Jeffrey Ruppel's page

I have much to consider. The actual situation is by its nature more complex than I can convey with mere text, and even in the abstract, the matter of XP awards isn't simple, and inventive approaches are needed. Right now I am considering the likelihood that my exact choices in responding to the issue only made people angry.

Cougar wrote:

As of last weekend, I have rage-quit another tabletop gaming group. I've had to leave gaming groups for multiple reasons: moving out of town, time constraints, problems with players, just not enjoying the setting. However, the ones I actually rage-quit from all had one feature in common: the game masters (GM's from here on out) had truly f&&~ed up notions of what makes for a fair and fun gaming experience; to date, I've rage-quit four such groups. Hmm, come to think of it, there are two other common features: they've all been in the Houston area, and the offending GM's have all been staunchly conservative. Rather than go over what was wrong with each GM, I'll just deal with the primary offense with the pair of GMs in my latest group.

It sounds like you had a string of pretty lackluster GMs who believed that a game played with friends should operate under the same set of rules that they believe real life ought to operate. So not only do they have a deeply flawed set of personal beliefs, they then chose to apply those beliefs to a game and actually thought that was for the best.

Now, while I'm glad to hear you got out, I don't know that I like the idea of rage-quitting anything. We don't know the details, so I'm imagining everything from a civil separation masking internal anger (which is totally fine) to a straight up table flip and slam the door routine. Be mindful of your own reactions; someone being a terrible GM isn't an excuse for poor behavior.

Basically the rage-quitting has consisted of pointed emails to the involved parties telling them I am quitting and why.

Jeffrey Ruppel wrote:

Do you think that sarcasm and derision makes you intelligent?

As someone who didn't pile on, I'd have to say from my unbiased viewpoint no, the sarcasm and derision doesn't make them more intelligent. But it certainly makes them more entertaining. Step back for a moment and with the perspective that your original post drew incorrect conclusions while being inflammatory, tell me some of the sarcastic responses weren't riotously funny.

Come on.

Not even the fictitious exchange where someone tries to buy a barrel, gives up and changes his mind for a backpack, then bedroll, then bedpan? Bedpan, man, that's just comedy genius.

No matter what else happens in this thread, nobody can take away the results of the inspiration you gave. Thank you.

Oh, and for an entirely on-topic followup: I personally expect enough variance in the volumes of various containers such as barrels and backpacks that a table isn't worth the space in the book. The day one of my PCs asks how many dead orc heads he can stuff in his backpack is the day that I'll make up a reasonable number. Maybe the number someone else picks will be different. I guess the maker of that backpack didn't use the same seamstress pattern. Go figure.

I will admit, I was initially overreacting, and a number of the responses which made light of my reaction were pretty darned funny, and helped put things in perspective for me. Only a few sarcastic comments obviously weren't in the spirit of humor.

Jeffrey,

*Yawn*

your first post dripped with contempt and hostility. You concluded that a section of the book was missing.

It was pointed out by several people that the only thing missing was your comprehension of the word 'some'

Yes, and I apologized for my initial hostility once I realized that mistake.

Then you complained that the weight and volume were missing. At that point your reading comprehension was questioned, since there is a nice column marked 'weight'

As I already said earlier, the weight given for the various containers is only for the weight of the empty containers themselves, and not for how much weight they can hold, nor for the full containers.

Now, despite the hostility in the first post, you wish to play the martyr. Since, as has been pointed out, the exact dimensions of a container have not been in previous iterations (I think it may have been in the 2e PHB) you are addressing something that has never existed. You may as well ask why there are not rules for the exact amount of oxygen in a halfling's lung.

However, I did not ask such for such an extreme thing as how much oxygen is in a halfling's lung. I believe that is a straw man argument.

As to the volume of the backpack... it's roughly the same measurement as the speed of a Mimbari crusier. Whatever the plot requires.

Now -there's- the issue at hand. I think how much a backpack can hold should probably be explicitly (if approximately) stated, since I consider the information to be useful and relevant.

Jeffrey Ruppel wrote:

And second, I find it oddly out of place for a system which has traditionally explicitly detailed everything, including character carrying capacity, to handwave the capacity of a backpack (or other container).

I can certainly see your point on this one, but the capacities have been left undefined since the start of 3e.

Wait, I take that back. The 3.0 PHB had cubic foot volumes.

3.0 PHB wrote:

Item Cost Weight Holds or Carries

(omitted for brevity)

(the weights are for the container itself)

They did get dropped when the change to 3.5 happened, though.

Thanks for finding this!

Jeffrey Ruppel wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

Jeffrey, if you want to complain about the lack of equipment descriptions, check the 4E PHB first...

I assume that the 4E equipment descriptions are nonexistent? I made a point of not purchasing any 4E material.

Well, if I remember correctly, they cut most of the miscellanous gear and there are very few items besides weapons and armor mentioned in the book. My point being, in relation to that, Jason has included quite a lot of item descriptions in PF RPG. And, anyone can probably estimate more or less correctly how much gear a backpack or a sack can hold -- even if someone can't, the numbers can be found in 3.5 SRD, right?

Well, there's two things. First, I thought the idea of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook was to avoid having to refer to other documents in order to play the basic game. And second, I find it oddly out of place for a system which has traditionally explicitly detailed everything, including character carrying capacity, to handwave the capacity of a backpack (or other container).

Jeffrey Ruppel wrote:

Do you think that sarcasm and derision makes you intelligent? Superior to me? Do you think that heckling another player instead of listening to them is the attitude that will help Pathfinder continue to evolve? I think not. If you honestly want Pathfinder to improve, then drop the bad attitude and actually listen to what I'm saying. If you're more interested in being snarky, or just in protecting your brand new sacred cow, then here's your Kool Aid, now go away.

Did you think that this would help?

Jeffrey Ruppel wrote:

Considering that I paid $50 American for this book, I would expect that such an obvious error wouldn't be overlooked. That's what the alpha and beta editions were there to catch. How do you plan to correct this mistake? The answer had better not be "nothing".

It is good how Paizo listens. And what I see here you immediately taking advantage of that fact with a bad attitude, blowing this issue way out of proportion.

I certainly would have been happier if some sort of volume had been given to the storage items if there is space. However, that isn't what I see in the original post. It includes the lack of bedrolls as a problem, and while they consume space, I don't think it is worth the space needed to describe how much a bedroll can store.

Yes, you do have a point. It was an unfortunate coincidence that the items which Paizo chose to omit descriptions for were clustered together at the beginning of the section. That made it look exactly like a rookie editing error to me. I reacted in anger to that because of how much money I had to spend on what appeared to be a poorly-edited book. The first half dozen replies cleared up that misconception for me.

I apologize to Paizo's team for the initial hostility.

Jeffrey, if you want to complain about the lack of equipment descriptions, check the 4E PHB first...

I assume that the 4E equipment descriptions are nonexistent? I made a point of not purchasing any 4E material.

You know, I have to say that I'm disappointed in some of you. Yes, I didn't pay attention to the one sentence which implied that not every item listed would be described. However, I still think I have a point about needing to know (approximately) how much a backpack or a waterskin can hold. Even if I'm completely wrong...the way some of you have treated me genuinely sucks.

Pathfinder isn't perfect, nor is Paizo, because nothing can be perfect. However, what makes them both great is how Paizo actually listened, improved the game, continues to improve the game, and continues to improve itself.

Do you think that sarcasm and derision makes you intelligent? Superior to me? Do you think that heckling another player instead of listening to them is the attitude that will help Pathfinder continue to evolve? I think not. If you honestly want Pathfinder to improve, then drop the bad attitude and actually listen to what I'm saying. If you're more interested in being snarky, or just in protecting your brand new sacred cow, then here's your Kool Aid, now go away.

Yes...

If only there was say a table, on maybe page 158, that listed weights.

RTFM much?

Amazingly the SRD didn't contain that info. Oh noes, how did we ever play 3.x?

Yes I do RTFM. That's the weight of the empty containers...

I understand that not every single thing needs to be described, especially some items such as the bell. However, every single container has a little "1" footnote in the listing. Here's what the footnote says:

1 These items weigh one-quarter this amount when made for Small characters. Containers for Small characters also carry one-quarter of the normal amount.

I don't know what the normal amount is, because it's not mentioned in the book. I'm not asking for full descriptions for everything, but it would have been useful to have a listing of the containers' carrying capacities. After all, if you're going into the desert, it's extremely useful to know how much water a waterskin can hold, given that a human being needs at least a gallon of water a day, and more than that when in the desert.

I just purchased the new Pathfinder Core Rulebook from my local game store, and I have to point out a glaring omission:

In the equipment section of the book, specifically the adventuring gear, the descriptions of the equipment starting with the letter 'B' is missing. No bedrolls, no backpacks, no barrels; it's just not there!

Considering that I paid $50 American for this book, I would expect that such an obvious error wouldn't be overlooked. That's what the alpha and beta editions were there to catch. How do you plan to correct this mistake? The answer had better not be "nothing".

Jeffrey Ruppel wrote:

Am I completely blind, or is there no listing for Escape Artist in the skill descriptions section of the Pathfinder alpha PDF? The list goes from Disable Device to Fly, no entry for Escape Artist.

You are not completely blind. Skills that did not change were not put into the Alpha. You will be able to find them in the Beta.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Ah! I guess I need the Beta, then. Thanks for the clarification!

Am I completely blind, or is there no listing for Escape Artist in the skill descriptions section of the Pathfinder alpha PDF? The list goes from Disable Device to Fly, no entry for Escape Artist.