was I in the wrong for speaking up?
Absolutely not. Everyone in the group is playing in the game, and players need to 'police their own' - the DM isn't solely responsible for that (and may not even need to be responsible for it at all), since everyone is playing the game. Everyone might have different views on the matter. (And, I'll reiterate: IMO, players need to step up to the plate and be just as responsible about things in general.) AFAIC, you were right to do so. (Though it still might not be "cheating" - some people really are that incompetent.)
With that said, the group dynamics could be different, so it might work differently for your group (doesn't sound like it though - just because a single player thinks something "was the job of the DM", doesn't mean it actually is).
So I decided to bring it up to my friends, and when one responded with "if someone has to cheat to have fun, then so be it," I decided to bring the question to the forums to see if my anti-cheating attitude is antiquated.
I doubt your view is antiquated.
Serpent's Skull, no question.
The whole Vol #3 (and #4) could be vastly improved with adventure add-ons for exploring the city (do mostly interior locations so you don't step on any IP...) As a further benefit, adventure add-ons within the city could be used by those not using Serpent's Skull, because who doesn't like Indiana Jones-like lost city locations to adventure in?
Also, more adventure locations in #5 and #6 (with a greater variety of opponent types) would go a long way.
So... yeah. Serpent's Skull.
My personal opinion only, based on only my experiences:
Are we the exception? Are the rest of you gents all functional social butterflies? And if not, if this sort of stupid conflict is unavoidable, is it really worth putting up with?
I have no idea if you're the exception or not, but yes, my group at least are all functional social butterflies.
If your experience is how you describe, then NO, it is absolutely NOT worth putting up with. At all. In any way. Ever.
But, that's just my experience - to paraphrase another poster above: player conflict is definitely not the norm in my experience.
My observed experience is that without any representation of position people spend as long asking where they are and what's within reach as they do fumbling around working out where to move with the battlemat. Speed comes from something more abstract rather than anything which has precise positioning that then doesn't get implemented. YMMV.
Exactly so with us.
Once we put in a battlemat 20 years ago during 2e, combats immeasurably sped up.
The "Singularity" in the show doesn't seem to reflect the real world concept.
Very little in the show seems to "reflect the real world concept". (A "real world" physicist would be dead in the street, their heads exploded from essentially-no-actual-physics-working-whatsoever.)
I'm not sure that's an excuse for Dr. Snow's weird lack of knowledge on something even the audience could figure out in a nanosecond.
I'd rather get more Marvel Netflix shows that I can watch at my leisure, than a station I will ignore or forget about most of the time, assuming I even have cable.
And assuming that if you do have cable, your cable package has that channel (i.e. you may have to pay even more for the re-run filled channel and a smattering of new shows, that will also quickly be re-run)... or even if your cable provider has that channel available at all.
I don't think he's completely wrong.
I absolutely do. "Very specific"? Nope.
But I'm not going to tell anyone that their play style is "wrong" or "gibberish," because that invalidates their experiences.
Neither would I, until he started spouting off that. (But then, I didn't say anything about anyone's playstyle being gibberish. How did you manage to mess that up?)
The fact that you are insisting on this only shows that you lack the capability to understand that anyone plays things differently from your preferences in this regard which is... poor form.
"Poor form"? "Insisting"? "delusions and ignorance, 'cause, really, at that point, you're just being obtuse." "You're just wrong." "You have a really, really weird sense..." I find your ideas as terrible..." How 'bout you back off? I don't think you understood much of what I posted. And I certainly don't need a "poor form" from you.
I don't think my posts are for you, Tacticslion. I think you might be a bit prone to misinterpreting them, and then getting a might abusive about it. Sorry if I wasn't very clear in the first place.
*shrug* Weird. Pointless channel is pointless.
Mark Moreland wrote:
Yeah, this isn't so different from Netflix.
It's totally different.
I... didn't like it that much.
First, the cliffhanger. Cliffhangers suck. If it ended one episode before, it would have been far superior.
And, the entire episode's storyline didn't make sense.
All the reasons not to go back in time:
- Mess with the timeline, changing who knows what
- ...including possibly yourself (no Flash?)
- Your dad (with a fantastic - and correct - feels speech) thinks it's a terrible idea
- The villain thinks it's a good idea
- You could die
- And... AND... you could open a black hole (which you did)
And reasons for:
Sooo.... all you did was open a black hole. Woo!
What the hell was the point? WTF? The whole thing was so full of dumb it hurt. You could have kept Reverse in the tank o' villainy, continued on with your lives, yay. The whole idea was just put in to try to create drama, and give a vehicle for the cliffhanger.
(I'm not going to go into the whole running "Mach 2" (??) to collide with a particle to create a stable time wormhole, because that ship sailed a while ago. "Speed Force", I guess (note: I'm not a comic fan).)
The fight near the end in the accelerator was cool, though. And it felt "super-hero-y / comic-book-y", so I really appreciated that. And hey - helmet! Awesome visions! That stuff was really great.
(Oh, and fantastic observations, Damon Griffin.)
My solution would always be to buff the martials instead of nerf the casters. But that's just because I like stuff.
Yeah... not me.
AFAIC, nerfing the casters is the way to go, not buffing martials. Casters are already problems - moving more things to the level of 'problems' is a bad solution, IMO.
1) Casters can already 'solo' or 'one-shot' encounters. Moving more classes to be able to do that simply makes it a race now as to who can one-shot an encounter first. (And, one-shotting encounters on even an uncommon basis sucks.) Bad.
For the may-or-may-not-be-inevitable PF 2.0? Nerf casters (or, rather, nerf their tools). HARD. Into the ground. In many ways. Often. Twice on Sunday.(Outright removal of certain problematic spells, and weakening others, wouldn't even be noticed much, and wouldn't even be considered the 'slaughtering of sacred cows', AFAIC.)
Uh... is my post wildly off-topic? Or do nothing but contribute to the 'caster-martial disparity' debate? Sorry... :(
1) Macross (whole saga)
(I have not yet seen some of the 'newer' stuff, like Psycho Pass and a number of others mentioned here.)
Ross Byers wrote:
*shrug* Beats me if they will.
I was just responding to the nonsensical comment of "Is inflation really that much of a mystery?"
What you just said above is something different. Stay on target.
Ross Byers wrote:
The answer to that is: Yes (and I'm an accountant).
There are, actually, many reasons for inflation. "Inflation" itself is not an answer - what specifically is behind the inflation, for Paizo, is an answer.
(Your response was strange... and a little thoughtless.)