Norman Osborne's page

345 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 345 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Instead of the first female president we now have the first president to boast of being a sex offender. Well done 'morality voters'.

Selective amnesia?

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Kind of hard to accomplish when you have contempt for a segment of the population.

That's very true. And I think it's part of the reason that the map ended up being so red. Liberal contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with them completely is a real thing, and it was a large factor.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm going to hope that, like the fears of gun-grabbing and the like, Trump doesn't do all the horrible things people claim he will do. The downside being he was the one making some of those claims.

Oh come on. When was the last time a President, Democrat or Republican, actually followed through on a substantial number of their campaign promises? :P

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

I saw this coming. American is a nation that would never vote for a woman. Hillary would have had to have been a man to win.

That's BS. The Democrats chose to nominate one of the few candidates that could have lost to Trump, and they had to cheat to ensure she got that nomination. And then they bought into the hype generated by the media that have been in their back pocket, and thought she was invincible. And yet they still decided to cheat, blatantly enough that even that same media had to admit to to leaking debate questions to her.

Donald Trump didn't beat Hilary. Democrats defeated her, largely by turning the media into their own personal propaganda machine. They just forgot to stay anchored enough in reality.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
You may feel vindicated that your vision of America is winning.

Its not my vision of America. I think Trump is a pretty crappy candidate. I think Clinton is a slightly crappier candidate. I'd have much rather it have been some of the other candidates from both parties here in the general election.

My honest thought on how Trump achieve this victory is a combination of several factors:

1. The Democrats/liberals marginalizing the rural vote for the past couple of decades. This was ALWAYS going to eventually backfire on them in a major way. I'm actually surprised it took this long.

2. The liberal condescension towards anyone who isn't 100% in lockstep with their groupthink. You can see that in at least half of the posts in this very thread.

3. Hilary's unlikability combined with her emails; the revelation that Cllnton News Network leaked debate questions to her; and the fact that a desperate Democratic party had a sitting president make statements that were nebulous enough to be interpreted as encouraging illegals to vote. I know that people on this very left-leaning forum tend to try pretend that these things are minor (if they acknowledge them at all), but to some people, they begin to paint a rather ugly picture of Clinton and her support system.

A highly regarded expert wrote:

We could see Trump, and a Republican majority in both houses tomorrow morning. Trump will appoint Scalia clones all over the country. A Koch/ALEC wet dream. Any hope for something like democracy will be officially dead.

Mass human die-outs will come sooner, rather than later.

Yes, the death of democracy is the candidate that looks to be winning both the electoral collage and the popular vote being elected.

How's that being overly dramatic going for you?

Scythia - you're assuming anti-Trump people care about bothering to immigrate legally

Too bad Hilary's mentor, Robert Byrd, died; otherwise he could have gone to the Klan rally.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Actually - I'm going to go a bit contrarian.

Only vote for stuff if you've actually done your research. Don't just vote a party line without knowing who the heck most of the people you're voting for are. I know that I didn't vote for every position. (Though it does amuse me to vote for the people running unopposed.)

I wish more people felt like that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Not voting is not rebellion. It's surrender.

It is not either.

this sums up my response better than I could

At best, that was Obama making a very nebulous statement. Combined with CNN leaking debate questions to Hilary, the "mirror dimension" is the one where liberals don't have to bend over backwards trying to ignore the corruption running through their midst.

Obama Encourages Illegals to Vote

A sitting US President encouraging voter fraud on live TV in order to make sure that his party stays in power.

I'd love a well-done Return to the Tomb of Horrors movie (or more properly, movies). Ideally it would be two movies, with the first film ending with a fade to black as the party crawls into the green devil face.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Horror is fairly niche.
Science Fiction is fairly niche.

Yet Alien managed to spawn an entire franchise, to include multiple sequels, a shared universe with the Predator films, video games, novels, and comic books.

Quark Blast wrote:
I'll not take those lumps. Sean is the blogger and his name is linked via the hyperlink in the comment poster's name. See Sean for his profile description. Looks like SKR to me.

I'm sorry, but I don't really see anything in that profile to suggest SKR. Is it possible? Sure. But other than the fact that he likes D&D and is named Sean, I don't see anything to suggest it. My name is Benjamin Franklin, but I didn't "discover" electricity.

Thomas Seitz wrote:
Plus the fact Jeffery Mace is more fallible than Jellico apparently thought he was.

Perhaps, but is also coming across as a lot less fallible than Coulson. Fanboyism and him being the "good guy" aside, Coulson was a pretty crappy director.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The grippli were in D&D products before a full two decades before Paizo existed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Greyhawk, Eberron, and Starjammer. Planescape and the Forgettable Realms annoy mem.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Posted by SKR wrote:


Given the prominence of Tomb of Horrors in the novel Ready Player One, and the upcoming movie adaption of the same name, smart money says we'll see a 5e version at about the same time the movie comes out (March 2018).
October 10, 2016 at 5:06 AM

I'd also like to point out a couple of errors about this quote. There is absolutely nothing to confirm that the Sean involved in that conversation is SKR. Secondly, the quoted post was not even made by Sean, it was made by an anonymous poster.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You think that a book entitled Volo's Guide to the Realms is setting-neutral?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:


There's nothing to say they will do that (IE plop Tomb of Horrors into FR lore.) It might be more likely (in my mind) they do Undermountain instead.

Evidently the Tomb of Horrors is talked about in the Volo's Guide to the Realms booklet that comes with Dungeonology.

I think one of the subsystems of 3.X/PFRPG that slows down combat the most is the damnable attack of opportunity. It seems like almost any action that anyone would want to take in combat triggers a chain reaction of AoOs. Like feats, it was a good idea that was taken way too far in the initial rules, and then further mutated by the bloat that followed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
...and I hate spending half a session on one combat.

Agreed. I enjoy the exploration part of the game more than anything else. And it grinds to a halt when you spend 2-3 hours in the battle arena fighting. :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
...where anything is possible.

As long as you have the appropriate feat. :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mary Ann

And before you ask:

Samantha of Bewitched (vs Jeannie of I Dream of Jeannie)
Bailey Quarters of WKRP in Cincinnati
Janet of Three's Company
Kelly of Charlie's Angels

Thomas Seitz wrote:
Huh. Tomb of Horrors as a movie. Not sure how THAT will work but...OKAY!

RETURN to the tomb of horrors would be a good basis for a film, or maybe even two. I think trying to compress the whole thing into one film would hurt it.

Anyhow, I think he meant the upcoming movie for Ready Player One. Which is probably unlikely to contain specific references to any D&D product.

I must admit, I do find it annoying that they are so g!%@+#n Realms-focused that they are plucking the ToH out of Greyhawk and plopping it down in the Forgettable Realms.

As for 5E Tomb of Horrors, there was already a D&D Next version of the Tomb in Dungeon, IIRC.

Yeah, that episode could have totally been skipped. Nobody ever would have called the following plot holes:

1. Steel randomly being both fully recovered and developing super powers.
2. Atom suit randomly disappearing.
3. Stein and Jefferson randomly knowing about a message from future Barry.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mephisto is a bit out of their weight class.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Or in the age where we are living these adventures through virtual reality, this hobby becomes as dead as the hula hoop.

Even when VR becomes a LOT better, I think there will always remain a place for tabletop games. For one thing, VR skill level in many ways is going to be linked to your skill level as a person, regardless of your character. You can put yourself into a VR rendition of the Three Musketeers all you want, if your swordfighting skills consist of wild flailing, then you're still going to be wildly flailing in the VR world.

That's one thing I wish they had addressed in one of Star Trek's holodeck episodes. Kinda coincidence that ever time they were in the Wild West, everyone was a quick draw and a good shot; every time they were in a sword-fighting setting, everyone was a good sword-fighter, etc. Would've been fun to have en episode where someone loved the Wild West, but was slow as hell on the draw and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
In otherwords, while they had a form of balance in the Old School games, it wasn't like how they make "balanced" games today. It was more focused on the game itself and people as a team, rather than characters having the exact same power levels at the same levels as everyone else.

Of course, this just becomes ironic when you ACTUALLY compare the different power levels. Somehow, the "new school" editions of D&D (to include Pathfinder, which is probably the worst example) have managed to WIDEN the gulf between spellcasters and martial characters. Mostly due to the fact that v3.0 got rid of many of the limiting factors on spellcasters when it was published, and subsequent editions have further eliminated almost all of the rest. Paizo is much more likely to nerf a semi-effective option that manages to slip through for martial characters than they are to even remotely address some of the more ridiculously overpowered elements allowed to spellcasters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Personally, I also find it irritating when people discount my thoughts on AD&D on the grounds they are based on "nostalgia".

This is definitely a big problem in these types of threads. Making snide disparaging comments about the "other side" doesn't convince anyone to "switch sides", and is much more likely to get people to do the same about YOUR "side".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
To me that sounds like players were more empowered in the old school, because the rules didn't preclude them from doing actions, thus giving them a wider array of choices of what to do during the game.

With the explosion in the number of feats, I think this is ABSOLUTELY true. Every feat added to the game is another thing you can no longer do (or at least viably) unless you take the feat.

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I just meant that the ruleset pushed people towards point-buy rather than necessarily a different gaming outlook.
And I maintain this is more than a coincidence. It obviously goes deeper than just Roll vs. Point Buy, but if I had to pick a single moment of transition from old to new school, that would be a pretty good one.

I tend to agree, with the caveat that the real difference is in the new school, players feel entitled to have the exact character build they want; whereas in old school, because a much wider range of character stats remains viable (even with very little mechanical difference), the character build is much less important.

Irontruth wrote:
For gaming, if someone described their session with no references to game mechanics, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between Pathfinder and AD&D, unless there was an obvious tell (like a Catfolk wielding dual pistols... but even then, you couldn't be 100% sure).

If you spend 2 hours resolving combat for every 20 minutes of everything else, it's more likely 3.X or later.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
So what's everyone's verdict of this episode?

It managed to send a bit of a mixed message with Snapper Carr. Apparently we're supposed to hate the guy because he wants there to be an actual story before writing the headline, and because he wants reporters to report the facts instead of clubbing the reader over the head with opinions.

Really, the only Nintendo franchises I care about are Zelda and Metroid. Breath of the Wild is apparently going to be in the WiiU, so I'll just go with that version. And Metroid is apparently best left to fan-games these days (AM2R is amazing). So, it will be a long time before I get this, assuming I EVER get it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Old School - Great for a creative cooperative game between friends.

New School - Good for a game where the players and GM have very little trust in each other or their own creativity, and must lean on the crutch of overly codified rules.

Firestorm SHOULD be the team's powerhouse. Instead, most of the time, the team splits in two, with Jefferson and Stein being on different teams. And like Bjorn said, e,ven when they're together, he mostly just flies around without actually doing anything. I know it's because of the cost of CGI, but at least give a better excuse for it in-show than just utter stupidity.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My problem with Flashpoint is they didn't establish that universe as being anywhere near bad enough that I buy Barry thinking it would be better off with both of his parents murdered.

Pan wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

I'll need a lot more from a streaming service than a single show for me to invest in it.

I am actually just increasingly annoyed at how spread out everything is. It's one thing when it's channels: at least if I have a cable subscription I get a ton of them. But now that more and more original stuff is going on the streaming services, I find myself needing to purchase effectively individual channels for just one or two shows.

Nicholas Meyer made a statement regarding fans of Star Trek who are not really thrilled by the new show and praising shows like "Star Trek: Continues" saying "Fans don't know what's best for them." That really rubbed me the wrong way and it makes me almost not want to watch it. They're also seriously "reimagining the alien races, changing their appearances drastically" according to one source working on the show.
Honestly, if they make the alien species more alien I wouldn't mind.

They've done it before. TOS Klingons vs TNG Klingons.

They likelihood of them casting the same actor for the same part in an MCU project that starred in a previous non-MCU adaptation is pretty damn slim.

I don't want Felton to be Alchemy for the same reason I didn't want Eddie to be the Reverse Flash in the first series....making the bad guy's identity be the unlikeable guy the hero already knows is lazy and stupid and overused.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's probably saving a ton of money by dumping Calista.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was kind of thinking that when they were extracting the bullet, the fact that stuff went wrong for a bit was going to count as Luke Cage's second experiment, and that the would become even tougher (like happened in the comics), rendering him immune to the Judas bullets.

Aranna wrote:
-I thought Hammer tech was supposed to be junk, this Hammer tech is lethal.

I think they made a bit of a mistake in IM2 by selling the "Hammer Tech is crap!" line so hard. Why should the battle between the Hammer Tech drones and Iron Man have any tension when the entire rest of the movie has pushed the line that Hammer Tech never works? And if Hammer Tech was as completely unreliable as the film presented it as, then it never would have been a viable competitor for Stark Tech...much less the government's second choice.

I liked it. It harkened back to the original in that it was presented as more of a disaster movie than a (now) traditional giant monster movie. There was also a lot of parody on the inefficiency of bureaucracy and some political commentary on the amount of post-WWII restrictions that still are in place in Japan.

Spoilers ahoy!


Godzilla's initial form looked rather goofy, like a crappy B-rate monster you would expect to see in the worst of the Showa era. However, his first mutation made him look a lot more Godzilla-like and more intimidating.

This Godzilla has new powers! His breath weapon is now much more concentrated, more of a ray than a cone. But even more notable is that he can also project this ray from his tail, and even smaller more concentrated versions from his dorsal spines. And the rays themselves seem to be more powerful, they slice right through buildings.

However, the tradeoff for this increased power seems to be that he falls into a semi-hibernation pretty damn frequently. While this was ok for this Godzilla vs Tokyo scenario, I'm not sure it will work well when they invariably have the major conflict be between Godzilla and other monsters in future sequels.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ironically the "new school" or "modern" gaming style exemplified by Pathfinder is something of a relic of the last decade. A large number of RPGs released within the past few years have rather definitively leaned towards the rules-light side of the spectrum. (I'm sure there are exceptions, but overall the industry seems to be leaning that way.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
"Old school" and "new school" have very little to do with the game system. Mechanics do not mandate playstyle.

They don't necessarily mandate it, but they can strongly suggest or imply a certain playstyle. And let's be honest, if a player came to this board to complain about a DM that had his action fail because the player didn't do much more than state a skill to use and roll a d20, the vast majority of replies would be of the "crucify him" variety. Because the d20 system puts way more of an emphasis on the character builds and mechanical bonuses than it does on creativity and thinking outside the box.

Raven Moon wrote:
New mechanics and much more matured approach to not only solving the problems but actually giving life to a personality while playing it.

Disagree. And strongly disagree with the rather antagonistic way in which you present that opinion.

Aranna wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Is that the right message? Sleep with all the girls you want we are disposable.

I saw nothing remotely similar to that 'message' in either series.

He stayed with Reva, despite knowing she had lied about the experiments, until she died.
He stayed with Jessica until he found out she was lying to him and had killed Reva.
Misty used, lied to, and dumped him.

It was implied that these were the only three women he had been with for many years (at least since he went to prison), despite other opportunities. Based on the available data he only ever broke off one relationship... with the woman who killed his wife. Virtually the opposite of the 'love them and leave them' impression you somehow got.

Now... if you wanted to complain that Marvel presented all three women as manipulative liars who were using Cage you'd have a legitimate gripe.

He works with 4 women since prison and sleeps with all 4. Ok technically the feds interrupt his hook up with night nurse so they never get to "go for coffee" but clearly it was going to happen and might still depending on the next series. Maybe my problem is less with Luke Cage and more with Marvel making it's girls into sluts.

Wouldn't that make Luke the slut?

johnlocke90 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Another thing is that his GM's only allowing Paizo related products is not a Paizo problem. He needs to educate his GM's. Many of Paizo's products are written by freelancers such as the members of this forum, so they are already using things not created by Paizo, when they buy Pathfinder products. Some of the monsters in the AP's are even taken from other 3PP companies.
I view Paizo as a curator more than anything else. Paizo isn't perfect, but there 3rd party stuff is way more likely to be broken and as a GM I would have to do a lot more vetting to keep 3rd party stuff balanced.

I don't find any 3rd party stuff to be more broken or unbalanced than stuff that exists within 1st party books. And there are several publisher that manage to on average provide much less broken and more balanced products. Not that that sets the bar all that high...the core rulebooks contains some of the most broken and unbalanced option not only in Pathfinder, but in the d20 system as a whole.

1 to 50 of 345 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>