Pippi's page

I joined a D&D 5.0 Encounters group at my local gaming store, because I was curious about the system. I didn't know anyone at the table, I've been very fortunate in my experiences with gamers so I wasn't too nervous.

The young man sitting next to me started up a friendly conversation as we were developing our characters and he asked if I wanted to hear the backstory of his human bard. I wish I would have thought to pull out my iPod to record the following:

"A meteorite smashes into the Underdark, and within the debris the Drow investigators find a baby- my character. The dark elves would have normally killed such an aberration on sight, but instead they decided to sacrifice him to the local dragon, in an attempt to appease his anger. They left him at the entrance to the red wyrm's lair, but instead of eating the baby, the dragon took him to a nest, filled with the monster's clutch.

The dragon left to do whatever it is dragons do, and my character could tell that he was in a bad spot, So he grabbed a rock and smashed all the dragon eggs around him. The father dragon returned to find his brood massacred, and snatched the baby up in one bite. But my character had grabbed a large shell from one of the smashed eggs, and used it to lodge himself in the dragon's gullet. Instinctively, the dragon tried breathing fire to clear the obstruction but you obviously know what happened next?"

Me, blinking in stunned amazement: "No... I honestly have no idea."

"Well, red dragon egg shells are, of course, naturally fire-resistant, so the flame slammed up against the stuck shell, and the dragon exploded into a million pieces! The baby was thrown clear of the blast, and landed safely in the comfort of the nest. A group of human explorers found him a few days later, sleeping after another fine meal of barbequed dragon. He thought they were going to be angry at him, but they declared him a hero for killing the dragon, and returned him to the surface to be raised by a local noble family.

I'm taking 'Folk Hero' as my background."

Me: "Wow."

I just... I dunno. I was simultaneously horrified and in love. I almost felt like a bit of a hack for just having the same old "Monk ignores wishes of master (who is also her father) to run off into the wide world to find her mother" back-story.

I do not envy you that conversation. I hope it goes well though. Having to be straight with a friend is never easy, even though it's right thing to do most of the time. Good luck!

I see what you did there.

Sorry... I failed my Will save. Please don't think trying to make light of your situation, Cheeseweasel. I just can't ever resist a pun.

It's never easy to turn someone down, especially when they're emotionally vulnerable. But ultimately, you need to do what's best for you.

Best of luck! And stay well!

This game, like the games that came before it and inspired it, should be about getting the GP, XP, staying alive and shivving, am I right?

If that's what makes the game fun for you and yours, then that is exactly what it is about. This is part of why I don't get most of the fuss about an LGBT presence in Golarion. As has been pointed out multiple times, folks get to run their own campaigns. Nobody will be standing over them with a frozen trout, poised to smack them on the noggin if they leave out inclusive plot points or characters.

Deli-sliced cajun chicken and cucumbers on a toasted Smith's sesame bagel. Chili-Cheese Fritos. A banananananana! Some water.

Jeez, you just don't get my point.

The U.S military, the Navy Seals, this is not Lastwall. Nothing in this world has to be in Golarion. Porting things over may not fit. Lastwall has not been identified as a bastion for trans heroes... yet. :)

But if humans exist in Golarion, with what appears to be almost every other corresponding psychological and biological nuance, with all of the other passions, desires and concepts that we're so familiar with, it would seem silly to be upset about or protest the appearance of this particular shade.

As a matter of fact, I think it would be more conspicuous in its absence. Transgenderism has been a part of human history. Its inclusion among the population of the humans of Golarion doesn't strike me odd at all. It's only natural, if you'll pardon the phrase.

"Why by golly, my good old bean! In regard of the partaking of your most tippity-top personhood in tonight's merrymaking of verosimilitudinous and affectatious savoir-faire, mind if I entreat of you the grant of disestablishing said committement in favour of another that would result in a discongruity of our respective collocations? By all means, send my best of regards to [Insert Name of Someone Important]. Ta-ta!"

From now on, I am going to refer to people as "[their] most tippity-top personhood[s]" in all legal documents.

Villain's name: Babbage Yaga

Super powers: A master of powerful folk magics as well as an accomplished engineer and inventor.

Motivations and backstory: Enigmatic and secretive by nature, Bsbbage Yaga's reasons for joining the Legion are known only to herself and her orthodontist.

Secret hidden base: The Difference Engine on Fowl's Legs.

Minions: The Difference Engine on Fowl's Legs, a sentient traveling computer. Also, the White Knight, the Red Knight, and the Black Knight, her programable clockwork warriors.

Arch enemy: The Doom Patrol

Weaknesses: The pure in heart.

Who plays your villain in the movie: Helena Bonham Carter

Coming in a little bit at the end of the "Maternity/paternity Leave" (and I feel foolish for even jumping in a little, but, like an idiot, I can't seem to help myself).

I'll just say this, and then slink back out.

Babies are, literally, the future of the society they belong to. They grow up to be the people who inhabit and work and play (and spend money) in that society. No babies, no people. No people, no society.

Better babies mean better people, for the large part. The current thought, based on years of scientific research (done by people, who were once babies!), is that the formative years for babies are crucial for making well-adjusted adults that contribute to society. Y'know; scientists, doctors and RPG designers.

Now, babies are going to be made regardless. It's too great of a biological imperative to be cut out anytime in the near future. Some people don't want babies. Not a big deal, there are enough folks that want them to more than cover for those others.

So, people mostly choose to have babies, true. But babies are a necessity for the survival of a species. And a society.

A business, which is also a part of society, could do worse than put a little money towards the continuance and betterment of that society. It's in its own best self-interest. Society expects—and needs—parents to provide their children with continuity of care, meaning the intensive, intimate care that human beings need to develop their intellectual, emotional, and moral capabilities. Leave to help promote this isn't a crazy idea.

I can see the other point of view, and would probably agree with it too, if I saw babies as a negative impact on the world. But I don't.

I don't see people who are raising children as "heroes", anymore than I see people who don't want kids as "villains". They're just people who are propagating their species, which is a role society needs filled. Like scientists, doctors and RPG designers. But it's not an easy job, and it has its drawbacks as well as it's rewards. I don't think it's wrong for folks to get help in doing a hard job.

Feminism itself fails the test, (as the writers <probably women> tell the reads <mostly other women> just how much they do not need men to be happy).

This is news to me. I always thought feminism was about equality.

Weird.

I've been doing it wrong this entire time.

Have you checked out The Quantum Thief and The Fractal Prince by Hannu Rajaniemi? They feature characters inspired by Arsene Lupin in a post-human, post-singularity 'verse.

I haven't! That actually sounds really good. Thank you so much for the suggestion! They are now on "The List". :)

Nope, sorry. We wouldn't allow that.

Which brings us back to Rynjin's wise (IMO) observation:

"If it enhances the game, and especially the fun for everyone at the table, it's good.

If it decreases either it's bad."

I think every table eventually reaches a common ground on what's allowable or "good" when it comes to metagaming.

We've had a new girl come into the game recently, so our meta-gaming was ptrtty high, for a bit, as we tried to help her understand what her options were. It's coming down again now, as she's becoming more aware of what's at her disposal. Her BF is having a hard time letting her make bad decisions, though, so sometimes our DM gives him a "meta" rap on the knuckles.

I think it's problematic to say "better", but I love the fact that it exists, because it gives gamers one more option for how they want to tell their stories, and offers another way for creative people to share their ideas.

Also? More Monster Manuals means more pictures of monsters.

Also, I hope that Lord Dice, Ms. Pippi, all the rest of you dudes and dudettes don't mind if I strive daily to strengthen the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Go forth! You should try to make them feel better, too!

There may also be a slight mis-communication. "Sexual advertising", as I'm using it, doesn't mean "looking for sex", just displaying your own attractiveness.

Yeah, I took "sexual advertising" literally. I'm afraid I was completely misunderstanding you. I might have misunderstood sunbeam's meaning as well. If so, I apologize.

And thank you for your clarification.

Okay... here we go. I'm hoping I can respond to sunbeam at least as coherently and respectfully as he posed his argument. (Thank you for that, BTW.)

I think I can agree with you on a certain level, about who human beings are. I recognize a lot of the atavistic and vestigial drives that can be a large force in shaping who we are, and what we do. I feel those urges stirring, and often fail to suppress them, even when I really want to.

But, I happen to believe that the veneer of rational thought is thicker than it is thinner. Also, I have put a lot of stock in that ghost in the machine, and that informs many of my actions as well. :)

I also buy into feminism (a good call on your part, but really, come on, fish in a barrel in this case), in that I think women and men should strive for social and civil equality. So I've got two mojo-tastic forces punching at my brain stem in this particular instance; one secular, my feminist gung fu, scanning for folks being oppressive, marginalizing and belittling, and one religious, my Christian outlook, telling me that the best idea is to be kind to everyone.

(Also, for what it's worth, born and raised in the American southwest. But so many people in forums think I'm British... maybe I just have that flavour?)

So that goes to explain my viewpoint, I suppose, but I don't think I've gotten what I had hoped to get across in this thread, and for that, I blame my angry, angry reptile brain.

I think, if you look back on my posts, you'll find that, aside from a bit of ill-advised snarkiness that indicated that the artistic stylings you enjoy are damaging to women's self-esteem, I haven't tried to tell you what you should like. If my posts have come across that way, I can only blame my impatience and lack of communication skills.

I don't want to tell you what you should like. I respect your God-given (and I've been drinking grapefruit juice, so I'm not going to change that phrase :P ) right to enjoy what you enjoy. I don't even want to judge you for it, even though you'd never know that by how poorly I've worded things here.

I just wanted to put the idea out there that sometimes, ideas can make impressions on that reptile brain you spoke of, and that despite knowing in the smart, human, rational parts of our minds that those ideas are, as thejeff so eloquently put it: "crap", with constant bombardment from media, from society, from peers who unintentionally share bad mojo, and from people who actively seek to belittle and harm others, those bad ideas can shape and even harm people's growth and development.

Do I think people are horrible for liking images of scantily clad women, or suggestive posing or outfits, or for thinking anyone is HAWT? (Thanks, comrade Doodle, I'm never going to be able to spell that any other way!:P) I don't, honestly. I recognize that as the human condition, and, in a lot of cases, a good thing.

I'm just hoping to raise the idea that, for a given quantity of women, that's the majority of what they see. To quote David Willis, it's "the background radiation of their lives". By and large, they don't get to have the dynamic, capable and kick-butt role-models that are so readily available for men. They get role-models who serve as eye-candy, plot devices and reasons for men to be heroic.

Some people would disagree with me about this. And that's their right. But I see it. I sometimes feel embarrassed to take my niece to my favorite comic shop, just because of how poorly women are portrayed on the covers of the comics I love.

So I don't want to tell you you're a bad person for liking what you like. I don't think you're a bad person for liking what you like.

I just want you to realize, that while you're enjoying your fin-de-siècle age, and your She-Devils-with-a-Sword-Red-Hair-(and-a-lot-of-it)-and-a-chain-mail-bikini- that-doesn't-chafe, there are a whole lot of people who want something very different, who maybe even need something different, and, for the most part, it's so much rarer that they get it.

Why is this an issue? If you don't like the cover, don't buy it. If enough people don't like the cover, the market will deal with the problem.

*cough*

For the record, as a SFWA member, the controversy wasn't over the chainmail bikini cover nearly as much as Reznick and Malzberg's thoroughly dumb response to it in the most recent issue, in which they accused anyone who disagreed with them of being a fascist and censoring free speech, etc. (Which is silly, when you consider that the SFWA Bulletin is the official publication of a professional organization.) They used the Bulletin as a soapbox for their Angry Old White Guy rant, and the SFWA membership responded overwhelmingly that we don't want to be represented by that. To call that censorship, as they did, is like saying that someone who doesn't vote for you for public office is somehow "censoring" your views.

So do a little replacement Pippi. Let's say the original authors said "If I helped strengthen the brotherhood [of male sci-fi writers] ...." would that give you pause?

Ah. I think I see it now.

I have to admit, it would, but that's mostly because the system is geared towards, and largely populated by, male, white writers. They have the power.

In the spirit of the replacement therapy here, what if it had been a statement given by suffragettes in the 19th century, perhaps Alice Paul reporting about her actions "if I helped strengthen the sisterhood and made other women feel better, then it was all worth it" would you think she was sexist in pushing for equality?

Pippi, would it offend you if I said that my empathy for the aggrieved woman sci-fi author declined significantly when she opined "and if I helped strengthen the sisterhood and made other women feel better, then it was all worth it"?

I mean, how is that not sexist? Does that clue you in on what I mean by "wanting to have it both ways" and the rampant hypocrisy so often on display?

I wouldn't be offended, but I'd be a little confused at how this seems to be hypocrital? What exactly is hypocritical about it? I hope this doesn't come off as confrontational, I just honestly don't see it.

It makes me wonder how you define "sexism", too. There's no corallary that states "if women feel better, men must feel worse" or, "if sisterhood is strengthened, brotherhood is weakened".

Yeah, this is part of the point I've been snarkily making.

The other part is that the idea that fantasy art is in any way different than People Magazine photos, summer blockbuster movies or beer commercials is ludicrous in the extreme.

Sexy renditions of the female form have been part of human culture as far back as anthropologists have been able to dig sculptures out of the dirt. Just as phallic renditions of the male form have been.

You don't hear a lot of complaints about all the overt phallic symbolism of the male part of the population though. But there's always some hoopla going on about how women are "sexualized" by our culture.

Ever visit the Washington Monument?

So, help me out here. Your argument thus far has been "...women want it both ways. They want to complain when men look, but they also do everything they can to be worth looking at."

Every woman? Some women? A few women?

Then you gave me an assignment to check out "men's" and "women's" magazines, campare the two, then google plastic surgery and then assigned me a position I had never taken to defend; explain to you how men are obsessed with looks.

Which "men's" and "women's" magazines? GQ? Cosomo? Guns and Ammo? Women's Weekly? Good Housekeeping? Time?

You do realize that these are all publications bent on making money, a good portion of them catering to parts of our culture obsessed with youth and beauty, and aren't really representative of any major portion of the poulation at large? And as far as women spending more on cosmetics than men... do they even make cosmetics for men? And some women have plastic surgery, does that mean that the Sci-Fi and Fantasy industry doesn't sometimes marginalize and objectify women?

Then you went on to write about cartoons written by men to lampoon certain feminist positions, and how they pointed out the hidden truths these brave men went on to expose.

You then defend sexist representations of women in popular culture by comparing them with... sexist depictions of women in popular culture.

Then, you come up with a defense for the objectification of women with an appeal to fertility idols and fetishes from the late Holocene. And you also get in the shot that, "Hey there were male fertility idols, too!"

Lastly, you came up with the argument that people don't complain about the phallic monuments men have built for themselves in a society they largely controlled. Yeah... they sure haven't. But if you feel the Washington Monument is objectifying men in some way, then make your argument.

But none of this addresses the point, again, that's been slightly obfuscated by the title of the thread. This whole thing was never really about Chain Mail Bikinis. The commentators at SWFA wrote some pretty demeaning things about thier "lady peers", and THAT, along with the years of the marginalization and objectification of women in the industry, was what the kurfuffle was about.

And darnit, I'm just so frustrated that I allowed myself to use up part of my lunch time to bother with this.

Pippi, my point is that in my experience women want it both ways. They want to complain when men look, but they also do everything they can to be worth looking at.

They rank hypocrisy of the thing is what makes me laugh.

Is that where this is going?

I want you to step back and look at what you've posted. Really consider it.

Do you honestly think that is a good representation of what you're trying to say? Because if it is, I don't think I have anything more to say to you regarding this subect.

What do you have against boogers? You prude!

There I go again, leaving out vital information.

His boogers are highly acidic, and we were in the State Hermitage in Saint-Petersburg. I didn't want him melting Peter I.

"Men are bad and the stuff men like is bad" isn't going to work in a base thats so heavily male dominated.

Good grief! Who's arguing that? I'd call that a pretty radical interpretation of the text.

I had a similar conversation with my six year old nephew a few weeks ago:

Me: "Honey, don't pick your nose and wipe it on stuff, use a tissue."

Him: "Wahhhhh!"

Me: "What's wrong?"

Him: "You hate me!"

Me: TT_TT

Now see, you've managed to put things in a box you find convenient. One that fits the basic assumptions of your world view.

Boy, howdy, have I ever!

Answer this question: Is there anything wrong with being eye-candy?

Nothing at all, I hope someday somebody will find themselves liking the way I look. :)

An exhibitionist?

Nope. If that's what makes you happy, and if you can find people who aren't put off by you exhibiting yourself, then it sounds like you've got a great match going.

If so, what is the rationale?

I don't. So, no rationale.

Do you view people who like to be looked at as less than you in some way?

Of course not. That's silly! I myself, would like to have somebody find me attractive. I think a lot of people do.

What I'm hearing from you is that you think you are some kind of enlightened individual, whereas it seems to me you want to impose your values on other people.

I apologize if I gave you that impression. I would really just prefer that people take into consideration that their actions affect more people than just themselves.

I'd actually think most people in the SF industry would at least profess values you would be comfortable with.

I actually think that , too!

Whether their behavior follows from those things is another matter.

I believe that if folks are able to avoid internalizing sexist views, their behavior generally follows suit.

Hmmm I gather from you that if I were to purchase something with a lurid cover, that means I want every woman I meet to "Make me a sandwich?"

You are really bad at gathering! :)

I occasionally like sexy stuff. I think there's a place for sexy stuff.

There's nothing wrong with finding somebody attractive, or wanting to feel attractive. The problem lies in feeling that that's the only reason anyone would want to pay attention to you. That all you are is eye-candy. That all you have to contribute in a meeting of your peers is your ability to get coffee.

Objectifiers of Hawt Women for Anita (Sarkeesian)!

Thank you.

A lot of words, but to heck with this Neopuritanism.

This isn't about puritanical beliefs or an effort to "de-smutify" SF. It's about treating half of the human race as something other than eye-candy.

And really, so few people responded to the cover as their main issue with this... issue. It was just a visual reminder of the casual and unconcerned sexism that exists in the SF (and by extension, fantasy) industry.

Luckily for you, I don't think you have anything to worry about, you'll continue to have all the bosoms and bums your heart desires, and young women will get to be continually reminded every time they go to purchase genre fiction that, by and large, they exist to satisfy men's fantasies. Because sex sells, and the dollar is the bottom line.

But if they're good, "those people" will be hopefully be able to "maintain [their] quiet dignity, like a woman should."

OHWFA! does not have a position on hate mail in general.

Doodlebug, what does OHWFA stand for, please?

Allosaurus eats like a falcon, stings like a bee!

Sorry. Allosaurs are my favorite dinos.

Not a sheldon fan myself. I was referring to The anti elite And pippi.

*Crosses fingers* Oh please, oh please, oh please let him think I'm the Amy Fowler character! Then I can finally have something positive to write in my dream journal! I'm going to go sharpen my pencils right now! :)

So Jessica Price didn't answer a question I posed a few times.

She did, you just didn't like the answer

how would you describe a killing blow with a flail, that does 50 damage?

Hit me. :P

You could do it so many ways:

1)The ogre sneers at you, contempt writ large on his hideous face. “Dead,” he says, simply, succinctly. His scarred fist raises overhead. You know it’s coming. You SEE it coming, but the machine of muscle and bone is simply too fast. His flail whips out, its spiked head crashes into your helmet, snapping metal bands and bone alike. Grey matter sprays across the field, blood and teeth pouring from your head. In a final, mortal ignominy, your sphincters loosen, and you crumple into a pile of your own waste. The ogre bellows in triumph, bringing a huge, calloused heel down on your chest, shattering ribs, rendering your corpse a sack of pulped meat and offal.

2)The ogre’s eyes narrow. Its arm whips out, chorded muscles and tendons almost twanging with the speed and effort. Its flail cracks against your helm, the report sounding like a thunderclap. The crash is echoed as you smash into the ground, your vision fading to black.

3)The ogre’s flail slams into you, a killing blow. You slump to the ground, knowing you won’t be getting back up.

4)50 damage. You’re dead.

5)Boom. Adios.

The thing is, any of these, and a million other ways to describe it, will work at somebody's table. And they'll work to better effect than any other option.

There is no one right answer. You seem to think that there is. More than that, you seem to think that you need to teach it to us. I don't need you to tell me what makes my group happy. Answer number one, and any other gore-streaked equivalent, is going to turn my players off.

It's been stated time and time again that some people JUST DON'T LIKE GORE. They just don't.

It's been said plainly, succinctly, and without any sort of obfuscation at all. But you keep coming back with "Trust me, your game is going to be so much better with this stuff."

It's just not true. It's not going to be better for me. It's not going to be better for the people I play with. And it's kinda weird to me that you can't, or refuse to, see that.

Or that you're pretending that you can't.

It's wrong to point out what people are doing is possibly inconsistent to make them reconsider their viewpoint?

I guess people should always stick to exactly what they believe under the dogma of "my fun" and never consider how logical or reasonable something is.

I think it's wrong to badger people about it.

Is your biggest concern how logical or reasonable the game is? If so, you've got bigger fish to fry than how graphic a DM or player gets with his or her discriptions.

Do you honestly think you're doing people a favor by belittling their play style? People here have probably played a game or two in their lives. I know what I consider fun for me a whole heck of a lot better than you, a person who's never even met me, ever could. I appreciate the intent behind what you're trying to do, but after I've told you that I'm happy to play the way I want to, you should probably take the hint that I've considered your viewpoint and rejected it. The third or fourth time you come to me with the argument that I'm being inconsistent or childish or immature or squeamish because I don't play the way you play really isn't going to help convince me you've got my best interest in mind.

I'll cop to squeamish. I am pretty easy to upset, when it comes to pain and violence. I don't like to focus on the horror of battle. I'm not into the whole "Hope, tortured and flayed. Reason, dismembered, grinning at its limbs in its lap. Decency raped to death" thing, to mis-quote Joss Whedon.

I know it's the reality of a sword battle, of clashing forces. It's the reality.

I'm playing a fantasy game.

One of my favorite fantasy books, "The Hobbit", was written for children, but it spawned "The Lord of the Rings" which could arguably seen as one of the biggest influences of Dungeons and Dragons.

The sense of the heroic, of the ideal, of the epic that you find in those books, and others like them, is what draws me to these games, not the gritty, quotidian, lurid or grotesque.

So, yeah, I'll cop to squeamish. But I won't be ashamed of it. I really wish you'd stop trying to make me feel like I should be.

I am surprised no one has said Kimberly Kane, Zak Sabbath, Mandy Morbid, Satine Phoenix, Sasha Grey and Connie.

I googled a couple of those names, and I'm not.

honestly, I don't know why you would want to keep a game on a pg rating,,,.

Wow. You really don't, do you?

I knew this boy in high school, generally he seemed really nice, but, apparently, he was just crazy about ketchup. I really can't stand the stuff.

One afternoon he sat at my lunch table and noticed that my fries were conspicuously ketchup-free. He got up and went to a neighboring table, retrieving a ketchup bottle, as ours was missing one. I told him that was very sweet of him, but I didn't actually like ketchup, thank you all the same.

He told me that the school's ketchup was actually really good, and that I shouldn't be put off by the idea of "community" ketchup.

I told him that wasn't really the problem. "I just don't care for ketchup," I said.

"Ridiculous," he replied. "You can't have fries without ketchup!" He then proceeded to squirt ketchup all over my fries.

What an odd, and somewhat frustrating, sense of déjà vu I'm having.

As a player, I enjoy describing the actions I know I have control over. I like describing how I interact with people I meet, the impression my character is trying to convey to others, and my general attitude.

I find it more difficult to describe things that I'm less sure of, and the results of my actions in combat fall squarely in that area. Like, if I know I've scored a hit, and rolled decent damage, it's still kinda awkward when I say "I arc my enchanted blade under the guard of my foes' massive club, bringing it up in a fierce stroke, twisting as it bites deep into his scaled hide." Only to have my DM say "Fifteen damage? That's more like you've given your foe a mighty scratch."

I suppose if the DM told me that my hit had scored a killing blow, and told me to describe how I had gone about it, I could try, but it feels a little too much like I'd be stepping into DM territory there, regardless of the request.

I guess I'm just enamored of the traditional dynamic, in this case. :P

Edit: sigh. Pretty much what Phantom1592 said.

We have a story that's kind of legendary with the kids I grew up and played with.

We were playing a homebrew Sci-Fi game, and one of our friends had a habit of falling asleep at the table (he usually stayed up all night during the summer and slept most of the day).

We had crashed landed on a planet that had been declared off-limits by the government of this particular sector, and had run into one of the planetary rangers in charge of maintaining the quarantine. We had finally convinced him and his enforcers that we had landed out of complete necessity, and were ready to get a lift to their station when the ranger noticed our friend standing in a stupor and asked "What's with him?"

--OOG, our DM noticed his player had fallen asleep again, and woke him up by calling his name, loudly. Without missing a beat, the player jerked awake and shouted "I shoot him!", then grabbed his dice. Before anyone could say anything, he rolled a critical. Our DM smiled wickedly and told him to confirm. He did, and he killed the ranger with one shot.

Back in game, the rest of us immediately threw down our weapons and watched as the remaining enforcers beat our friend to within an inch of his life. We went along to the ranger station to await transportation to a security station for questioning.

Our friend stayed awake for the rest of the summer. It kinda sucked, but watching the elation at his awesome critical turn to confusion as he looked around at the rest of us was pretty much worth it.

More to the point, we have a roomate of one of our players join up with us a few months ago, and she would jump on her laptop the instant she finished her tunr, and we'd spend more time catching her up when her turn came around than it took for the rest of us to take our own turns.

Finally we all just kinda told her (as kindly as possible) that we liked having her around, and wanted her to keep playing, but that it was really making the game less enjoyable for us when she clocked out of the game every 30 seconds.

She put away her laptop and we made a special effort to try and make sure she felt included in all of the aspects fo the game, and not just as monster bait/distraction during combat.

The game's been better since our conversation.

How often do PCs die in your group? Does the DM make it hard to die, or does the DM seem to be out to kill the PCs?

We've been playing our current campaign for a little over a year now, and we've lost three characters, one of which was mine. :( Our DM doesn't really seem to be out to kill us, he's definitely fair, but you can always see just a hint of glee when he's rolled a twenty.

--How do you handle it when they do die? Resurrection, bring in a new character, there's a last-minute "divine intervention", or the player of the dead PC bows out of the game?

Usually dead is dead. Resurrection is always an option in the world, but we generally seem to have time-sensitive quest stuff going on, and can't really take the time away to get that done. Most of us like making charactes, so that's okay. (And nobody's really all that excited about the level loss.)

--Does the way the death is handled depend on who the player is, or who the character is?

Hmmmm... usually it's handled the same way all around.

--Which type of campaign do you favor?

I like the campaigns that usually have a story arc that runs a little more towards the "epic". I like spanning continents and sometimes dimensions. As DMs, we like to throw in stories about or mentions of past heroic deeds (performed in different campaigns by different characters) in the lore and tales of current campaigns.

But one-shots can be super fun, too.

--How often do you start new campaigns, and how long do they usually last?

On average we start a new campaign every year or so. And they last about that long.

--How often have you been involved in a campaign that was unexpectedly canceled?

It happened with more frequency when we first started... holy moley! over a decade and a half ago... Now, not so much.

--How often do you play?

Every Tuesday, and the occasional Saturday or Friday.

--How long do your sessions last?

Usally about 4 hours.

--Do you play in multiple campaigns during the same time period, or only one at a time?

One at a time.

--Do you speak in third person or first person? Do you use accents, catchphrases, or other speech patterns that are specific to your character?

First person, accents, catchphrases, speech patterns and look askance at my fellow players who use anachronisms or "otherworldy" speech in-character.

I am that annoying. :)

--Does your group worry about encumbrance at all times?

Not too much. We're kind of a "Rule of Cool" group, within limits. We figure, if you can carry around 20,000 gp without too muich of a strain, you'll do okay with an extra longsword or two.

--Are spell components tracked? Do you have to replace them when you've used them all, or otherwise you won't be able to cast that spell?

Same thing. Outside of the big game-breakers, we're pretty lax with components.

--How does your group handle characters of opposite gender to the player? Is it allowed? Do the other players make fun of anyone who does that? Is everyone more comfortable playing their own gender?

A few of our players randomize their gender (even: male, odd: female, because females are "odd". Grrrrrrrrrrr!). I think everybody in our group has played at least one opposite gender character, except for one of us. She just likes being a lady. :)

But nobdy makes fun of anyone for anything they play. That'd be silly!

--What about PC romance? Does that happen? Or is it something the players would rather not get into?

One of the players decided his fighter was kind of falling in love with my wizard. He never mentioned this, inside of game or outside. He was pretty sure his character was going to die a few sessions ago, so he blurted out: "Hari (my wizard's name), I love you!" Game play stopped. It was hilarious.

Even more hilarious, he survived, and is now dealing with the backlash. My charcter was currently involved with a paladin NPC, and it made for some awkward nights around the fire. :P His RL fiance' plays with us, as well, and her character does the most teasing.

--Does your group have a player or players who always play the same race or class in every campaign?

One of our guys can't be bothered with anything that's not a fighter, and another has a penchant for dwarves. I really used to love rogues (still do), but I haven't actually played one in Pathfinder.

--Do the players in your group focus more on playing the kind of character they want to play even if they don't fit well with the rest of the party, or do they prefer playing characters that will support the group dynamic?

Generally speaking, we all kind of run with the group dynamic thing. Nobody really shys too far away from "good", but we've had some moments where there have been some iffy neutral decisions made.

--If someone wants to play something that doesn't fit comfortably, do the other players or DM try to talk them out of it, or do you just put up with it in the interest of that person having fun?

When we started, one of our players was all about monstrous characters. He really didn't like the normal races. Our DM let him play a few monsters, but he also didn't hold back from role-playing out the weirdness of monsters in civilized (also rural and rustic) areas. After a while, I think the combination of the novelty wearing off, and the hassle of the mobs with torches and pitchforks kinda brought him around to conventional races.

This was fun! Thanks for posting this, Dire Elf!

Bloody warnings, I play with adults that like surprises.

Not always?

Another story, horror game. Everyone is jumpy in an old house, out from a cupboard pops a little girl, sprays a party member with a water pistol. There is much relief. Whewww, it is just a little girl. Then she throws a lighter at the pc and the fuel he has been sprayed with catches alight. As the pc thrashes around, the possessed child laughs and laughs. The roasted pc survived, got the girl in a sack, and beat her to death while describing it, ...[snip]... But someone at the table half lost their s!@& over this, because apparently children are sacred little flowers that should never be harmed in game. What boll'ocks. It was totally in character, fit with the mood and setting, and they had one less possessed girl to deal with. Game on I say.

I dunno... I mean, you're a total bad-a, I get it, right? You would never be upset or offended by something as common place as beating a possessed little girl in a sack to death. You demand the gritty realism that requires a Dex check after potty breaks, you chew up rocks and spit out shrines to Lamashtu. Blood for the blood god! Skulls for the skull throne! Your mother doesn't tuck you into bed, she staples you in!

But apparently you've played with at least one person who's been put off by the light-hearted, in-character shenanigans you and your fellows could get up to?

I get that you want to run a pretty intense game, and more power to you. You probably know the people you game with very well, and are more than likely all on the same page. You probably all have a great time. But I don't think I'd last full a session, from the sound of it.

Your posts make it sound like looking out for a player's sensitivities is a bad thing, that it's some sort of deficiency or weakness to care whether or not the folks you play with are going to be disturbed when they immerse themselves in the story you're building together. I don't see it as walking on eggshells, or even being particularly PC. It's just a courteous spot of information to say, hey, I run a pretty rough game. If that's not something you're interested, let me know.

'Cause, mister, the second somebody tells me I actually have to role-play any aspect of my own personal waste managment, that's no longer a game for me.

Don't feel bad, or guilted or whatever, run for your audience, not another audience.

I don't feel guilted, but I do feel bad, mostly because it's such a silly over-sight. I'm not saying that I'm turning my next campaign into a pride festival, but I think having homosexual characters show up in a story (if the conversation ever comes round to that) just adds a certain level of verisimilitude.

I'm always looking for a way to have my stories ring more true, and having people of all shapes and sizes helps a campaign world feel a little more fleshed out. I've had lots of characters that are sort of "built" around people I know or admire or love. I think my little brother would make an AWESOME village smithy. And, just like IRL, I'd like him to have somebody to share that with. The players might never meet his S.O. Heck, they might not even ever come across him. But he's there, another facet of the world, repairing armor and making wonderfully creative weather vanes (which he'll spell whether vains, I'm just sure of it) and that, to me, only makes things that much more interesting.

I don't really think my audience will care much, one way or the other, but in my mind, at least, the world will seem more realized, and that makes me happy.

The only "sects and denominations" that exist spring from HOW OBNOXIOUS ARE WE GONNA BE about our atheism?

Hee.

I think this is maybe where some of the contention stems from in the discussion here.

Most of the people I know who don't believe in God don't really care whether I do or not. I'm a Christian, they're atheists; we all like cookies.

But I do have a friend whose father's atheism is pretty much the center of his universe. He preaches to me all the time, hoping to convert my way of thinking to his. His atheism informs the way he votes, what he reads, who his friends are, and his view of people who don't share ideas on the non-existance of a divine being. It's a constant source of discussion above all other topics when I'm around.

His atheism carries with it all the zeal and desire to proselytize you get with some organized religions. This certainly doesn't make atheism a religion, but I don't think it would be too terrible a metaphor to say he approaches atheism with a religious fervor. Oxymoronic? Perhaps, but not unfitting, if you were to ask me. He's the athiest of atheists!

Most of my discussions with atheists have gone like this:

Me: Can I tell where the sound is coming from?

Atheist: Roll a Perception check.

Me: Darn, I rolled a 3.

Atheist: Not really, but you don't like what you're hearing.

Most of my discussions about God have been more involved, but wind up amounting to:

Me: You don't believe in God?

Atheist: Which God?

Me: The Judeo-Christian God?

Atheist: Nope.

Me: Any God?

Atheist: Nope.

Me: Oh.

Atheist: You?

Me: Yeah. Judeo-Christian.

Atheist: Ah. Is there a particular reason?

Me: Lots. Mostly a deep-seated self-loathing and fear of sex.

Atheist: Really?

Me: Nah. It just makes sense to me.

Atheist: You're weird. Now, make a Perception check.

So...

How about that Pat Robertson? Is he silly, or what?

I figured you were just coming up with some turns of phrase or acronyms commonly heard in the porn industry, like MILF or BBW creeping their way into common consciousness, and wanted to hear which ones you'd heard in regular conversation.

Those are pornography terms? I always just figured "MILF" (a term I despise) was typical stupid boys being typical stupid boys, and "BBW" (which I thought meant "big, beautiful woman"? I'm kind of afraid to ask, now), was an advertising phrase.

Blearg.

I haven't ever had homosexuality present in any of my games, that I'm aware of. The group I play with is pretty much garden variety heteronormative, and sad to say, it's never really come up. I think if my little brother were to play, our DM would gladly offer him a romantic option to match his RL orientation if he felt like pursuing it. I would, definitely.

On the other hand, if I really wanted to, I could easily imagine the gentlemen who jointly own a local tavern we patronize frequently could be a couple. It'd be a nice bit of inclusive head-cannon, I suppose.

Oh! I tell a lie! There was a brothel in Scuttlecove that featured in a session of the Savage Tides campaign I ran, a long time ago, that had equal opportunity employees. I wasn't very good at presenting the more lascivious elements of the establishment (I pretty much borrowed a lot of dialog from the "Heart of Gold" episode of Firefly at that point), but it wasn't anything I think the players would have been too interested in.

In game. :P

Anyway, I feel a little bad that I haven't been more inclusive in my gaming design and world building when I've DM'd in the past. It's something I believe I'll try to rectify in the future, just for the sake of a more fully developed campaign, if nothing else. It wouldn't necessarily even have to come up, I suppose, but I'd know. :P

As a divine being, I'm getting all of my chocolate monsters to help Lemon.

Chocolate Eternal!

Hey mister! This is a religious war!

There's no place for divine beings here!

No it's paved with chocolate cheesecake brownies.

We have to go to war with each other now.

Man, darn these religious wars! The last bellum sacrum I was in cost me a really nice pair of shoes.

Okay, let's see here *thumbs through instruction manual* It's been a while. ... charge at offender, screaming "die heretic" I remember that part... Um.

Wait. Is this a jihad or a crusade?

I'm having coffee with Jim Butcher right now.

Could you tell him he left his dice at my place? He's always doing that, silly guy.

I think it was in Side Jobs.

Specifically in the short story "Day Off". (Which was first published in Blood Lite.)

Harry's a nerd! :P

and turned around, I accidentally gave her a paper cut in the eye.

You just made my soul cringe.

And what's more uncomfortable, sitting at a table with someone in an awkward limbo where the date is going badly, or leaving and everyone just seeing a person get up and leave and likely not even knowing that you just did that? Maybe one or two tables next to you might, the rest wouldn't. It's not done because it would be bad manners.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing, never having seen the show or whatever, but it sounds dreadful.

I don't know what qualifies as a "bad date" on the show. Again, it feels a little like you're either a) not acknowledging that there are actually levels of bad behavior that shouldn't be endured, even for politeness' sake, or that b) you're not listening to what people are saying.

Yes, I get that if a person is just being awkward, or not a good conversationalist, it's probably more polite just to endure it, and not date them again when you're out of there.

YES, I get that if it's just a question of the DM interpreting the CMD on moving through a threatened square differently than me it's not something that's worth getting up and leaving the table over.

However!

I also posit that if a date is rude, or sexist, or racist or just plain creepy, I don't really care if anyone else feels it's rude for me to get up and walk out on him.

I also posit that if a DM is being unusually antagonistic or unrelentingly churlish towards me, or rearranging rules consistently to render the majority of my actions useless, and ESPECIALLY if the other players see this and don't question the DM, I feel no obligation to stay at that table. Let other people think I'm a stinky poo-head. At that point their opinion of me is one of the very last things on my mind.

You cannot convince me that I should feel bad for leaving a toxic environment. You just can't. :)

And I'm saying what I think is rude behavior. Something being from "someones point of view" doesn't necessarily excuse the behavior. Ted Bundy probably thought he had a number of reasons to kill people from his point of view..doesn't mean I condone it. And NO I'm not comparing walking out to murdering people. Read comprehensively you hypothetical replier. Again the fact that it's a game doesn't mean it doesn't follow the normal rules of etiquette. A date is also just a date, but walking out of it probably would not make the other person feel very good.

If you're not comparing Ted Bundy killing people to someone walking out on a date... why make the comparison? I don't... my comprehension must be lacking.

Meh. I guess I should just take my own advice. I've pretty much made my thoughts on the matter as clear as I can, I think.

Now I can walk away and do something fun!

Nothing is gained from walking off. You just don't lose more time being at a table being frustrated. If you actually try to calmly discuss the issue you might find a solution that everyone can come to. If the DM is willing to do the same and converse with you like an adult then I see no reason to leave.

That's super! And I agree, if the DM is willing to discuss things, then fantastic!

If not, I've got tons of stuff I can do rather than sit around with someone who's being a meanie-head. If I walk off, I can do those things instead! Yay!

For all these stories of why the DM was such a dick and unfair blah blah, why were you the only one to get up and walk away? Why did no one come to your defense against the DM? Without more to go on there's no way of knowing if in some of the stories everyone else was the dick or YOU are the dick and don't realize it.

I wouldn't be too surprised if in some of the stories this is the case. However, I don't have any real reason to doubt anyone's story here.

And even if I did, I don't feel like I need to berate them for being a Richard. I wouldn't even really berate their mean DMs, if that were the case. If it's a bad sitch, you can just leave! Tah-dah!

I've seen plenty of situations where someone has kinda been the "odd one out". People have been mean to other people in groups for as long as there's been people in groups. It's not impossible that the DM was being a jerkface, but nobody else had the courage/interest to stand up for the other person. I can't speak to the experience of anyone else, but if I had that happen to me, I really don't see the percentage in sticking around in a situation like that.

That's why I'm so glad I play with the people I play with ! :)

But you are forgetting that it's not just you and the DM. There are also the other players who might be simply trying to have a good time.

One on one, bail if you like.
But don't leave the rest of your party in a lurch. The OP said "mid combat." You don't leave mid-combat. It's not fair to the other players.

I'm not forgetting that. As I said, if people are being mean to me, or keep changing the rules so that I might as well not be there, I'm not going to stick around. I see no reason to stick around, mid-combat or not, in a hostile environment.

Sometimes you simply need to take the hit for the team.

If it's a team I respect and who would do the same for me, you betcha! In the case I've outlined? Nope!

But again, COMMUNICATION. I never game with strangers, because I don't know enough about how they'll be in a game setting. Once I know the person and think "Hey, he/she is a good guy/gal and it's be fun to play with him/her" then it's game on.

I'd game with strangers; because that's how you make new friends.

However, if I found out those strangers were jerkfaces, I would no longer play with them, and I would not consider them friends. I might even walk out on them in mid-combat, if that's when the realization hit! :P

Life's too short to put up with people being mean, especially if it's during a time when I'm trying to have fun.

A character with 7 Int could be just as smart as a character with 17 Int, since a character's Intelligence score doesn't measure that character's IQ.

An Intelligence score just measures how many skills and languages a person has. A total genius might lack the motivation to learn more than a few skills, while a complete idiot might be a savant who speaks seven languages and has encyclopedic knowledge of numerous subjects. Or vice versa.

I think it really depends on how much you read into the "fluff" of the descriptions of each attribute. There are strict mechanical results of having low or high scores in the purely physical attributes. This is easy to play out in-game because there are concrete limits to these things even IRL (although, there are strange cases where a person's "set" physical limitations can be overcome in the real world, that aren't necessarily refelected in game, too).

But the mental/social attributes can only really be tracked to a certain degree in game mechanics (refelected in the aforementioned minuses or pluses to skills and languages, also reflected in magic use), and that's where a gaming group (the DM and the players should be in consensus in this, IMO, for best effect) decides how much they want to role-play the stuff that can't be decided by pluses or minuses.

Re: "Intelligence Quotients". In my experience, IQ tests are very biased and aren't really a super-reliable reflection of a person's ability to reason and learn, even when created by and geared to people with the same societal background.

If you want to play your 7 INT character as a lazy genius, that's completely up to you. I kinda feel that a 7 INT is a little more than just a -2 to skills and languages, fully understanding that this is RAI. When the attribute description reads: "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons", I kinda like to have that reflected in how I play my character.

And I'm so proud of being somewhat on-topic, I'm now going to go make me some toast! :)

There is NO stereotypical "dumb" cheerleader. The cheerleader stereotype as I researched it involves being pretty, preppy, and snobbish. WELL preppy literally means college prep. They are stereotypically SMART.

Yes I find it offensive. You are trying to foster a harmful statement about a lot of good people.

Actually... it's a pretty popular stereotype. (Warning! Link to TV Tropes: The Cheerleader)

I'm not saying it's even remotely correct, but it's out there.

EDIT: I should probably stop with this now, as the thread isn't really about people being mean to cheerleaders or not.

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'd say someone with that int would be comparable to a high school cheerleader in intelligence. Can't use or understand big words and says "uh what" a lot.

Excuse you!

I was a Cheerleader and I was doing mostly straight As in school. Cheerleaders are usually very smart people, every one of us went on to college. The only people using only small words in school were the druggie clique. But then those type usually don't make it through high school.

7 Int IS as smart as the PLAYER wants it to be.
It is literally JUST a -2 to Int skills... nothing more.

Hee. For further derailment, I knew some pretty smart drug-users in high school as well. I wouldn't vouch for their wisdom, but I suppose that's another story.

(I also knew some pretty smart people who didn't finish high school, too.)

As far as the 7 being only as smart as the player wants him to be, I suppose that's true. I wouldn't want to tell anyone else how to play their game, but for my money, I think it's kind of fun to role-play the stats in a way that indicates they make a difference outside of pure mechanics. My low INT characters don't often contribute much to tactics or planning, even when I might have what I consider to be a good idea. My low WIS characters might make choices that I wouldn't normally consider a "good idea". My low CHR characters are often either awkward or abrasive.

So yeah, it's really up to the player to role-play their character how they want, but as a DM I might look a little askance at a player who played their 7 INT character as super smart.

I suppose I might look at it as a species of abstruse meta-gaming. :P

I don't know if this is a male/female difference or just a me vs. the rest of my species difference, but it seems kind of alien to me to NEED to speak up because I've been offended, or assume that the other person needs to apologize because I was offended. Its usually just less problematic to bury the emotion and move on.

Heh. It's a case of some people/some other people difference.

I think in most casual social situations this is what I'd do, too. If someone is mean to me or offensive in passing I don't know as I'd bother with trying to call them out on it, just because I don't think it'd be worth the time.

However, if I'm playing with someone in a game setting, I think it'd be a bother to try and repress my anger/annoyance/hurt feelings if someone was repeatedly offensive/sexist/creepy. RPGs are a large part of my socializing, and I don't want to spend any of that time having to deal with jerky-jerk behavior.

And, on the other hand, if I'm doing something that's messing with somebody else's fun, I would hope they would call me out on it. I might not even be aware that I'm bringing something up that's a sore spot for a fellow player.

In other news, there's a lot of Monty Python I adore, and other things the guys have said that kinda gross me out. :P