Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
It seems to me that there is a lot of territory between "psionics is not magic" and "nothing can prevent psionic things from working" but I'm coming from an AD&D 1E perspective.
For me, it begins with comic books. Then children's books. I read a lot of the books mentioned in this thread (Wrinkle in Time, At least 2 of the Mushroom Planet books, the Forgotten Door). A couple others stick with me, though I've forgotten the titles. One concerned a boy who lived in a sea floor base, a kind of mole monster that lived beneath the sea bed, and a spy named "Mr Lilibulero" or something like that. The other involved the discovery and resucitation of an intelligent reptile man, in suspended animation since the days of the dinosaurs. The action then moved to other survivors of this reptilian race living far underground in conditions of tremendous heat and pressure.
"Dr." Cupi wrote:
Actually, in (A)D&D most XP came from treasure, not killing things. So ingeniously avoiding a fight and getting the treasure was rewarded.
If the GM fudges once in a while, will it go unnoticed? Probably. But I've seen GMs fudge and they weren't very hard to suss out. They were obvious, really.
Of course there's a selection effect here; the unsubtle fudgers were obvious, maybe others fudged and I never spotted it. But those who fudged did it so "The Story" would come out a certain way.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Chromantic Durgon, I agree that fun is the reason to play the game. But if I, as a player, find out that my decisions are meaningless, my fun is ruined. I think that's what blaphers is driving at.
Watery Soup wrote:
The feeling of helplessness is all in your imagination. I could try to influence the things for (or against) the party, I choose not to.
You're right that I can decide if the orcs are stupid or the mastermind accepts a truce. I have no problem making rulings, but I try to rule fairly, without concern for whether it favors the party or not.
If I do make a mistake, I will try to make it good, though.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Why do you assume that he didn't do that? By going back to Peggy, he created an alternate reality. If he fought Hydra in the fifties there it would have no impact on the "main" reality because of how time travel worked in the movie. Nor did his going back undo anything that he did in the previous movies.
Also, leaving your buds to be with the love of your life (when there's no possibility to have both) doesn't seem so awful to me. It seems like a good ending for the character.
Damon Griffin wrote:
Just as the Samaritan is Astro City's version of Superman and Confessor is the AC version of Batman and Winged Victory is AC's Wonder Woman, The Gentleman is AC's version of Captain Marvel. His appearance gives it away, and one of his friends is a talking tiger.
Damon Griffin wrote:
Warlock's costume was a deliberate homage to Captain Marvel according to Wikipedia.I have no knowledge of the other 2.
Damon Griffin wrote:
And his name is almost "Shazam". I can see it. Clealry the parameters are broad indeed. :)
Cole Deschain wrote:
Yeah, that was great. One of two places where the movie subverted expectations, or maybe I should say "cliches". The other concerned the Skrulls.
Slim Jim wrote:
But the Punisher wasn't created by Grant, so that's not the initial conception of the character. I'll go by the Netflix version, because its the one that I know.
In the Netflix series Castle risks his neck to save a policeman who was taking him in, so his vendetta doesn't take precedence over everything. When he is
Spoiler:he is a broken man. So, not Evil. But he kills bad guys even when they are helpless, not because its the only way but because its his preferred way. So, not Good.
made to think that he violated his code by killing innocents
"Lawful" is not equivalent to "follows the law of the land". A paladin somehow transported to Nazi Germany would fight the Nazis, despite the face that both he and they are lawful. I'd tend to go with Lawful Neutral based on all this.
But that's not true. Its not only Christians (and Muslims) that assume immortality of the soul. Look at the ancient Egyptian religion, for example.
"Your soul just decomposes, becoming scenery" seems like a pretty uncommon viewpoint in the real world's religions. Even in religions like Hinduism, where the individual soul's identity is ultimately lost, the soul becomes one with something eternal.
But, ultimately, people are going to dislike different things.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Presumably this is a holdover from previous editions, in some of which goblins are a good deal less intelligent than humans (average intelligence of about 8 in AD&D 1E, frex).
They lose their memories, and the majority eventually become so bored that they just stop moving/reacting, and merge with the Plane. Which is in its turn eroded and destroyed by the Maelstrom in the fullness of time.
Recycling: its good for trash, and also for souls it seems. :(
Yeah, game designers since AD&D 2E's Planescape seem to be incapable of imagining a good (i.e. non-horrible) afterlife.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Not the only one. :)I haven't seen the deck as a campaign killer thing in my several experiences with it on both sides of the table. Nor do I recognize the blank haterade card, is that new in PF?
In old-style games the story is an emergent property, not laid out in advance, so "derailing the story" isn't a problem.
Unproven assertion.Quantum mechanics tells us that nature is, at bottom, probabilistic. So predicting the future with perfect certainty is literally impossible, even given all possible knowledge.
That doesn't mean that humans have free will, but it certainly leaves the possibility open.
Actually, that's not the way it is in AD&D.
From Unearthed Arcana
This seems like a "common sense" situation to me. But if you want a rule:
From Wilderness Survival Guide
The modifiers would be positive in this case.
Actually, , I don't remember ever seeing a housecat statted out before 5ed D&D. Then again, I've not DM'ed for nearly 20 years, so I may have missed something, as I concentrated on player only material.
The 1E stats for housecat were in Monster Manual II. They aren't bad except for the damage, which is 1d2/1 for claws/bit plus a rake for 1d2 if the claws hit. That's crazy-high damage for a cat.
And d12+4 can indeed one-shot an ogre in 1E - if the player rolls high AND the DM rolled low on the 4d8+1 for the ogre's HP. Its not the way to bet, though.
Cole Deschain wrote:
If previous editions were the "gear is more important than who you are" days, why are rust monsters more hateful to people now then they were then?
I'm thinking about doing a campaign, I had an idea to start it off with a seeming goblin/orc invasion. The twist is that, while they are technically invading, the reason they left their homeland is because of a greater evil. As an example, the orcs of Belkzen are invading because Kazavon is leading a quiet attack against the orcs to get his kingdom back. Considering that the players would then find out they were essentially slaughtering refugees, I imagine a few would hate that revelation.
Being a victim doesn't make you a bad person - but it doesn't make you a good person, either.
If the "refugees" are killing, torturing, and eating the residents of the land to which they are driven (typical orc behavior) then they are not refugees, they are invaders. The motivation for their invasion doesn't change that. The revelation that the orcs were driven out of their homeland would not cause me to feel bad as a player, it would get me interested in the darker evil that is behind all of this.
If the orcs are behaving differently than normal (for them) that should clue the PCs that something's up. They may want to find out what, and it shouldn't be a surprise when they find out the truth. There are then possibilities of alliance - although allying with chaotic evil or malevolently insane beings is seldom a good idea.
I got that. :)I would say that "in (AD&D) 1E you have to decide." "Guess" implies that there's some right answer that you might miss, whereas "decide" means that you are free to pick the answer that you want. And if you're concerned about consistency there is an example of a better armored ogre in the Monster Manual entry for "ogre".
Its been years since I read Marvel comics, but I don't recall Captain Marvel/Ms. Marvel/Carol Danvers having anything like Superman's power level, not even compared to other Marvel characters. Maybe you meant that she has a great diversity of powers, as Superman does? Or maybe my information is just out of date?
I think that "reading the whole rule books end to end" is not the point; the point is to read the portions of the books that are relevant to your character. That's what I took from RD's post, anyway.
I do think that today's gamers have less patience, and that our hobby will probably die out because of that. It will likely outlive me, though, so I'm not that concerned. All things pass.
One of my favorite Dr Who episodes also. But what is "PMRC"? Google suggests unlikely answers.
What I thought was weak was the whole reasoning behind suspension because he killed someone but then the person was alive. Like what do you mean you don't believe it you can go to the guys house and talk to him!
In our world that'd pretty much a lock.In a comic book world, where a lot of weird stuff has happened that everyday people know about, I could see some skepticism.