Lee Wood's page

Bump

So I've been rping for years with pretty much the same group, we've gained a few and lost a few players here and there. Adding new people has always been a bit of a chore with me the GM being the decider. Anyways, I've grown up and had a kid. My son is 12 and has enjoyed playing with me in our bi-weekly solo game for 2 years now. But every other Saturday he sits out while the adults play "Pretend" with out him. I want to included him in my long running group but half of my players are boycotting the decision by threatening to leave the game. Whats worse is my son already made a character and overheard some of the talk about others not wanting to play with him. I strongly feel as the kid should play but my friends are very dear to me as well. Any advice? Has anyone else gone through this? I'm pretty sure I'm adding him to the group and rebuilding as needed. I can't run multiple games with multiple groups at the moment.

You'll never regret spending MORE time with your son.

If you have "friends" that have the audacity to quit over something like that, show them the door. Quickly.

It's YOUR FAULT your son is into RPGs. =D You reap what you sow. Your own flesh and blood wants a seat at literally his table. How can you deny that, especially at 12? Six, of course, but not 12.

If you want to spend time with your "friends", have them invite you over to their house and play.

...

I agree with your assessment, but disagree in some respects.

The Democrats are a "big tent" coalition that really should tear apart at the seams, but doesn't. It's because their leadership is ironclad in standing unified and speaking with one voice. The various factions of the Democrat party stay with it because they know eventually a piece of meat will be thrown their way.

Think about it: How many times have you heard the phrases "Let me be clear" and "double-down" in the last six years? Too numerous to count. Even when they promise the moon and everyone in the room knows they can't deliver, they promise it that more strongly - AND NO ONE CALLS THEM OUT ON IT! It works every time. It is amazing how they play the political game. They outfox Republicans before the Republicans have changed out their PJs each day.

As for Republicans, one must remember that a large portion of the population who vote Republican are voting against Democrats. They are *not* Republican loyalists. That's why you have the shaky alliance of "big money", "evangelicals", "2nd Ammendment supporters", and other "conservative" causes. Heck, a good chunk of Republican office holders are Republican only because there isn't another, viable choice.

The true Republicans (e.g House leadership, soon-to-be Senate leadership) don't know how to play politics. They put the jerseys on, show up on the court, and the Globetrotters (Democrats) wear them out. I always laugh when a liberal gets upset at a Republican - even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. Trust me, any consternation a Republican causes a Democrat is a temporary thing.

The recent election probably scared Republicans more than it did the Democrats. The Republicans have the ball and they'll play defense again. When the Democrats have the ball, they play offense - no matter what.

One talk show host called the Congress that passed the Affordable Care Act the "Kamikaze Congress" and it was an apt description: "push, push, and when in doubt, push some more (but we never doubt because we're Democrats)." Victory, no matter the cost! It's awesome.

If the Republicans played the same way, we'd really have fun theater to watch. As it is now, well, we're suffering under the two-party system our Founding Fathers warned us about.

With the passing of the Seventeenth Ammendment, the two major political parties pretty much changed our government forever. The states have little true representation - only the parties are represented in Congress. Democrats and progressives have been systematically changing the discourse in the country towards their points of view for over 100 years. In effect, they wanted something, strove endlessly to achieve it, and are practically there. They are monolithic in their resolve to achieve and brush aside opposition. They have no shame, no mercy. They are the ultimate political predators. They are quite simply amazing to behold.

Bump

The Great Schism has finally, truly spawned two different games*. Pathfinder is a different game than Fifth Edition. As such, they are two different experiences, IMHO. Both have their merits and, alas, no game is perfect for everyone.

*Whoops...Can you tell I never played 4e!?

PATHFINDER:

I really like Pathfiner, but I have to take it in small doses. There's no way I could use EVERY rule - or even character class - in a game. It's just too much. Maybe if I didn't have a full-time job, and 3 year old, etc.

I've been buying Pathfinder stuff like crazy lately, but not to use necessarily in a Pathfinder System game. I use the bits I like, strip some (if not all) of the mechanics out of it, and use the flavor. The setting material is great.

Granted, this is all a mental exercise at the moment. I collect far more than I get to play.

FIFTH:

Fifth edition, to me, is a superb revision of 2nd edition AD&D.

Second edition was an ultimate sandbox. Yes, it had its quirks, but folks ironed those out with house rules as per the norm. Heck, it was expected back then. Rules and other parts (such as spell effects) were written kind of loosely (for better or worse) and accommodated narrative game play. This amplified the roleplaying experience, IMO.

I have high hopes for Fifth Edition. I'm so hopeful, in fact, that I've taken measures against getting let down: I've yet to finish reading the PHB because I can't believe what I'm reading (how "simple-yet-eloquent" the system really is). I'm waiting for the first supplement to rip all that apart, but I can always hope it won't happen...

Master of Shadows wrote:

I agree this is the PRD RAW, my point is, It's pretty darn stupid. Like abysmally so. Its so stupid that even the god of stupid winces.

Also, as an aside to my point, I think its something that often gets over looked unintentionally. For example there are several abilities that change an action's type from move to swift. Suddenly you can no longer perform this action twice? stupid.

Fix it Paizo!

It is only stupid to you if you don't give enough emphasis on the importance of balance.

This post thread is not FAQ-worthy as it is explained clearly in the book, although you are welcome to complain about it to your heart's desire. :)

Uh oh! We're in that shadowy area no one wants to acknowledge, where an RPG turns into a board game and real world minutia gets pigeon-holed into a simulistic rule.

RPG: of course you can!

Board game: of course you can't!

Decide what type of game you're in (or want to run), and make the appropriate call.

It's now the beginning of fourth quarter 2014. It's time, Paizo. We need Print on Demand.

You are actually losing sales. I'm not purchasing several out of print APs because I can't get one or more of the chapters in print - unless I want to spend $75, $100+ for one book. Example: Carrion Crown Chapter 1.

Lulu's quality is just fine.

Please consider this. In an era of 3D printing for goodness sakes, I think that PoD is a pretty tried and true business option!

Magic isn't everywhere because most players want a medieval world. You can try to justify it some way in-game, but it is really an out-of-game situation.

There really is no in-game reason for it. Most fantasy worlds are just stagnant.

The only real explanation I can see that would work in-game is that some over-deity (who views even the strongest of the normal gods as nothing more than little playthings) wants things to stay the way they are. How else can not only the material plane stay the same, but every other plane in existence?

This is about it. Nice try, everyone else, in trying to rationalize one of the major problems with any magic in any fantasy trope.

Magic users would either rule the world in a sort of "mageocracy", or be enslaved by rulers to do their bidding. It would totally redefine the world and make it very unlike what we see in most standard fantasy RPGs today.

Divine magic is as problematic as arcane, if not more so. Religious sects, orders, temples, what have you would be overrun by the general populance. The ruling class would outright demand it. It would set up the same scenario as above: practitioners would either rule or be servants.

Eberron addressed this in one way: the practical application of magic. Harnessing magic as a solution to everyday/every man's problems. Dragonlance, with its three arcane orders, also attempted to grapple with this issue in its own way.

Most settings tend to have an uncomfortable duality of type-cast medieval society on the one hand, and ubiquitous magic on the other hand (Forgotten Realms, anyone? Just read any Volo's Guides). They coexist and that's that: the reasons they do are ignored on purpose (kinda like the whole Aber/Toril backstory - ha!).

I haven't picked up the PHB yet, but based on the Basic Rules and those bits of the playtest material I've been able to look at, it looks like WoTC is deliberately heading in the "rules lite" direction, where most of the options are in the character concept and in the role playing choices rather than in the game mechanics.

Bingo. As hard as it is for some to comprehend (and I don't mean that disparagingly at all - it does seem a bit illogical at first), more rules can result in fewer options in-game.

When some players see umpteen hundred feats in a game, they see straight jackets - not freedom and options.

Neither is right or wrong: obviously Pathfinder has embraced the player-focused, character-build philosophy. Other games like Castles and Crusades have harkened back to roleplaying choices versus mechanical choices. Who knows what the future holds for 5th, but it is apparent that with the PHB, WotC decided to go with "less is more" over Pathfinder's "Do you want that wrapped in bacon?" approach.

31 flavors and all that.