Bump, and to protect my work, here's the GPG signature for the "Objective-Driven Quantitative Alignment.pdf" file on the Google drive.
I think he thought it was acceptable. When I talked with him privately, he said he "needed" the high ability scores. He left the campaign shortly thereafter.
I stopped having my players roll for ability scores and hp several years ago. I used to have them use the "4d6 drop the lowest" method, roll six times and arrange as they want, but then I overheard two players talking. One looked at the other's character sheet and said "Wow, great numbers." The second player said "Yeah, I kept rolling until I got a set I liked." Two 18s and a 17, IIRC.
So now I have them buy abilities with points; there's no cheating with arithmetic. And if someone makes a mistake, it's easy to detect and correct.
And why can't they upgrade their items on the fly?
Good question! The CRB gives rules for upgrading items on page 553, "Adding New Abilities". Why are you eliminating that, Lazaryus, and adding a new system to replace it? With /masterwork transformation/ from UM the players can start with a mundane item, make it masterwork later, and even later add enhancements.
One problem I see is that of a character who would like to wear full plate. That character will have to retrain once he/she can afford that armor, at whatever cost that takes.
How will you handle a character that wants to throw weapons? If that character wants to carry a dozen short spears, isn't your limit penalizing?
I think we'll always have the "player gaming the system" problem. In an ideal world, the best solution would be to simply not play with them. I tried to design a system that would show the players and GMs how a PC's alignment is shifting, in small steps, so the player could change her character's behavior if the shift was in undesired directions.
As I write in the introduction, I've see so many players who treat alignment as just two letters they have to write on their character sheet so they qualify for a class, feat, or something else. Good character who make sure "they get theirs" no matter how much harm that does to others. Lawful characters who promise to do something then immediately seek ways to not do it. Chaotic characters who demand obedience to the letter of the law.
I was inspired by "Get Your Priorities Straight" but I thought the superstitions for Chaotic were a bit weak. Would you be able to post your system? We might be able to get a better system from the synthesis of both.
You should check out Midkemia Press' "Cities". Not only does it include encounter tables but it includes a system for populating cities and villages. For population density, that play aid suggests about 6-8 people per building for an European feel, or 8-10 for a Middle Eastern feel, or 10-15 for a Far Eastern feel. Many of the large buildings in the maps by the OP could be tenements.
I've read many articles on alignment in D&D, tracking alignment in D&D, and the equivalent systems in many other RPGs. I've written this article that incorporates all I've learned in over 40 years of play. It:
I'm posting here to share it and get feedback. I don't expect this to end all discussion about alignment, but I hope it'll help some people avoid some arguments.
As any older gamer knows, Phil and Dixie demonstrated that you should use a cat
While this might help in a home game, it can really harm a player in society play. I'd say "If you're the GM make certain that you rule in accordance with the rules."
Imagine one GM ruling in away that goes against a written rule and a player gaining several levels in organized play, using that mistake to guide her character development, taking feats and learning tactics that work but are illegal. Then the player plays with another GM who knows the written rule, and suddenly that investment in feats and tactics doesn't do what player expects. This can happen in a small venue, with one GM, and if the player attending a convention. Your responsibility as an organized-play GM is to make sure your players aren't surprised later because you do things wrong.
I've seen a similar thing at boardgame tournaments at conventions. One player is used to playing with a house rule (e.g., being able to "take back" moving unit(s) MP/MF expenditure when their opponent says shes making a D1F attack on them (ASL)), then gets shocked when their opponent says "You can't do that".
Jared Thaler wrote:
The Version on the front page reflects the most recent revision to any part of the guide.
At the time I posted, the top level was 0.03 but each subsection was still at 0.02, except for two subsections that have no version number!
Jared Thaler wrote:
The version on each page reflects the most recent revision to that page. This was done at the request of several people who are compiling the guide in PDF or other formats so that they only have to update / recode the pages that have changed.
Yes, I know they are trying to do this. However, not every page has a version.
Jason Rapp wrote:
It appears that the versions are only changing on the pages that have changed, as well as the main page. Additionally, there is a changelog posted which says what the differences are from the previous version:
And they took the smart step of duplicating the changelog on the pages that changed. :-)
Short of allowing us RO access to their VCS so we can diff the revisions, there is something called "change bars" which would indicate the _exact_ pieces that changed at the point where they changed.
The software industry went through these problems decades ago and, if Paizo wants to avoid the same problems and hassles, they should use the current best practices for release management.
I'm trying to report a PFS2e session of scenario 1-01 The Absalom Initiation to event #337,534. Whether I select PFS 2e or not, only the 1e scenarios and factions show up. That is, scenario 1-01 The Absalom Initiation is not in the list of "all scenarios", and I can't select the Grand Archive faction for the GM.
> At present, it is online only, but we are working on a version
Please make the PDF version very soon, or just put it all on one URL so we can easily print it! The majority of places I play at don't have wifi. The current layout of spreading the document across many pages makes barely unusable. For example, if you want to search for a term, you have to do it ten times to make sure. (Are you willing to wager large sums of money that your Glossary is complete?) Speed is also an issue. It took me 30 seconds to open the page just now (wired to cable modem), so it would have been faster to look something up in a print version.
When you do update it please, please, please announce it loudly and widely. One temptation of "living documents" is to make frequent, minor tweaks, so it becomes not a just question of "which season's Guide do you have" but "which version", or "what day", or even "I have the today's 11:15AM version, which one do you have". Intentionally making an update difficult is often the only way to slow that down. I once did software development at a company where the documentation was in a Wiki, management encouraged us to not do up-front design but design and change as we wrote code, and chaos ensued.
For example, even now, after just two updates, the TOC page says the Guide is
but the individual chapters say they are
"Current Version: 0.02
You're already getting chaos.
Sam Phelan wrote:
Please add me to the list of VOs that haven't gotten the drop yet. I hope today's fix works. I have PFS2 1-01 The Absalom Initiation scheduled for Monday so I can't wait for the scripts to run again automatically next Wednesday.
Thanks Azothath. That post has "3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ." but I couldn't find it in any FAQ. I think the Bleed entry in Bestiary 6 is worded to support the "roll every round" interpretation though.
Bestiary 6 wrote:
So that creature's bleed would inflict 2d6 points of damage each round, not a fixed amount.
Given your example, whether or not you knew the ages of the respondents, the data in your example shows that the overall results were negative, so don't make the change.
The demographics I could see being useful to evaluating opinions on rules are things like:
* Have you updated all your v1 rulebooks with all the errata?
Wouldn't "people who give definitive answers to rules questions from up-to-date rulebooks" be a better demographic than something people can't control, like age?
Waiting half a year for an answer is very far from "jumping". Please check the facts before accusing people of being rash.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Folks, I am pretty sure I have spoken to this before, but let me be clear.
If someone had replied with this in the five months that this thread had been idle, there would have been no issue. Silence was very suspicious, especially given how quickly you replied now. It is good to learn that you are using the information to learn about the market as a whole.
My demographic: "None Of Your Business". I'm a gamer; that's all you need to know.
Scott Romanowski wrote:
Why are you collecting demographic information in these surveys?
It's been five months and Paizo didn't see fit to answer this simple question.I can only think that Paizo is collecting demographic information so they can favor the survey results from certain types of people, and disfavor survey results from others. That is not they type of behavior I want to see in a company I buy from -- everyone's opinion should be evaluated on the opinion's merit, regardless of who submitted it.
Paizo, I think you made a huge mistake.
Which is the best material tu build my own pawns with the pdf version??
I found this cardboard is the same thickness as the stock that Paizo uses.https://amazon.com/gp/product/B00DHOY336
In case this post is still here when Amazon drops that product, the title of the product is "14 Sheets Brown Chipboard 80 Point Extra Thick 4" X 9" (4X9 Inches) #10 Envelope Insert Size - .080 Caliper XX Heavy Cardboard as Thick as 20 Sheets 20# Paper".
So far I have Taldane and Ulfen. You have to discard some names, as with any random name system. In both sets, some of the vowel groups are dipthongs (e.g., the 'ae' in Paesilia is prounounced like 'eye'), while others are pronounced separately.
Male Taldane names
Married female Taldane names
Single female Taldane names
For Ulfen names, the parts in <> are optional, and explanations are in (). Bynames are descriptors, so the first man's name below might be "Steini Hjorsteinsson the smith".
Male Ulfen names
Female Ulfen names
I've been long interested in random name generation, especially as a GM when I want the NPC's names to aid in the immersion and ease roleplaying. I recently completed a system for Taldan names based on Roman names. You can see the system, with instructions on how to use it at Taldan names sample.pdf.
Please post your thoughts here. I will be doing more.
Yes, there is work to be done on PF2 [everyone (including the desginers) agrees], but we're not going to expedite that process with the sort of histrionics, Dear John letters, and developer conspiracy theories we've been seeing.
One problem that I see is that the signal to noise ratio is too low. I'll see one post making a good suggestion in a thread and 100 others just saying "me too", or "not me", or "I prefer RPG system X". I pity the staff that has to read all of them.
Re-layouting the book would take too much time
Ridiculous! We don't need anything more than a plain text update. Take the Screen Reader, update it, let your WP program update the TOC and index, save it as a PDF, and you're done. This would take less time than making the nicely-formatted update document.
This is so easy that I could take the Screen Reader version and do it for my own personal use in a day. At the end I'd have the rulebook in a WP program's format, which is what Paizo already has.
Yeah. I'm not big on Golarion at all, but it really does seem like they should probably get guns and gunslingers going as of the release Core book if that's the setting they're pushing, so people argue about it less later.
I'd rather not see guns in a FRPG. I want Paizo to leave them out of 2e.
>Find me a person doing this who isn't trolling
Me, if the Christian is pushing their religion in my face. I'll use this "gaming is for all" to get them to stop or be kicked out because that makes me uncomfortable.
For the record, I don't wear atheist symbols, membership pins, or t-shirts to conventions because it might offend people, especially parents with kids who could ask uncomfortable questions.
>>Does the BSA code say that because you're a homosexual? I, think, in this case the BSA has dropped that particular objection, but you would be within your rights to ask them to not participate if their organization openly demonized someone based on one of the outlined traits (e.g. gender, race, sexual orientation).
You are right, the BSA has dropped their objection to homosexuals. I am heterosexual. I am an atheist, and the BSA Bylaws state
As an atheist, by this section, the BSA states explicitly that I cannot be the perform 'the best type of citizenship' -- I cannot be the best type of citizen. I must be a second-class citizen or worse by this bylaw.
>>>If the KKK members are in full-regalia at a private convention I would hope the organizers would show them the door. If you're talking about military uniform and they started espousing white supremacist viewpoints, then again, I hope they would be shown the door.
Interesting. Both are wearing their regalia, but one group gets shown the door as soon as they walk in, while the other has to "openly demonize someone" before you act. Aren't atheists worthy of the same protection as African-Americans? Doesn't the "gaming is for all" apply to atheists?
By 'atheist' I simply mean that I do not believe in any of the more than a quarter million deities that humans have worshiped over the millennia.
I've had parents talk to their kids about membership in the BSA, another gamer tell me how much he's helping kids as an adult leader in the BSA, and other gamers have had very large crosses hanging around their necks or large tattoos. I've held my tongue. I don't think that section of the rulebook is necessary, but it's good to know that Paizo will now have my back when I'm uncomfortable -- it's in the rules.
How about these cases:
Or I'm GMing at a convention. Two Boy Scouts sit down in uniform at my table to play. The BSA Bylaws explicitly say that I cannot be the best type of citizen. Can I ask them to leave or do I have to put up with the insult?
Rephrase that as an African-American GM and two KKK members in uniform. What then?
Grand Lodge card is duplicated in "Half sheet" (full sheet) file, likewise.
And in the "full sheet" (half sheet) file. The two copies differ slightly in the 7+ goals wording* one has quotes around "Explore, Report, Cooperate" while the other doesn't.
* one has "+2 insight bonus on checks for these skills" while the other has "+2 insight bonus to these skills"
On 27 February 2018, I posted but time my name showed up as simply "Scott Romanowski"
On My Account -> My Profile, it does show "Scott Romanowski Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Lowell".
Could this be tied in to the recent problem where I (and other VAs) weren't given access to the scenarios 10-01, -02, and -03 until Sam had re-ran the process?
My source is an article in Dragon #78, "Be thy die ill-wrought?". You roll the d20 a large number of times, recording how many times each number turns up. You sum the square of (the number of times the number showed up - the number of times you expected it to show up) for all 20 numbers, then divide by number of times you expected a number to show up. This is the chi-squared value, which you compare to a table that shows the chance of a fair die getting that value.
For 20 categories, there is a 10% chance that the chi-square value will be 27.204 or more _just_by_chance_given_a_perfect_die. There is a 1% chance that the chi-square value will be 36.191 just by chance.
d20 are cheap. If I tested one and it produced a chi-squared of 36.191 or more, I'd throw it out. If the result was 27.204 or higher, I might retest it and toss it if it failed again.
Remember, rolling a die is a random process. There's a chance (1 in 100) that a fair d20 would give a result of 36.191 or higher, and a chance that a biased die would give a result below 27.204. There is no black-or-white division here, just degrees of certainty.
1. ASL and SFB
I like games that challenge me and make me think. After spending many years where I'd buy the games, teach my friends how to play (but nothing too complex -- they wouldn't read the rules themselves), and replace damaged components when they wouldn't follow the 'no drinks on table' rule, without ever getting them to even try something slightly more complex, I gave up and now focus on games I like.