I'm just spit-balling these answers, apologies if they aren't what you had in mind. Lore:
Lore is pretty similar to knowledge, so my suggestions here are influenced by the Knowledge unlocks.
5 Ranks: Your focus has given you insight into other subjects related to your field of expertise. You can make lore checks on items related to your specialty, even if you are untrained in the subject. For instance, if you have ranks in Lore (Dagon), you can make untrained lore checks on other Demon lords. 10 Ranks Given time to think, you can sometimes recall a bt of lore. Once per day, you may take 20 on a lore check. This takes a mimimum of 10 minutes. 15 Ranks When you fail a lore check, you can reroll at a -10 penalty. You automatically succeed on "easy" knowledge checks (DC 10 or lower) without having to roll. 20 Ranks Whenever you attempt a Lore check, you can roll twice and take the higher result.
Artistry: Artistry has admitted influence from Craft, Perform, and Profession, so I used those to inspire these. 5 Ranks You do not ruin any of your raw materials unless you fail by ten or more. 10 Ranks When in an area where you have successfully used Artistry in the past, you can attempt an Artistry check to receive preferential treatment. The DC is 15 if you have produced a "masterful work" inthe region, and increase by 5 for every category lower. For instance, if your most successful artistry check in an area was "pedestrian," the DC is 35. If you succeed, your target's starting attitude is one step higher than it would normally be. If you surpass the DC by 10 or more, their starting attitude is two steps better than it would normally be. This cannot be retried—people recognize you, or they don’t—and cannot be used on hostile targets. 15 Ranks When casting a Figment or Glamer, you can attempt a DC 30 artistry check to increase the DC by 2. 20 Ranks Rolls of 10 or less on Artistry checks are always treated as 10. In addition, even your blunders are revolutionary. Once per month, you can treat a failed Artistry check as a “Masterful work.”
I'm on Sissyl's side on this, though I may be well beyond her on her side. I actively enjoying swearing. I enjoy well crafted utterances of anger and irritation. Of course, I am fascinated by language–it's my life's work–and my favorite deadly sin is wrath, so... It is important to be able to shift registers, but I think condemning a person for occasionally slipping back into a casual register is a far worse sin than is the register shift itself. This is especially true since "swear words" aren't objective, even within a specific group. Some families in the church in which I grew up considered crap to be a swear word, while others didn't. Some English speakers consider jeez to be blasphemous. Demanding your interlocutor conform to your linguistic style without careful explanation leaves them in a mine field, and that's not cool. Those who say that it isn't a problem not to use swear words miss my point above. I.e.: Whose swear words? Dang, golly, and darn are all consider bad words by some. The average American knows to avoid the big four-letter words in public settings, but knowing what your neighbor will take as offensive can lead you down a pretty labyrinthine path. It gets really weird when people start claiming that the words themselves have power. My mother once tried to tell me that the "f-word" was inherently wrong, offensive, and sinful–even from the lips of a person who neither knows nor has ever encountered English. Amusingly enough, the Arabic word for "only" sounds, to an English speaker, very close to "f-word it." I suppose that whole part of the world is offending God and nature every time they say "I want the shawarma only...no fries." :-P
I'm with thejeff on this too. I'd like people who want to play a collaborative storytelling game. You can be a minmaxer, you can theorycraft, you can bring crazy ideas, but give me something to work with. If you don't want to give reasons outside "the rules are the final arbiter and they said I could" then I probably wouldn't enjoy playing with you, and you probably wouldn't enjoy playing with me. And that's fine. What's not fine, but what's been done a lot on this thread, is claiming that people with different preferences about non-factual concepts are simply wrong. Some people allow magic-hating barbarians to, when they level up, suddenly have always had a spellbook in their bag and become spellcasters. That wouldn't be fun for me, or for the groups I play with. It's also one of the reasons that I don't play as often as I'd like, because I'm not going to play a game I don't enjoy–I'm going to wait until I've found a group of like-minded players. Someone up-thread asked why the DM should even care. I honestly have a hard time even grokking the question. It implies, to me, that the DM's campaign and the players' characters are completely independent of each other, instead of deeply intertwined with each other's fates. I can't speak for other DMs, but I care because I'm there to have fun too. And my fun is not 100% rules, 0% novel. (Though it would, admittedly, make a terrible novel, full of irrelevant digressions, over-used tropes, and hackneyed pop-culture references.) My fun is closer to 60% rules, 40% novel. Wanting there to be a coherent and internally consistent story in a collaborative storytelling game is not the mark of a frustrated or impotent would-be novelist. It's a valid style of play for many tables, including mine. But, luckily, no-one is going to make someone who would find that distasteful play in my game. To answer the OP, I feel that your questions are bound entirely by the group's social contract. Since written social contracts are generally a terrible idea, it sometimes becomes a little murky, but that's when communication comes in. If you are unhappy with your group's style, but they are all having a blast, perhaps you should find a different table. If everyone is unhappy with the current game except for the DM, maybe y'all need a new DM. Or maybe you just need to voice your displeasure. The only universal answer to your question is "A DM should engage in X% of tampering with character choices and history" where X is a number between 0 and 100, inclusive.
Not to pile on, but I agree with what everyone else has said. DMing is hard. It is a learned skill. Very few people have a natural knack for it that doesn't require cultivation. A lot of really good DMs forget the fact that they used to suck at it too. Talking is going to be key. If your friend is receptive to POLITE and KIND correction on what they are doing wrong, then there's hope. I personally disagree with The Alkenstarian on the forum–I think a lot of people will react poorly to being confronted by the whole group at once–but the general idea is still the same. I've found that Snejjj's suggest of a table "rules-lawyer" is a great one for new DMs, but only if the person filling that role really is impartial–i.e., they need to point out things to the DM that are going to badly hurt the party just as much as they point out things to the party's advantage. At the end of the day, make sure that the conversation really is calm, polite, and kind. They're your friend, so you should know what will work, but if they feel attacked, put-upon, or harassed, it will make things worse, not better.
Not my own, but this one is sourced. Hanoi Grilled Chicken Banh Mi Recipe From: The Banh Mi Handbook: Recipes for Crazy-Delicious Vietnamese Sandwiches by Andrea Nguyen Ingredients: 1½ pounds (675 g) boneless, skinless chicken thighs
Method: Trim and discard big fat pads from the chicken thighs.
In a bowl, stir together the sugar, salt, pepper, fish sauce, garlic, serrano, and lime juice. If needed, tweak the flavor to get a slightly tart-sweet, salty finish. Add the oil, then the chicken, coating the pieces well. Cover with plastic wrap and marinate at room temperature for 30 minutes. To grill the chicken, preheat a gas grill to medium or prepare a medium-hot fire, or use a stove-top grill pan heated over medium-high heat with a little oil brushed on. Cook the chicken for 6 to 10 minutes, turning several times, until clear juices flow out when you pierce the flesh with the tip of a knife. Cool for 10 minutes before cutting across the grain. Tumble in the cooking juices to include extra flavor in the sandwich.
The herbs are super cheap at gardening stores (assuming you can grow them where you are) and the fact that this uses thighs instead of breasts keeps the meat cheap. Load the sandwiches up with the pickles and cucumbers to stretch your dollar a bit further.
I found this online. I don't remember where. South Asian food has an expensive initial investment (the spices) but everything else is super cheap. Curried Lentils 2 tablespoons canola oil
Heat the oil in a large saucepan over a medium heat and cook the onions for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally. ADD the garlic, ginger, ground coriander, cumin, turmeric and chili and cook, stirring, for 1 minute. ADD the potato and lentils and stir to coat with the spice mixture. ADD the tomatoes, coconut milk, stock, garam masala, salt and sugar, bring to the boil and cover with a lid. REDUCE the heat to medium and simmer, covered, for 20 minutes, stirring occasionally. WHILE the curry simmers, cook the rice. ADD the peas to the curry and simmer, uncovered, for 5 minutes. REMOVE from the heat and stir in the cilantro and lemon juice. SERVE on a bed of rice. *edit* if you use the heavy cream, add it at the end after you've taken it off of the heat but while the mixture is still piping hot. I forgot I had that in there for my friend with coconut allergies.
Bean dip Refried beans
Crumble and brown the chorizo in a heavy bottomed pan
*This recipe goes really well with fresh pico or other sharp, crisp dip
Cucumber Raita (tzatziki; jajik) Approximately 2 cups yogurt
Mix all ingredients, refrigerate 4 hours to 2 days. Serve with pita/naan/crusty bread/vegetables crudités
I really don't get this "it's passive aggressive" and "bad DMing." First, we din't know exactly how things went down. The OP didn't say how the conversation went, just that the child rules were invoked. That's not passive aggressive. That's certainly not giving a child poison and telling them it's water. That's "this is what the rule will be if you do this." The DM could very well have said "No, I don't want this in my campaign. I don't want child soldiers in my game-world. But if you insist on doing it, these are the rules you must use." It would be passive aggressive if the DM said "sure you can play a child" and left it at that, and then, once play was going, sprung the NPC class switch on the player. If you describe what the rules would be if the player makes the choice they have suggested, it's not pettiness - failure to explain the consequences is pettiness. "If you X then Y, are you sure you want to X?" should not be denigrated. "If you X then Y, and though you didn't know about Y you mentioned X therefore you are stuck with it hahaha!" should be. And clearly, this wasn't a case of the DM preying on a person with poor system mastery to ruin their character concept, which I agree would be bad form. As for the idea that no character concept/roleplaying choices should have in-game effects, that is, IMHO, patently absurd. If a player who chose to describe their character as so hideous in appearance that adults gasped and children screamed, would they be justified in their irritation when the DM had people react poorly to his character?
The bolded above is mine. I wouldn't allow this, especially if you believe him to be overpowered. My common practice is to keep a copy of the full character sheet of each person on hand, in case they miss a session or leave theirs behind or some other mishap happens. That way you are all on the same page and someone cannot "remember" some stat or item that they don't have incorrectly. Some people cheat, and some people have faulty memories; either way, this prevents that. Absolutely, positively, 100% this. No-one should ever be playing without a full character sheet with them. I'm not going to say that your player is a dirty stinking cheater, but I can't think of a way to finish this sentence...
I have a question... Is it really necessary to jump in and tell someone you'll never meet that they're doing it wrong if they never asked for input? I'm almost positive that very little of what is said on the Paizo forums is necessary. Luckily, necessity is not a requirement.
Listen, murdering a player character because they are freaking annoying is NOT wrong. Give the little s*+@ a few warnings, tell him what hes doing wrong and if he continues,murder his character. I see NOTHING wrong with showing a person what happens when you piss people off repeatedly. Don't let him back into your game untill he knows the pathfinder lore,I would NEVER tolerate someone like that for more than six seconds. Why not have a conversation with the offending individual? I mean, I'm fully with you if conversations haven't worked - actually, no, even then, I'd rather just kick them out than 'show them what happens when you piss people off' - but why not start by being kind and talking to the person as another equal and person? Talking to people is hard, but brings growth. Passive aggression is easy, but helps no-one. At the very least, as Hama said, just boot the person, though it would be better to boot them and tell them why you are booting them - kindly, if you can manage it. Years of hanging out with the weird, socially inept misanthropes that make up a large section of our hobby has convinced me that many players honestly don't realize that they are being pains in the butt.
C'mon guys, no need to continue chastising the OP, he got the message and responded well. Personally, I did a lot of this sort of thing when I was a new DM. Obviously, lots of other people did too, or there wouldn't be so much written on the idea of "psycho" DMs and DM vs Player games. It's a learning experience. For years, I was a killer DM. I made my players come to the table with at least one extra character prepped. I believe in one nightmare session of the 3.0 campaign "City of the Spider Queen" I killed 5 PCs. But the game simply wasn't fulfilling. There was never character development - who would bother when the character life expectancy was 2 sessions? There was never trust - why would there be when I repeatedly thrust the PCs into unwinnable situations? There was never plot development - none of the characters cared about the story. I took a break from DMing for over a year. I thought and read and talked, and I came to the realization that there is no real reward in winning a contest between the DM and the PCs. How can there be when the DM has all of the power? I'm not saying you should never kill a PC, or never let them do something stupid and get themselves killed. But you should trust your players and they should trust you. It's always better to have honest conversations with you players than to use in game power to punish out of game choices. It spreads the hobby and earns you a reputation as a fair and thoughtful game master. I don't really like Kitsune either, so I feel you, but almost every player I know would much rather be told by the DM that they simply arbitrarily are banning certain items beforehand than to have a character killed arbitrarily. Anyhow, I hope that you and the player both continue to enjoy the game. It's a great pastime! And kudos again, as Drakeroberts said, on your gracious response. :-)
For years I've used a backstory system called "ten memories." I think I picked it up on these boards. The idea is to write no more than 10 memories from your character's life, preferably in first person format, that have had an effect on your character's life. In theory, this is supposed to give the DM plenty of hooks, explain your character's background, give yourself a non-restrictive framework, and avoid the 20 page, single-spaced horror that is a too-dense character history. The last two times I've DMed, the shortest response I've had with this method was over ten pages. No great and entertaining stories like others in this thread, just a lot of face palm. @ Lord Synos: What you do (or don’t do) with diplomacy very well might have an effect on how the story advances. Did you flirt with someone who will be upset that you didn’t follow through? Did you convince the guildmaster that it would be to his own financial advantage, but his business is in ruins? Did you convince the duchess that it would make her famous, then bankroll a bard to write a play to help make sure she really did become famous? Those can all have very different long and short term effects that can’t be guessed at by “I rolled diplomacy.”I would take minor issue with that, if it wasn't mentioned beforehand. I realise, from a verisimilitude point of view, maintaining a cohesive story, that makes perfect sense. From a "person already wary of how GM's will limit the Diplomacy skill" point of view, that's a further punishment on inexperienced roleplayers or socialites, that doesn't exist in the book. A successful roll that comes back and bites you in the rear, if you flavour it poorly? However, based on this back and forth alone, I do not believe you're the kind of GM looking to out players, so I'll assume it's not hidden from players and sprung like a trap. And fulfilling promises/agreements should (hopefully) come naturally anyways. Well, at least to the Good, and some/most Neutral, depending on how that goes. That's starting a different conversation though. >.> But everything has these secondary effects that aren't spelled out by the book. Combat has them too. You have six major (and a huge number of minor) possible ends to a fight: You win and kill the enemy; you win and drive off the enemy; you win and capture the enemy; you lose and are dead; you lose and are driven off; you lose and are captured. Each one of these has very different effects that aren't just "you rolled the dice, there was a single effect, it is now over." Even the simplest version, where you defeated and killed the bad guy, has all sorts of possibilities for change in the game. Is a player justified in feeling frustrated because of fallout from having killed a bad guy? "I diplomacy that guy" shouldn't be any more of a win in a vacuum than a win by combat. I fully agree that you shouldn't penalize your players for not roleplaying something out†, but arguing that there should be no secondary effects when a skill is used because it isn't spelled out in the rules is the same, to me, as arguing that there shouldn't be secondary effects to killing an opponent because it isn't spelled out in the rules. †I only ever penalize a person for bad RP of social skills when they go way way too far. I mentioned this in another thread, but I've actually had a player insist that they were rolling diplomacy while, RPing at the table, they were screaming obscenities and threats (in character, not IRL). Even after I repeatedly tried to get the person to take a different tack or to use intimidate, they insisted on abusiveness as "diplomacy." That guy got a penalty. The rest of the time, RP can only get you a bonus at my table.
The police are responding to people who are violating the law, not peaceful protesters. This is the sentence that makes me think that you don't understand what civil disobedience is. Ghandi, Rosa Parks, the Selma protestors, the protestors at Tahrir Square Which of them did not violate the law?
Sorry Fake Healer, I still don't understand whether you know how civil disobedience historically works, based on your distinction between "law-abiding" protestors and "criminals," or the implications that a) the "criminal" actions undertaken in times of civil disobedience are somehow "wrong" and b) that those who protest don't understand the fact that with protest comes the (very real) chance of arrest. Civil disobedience is an act of law-breaking. To say, believe, or imply that one ought not protest in ways that break the law and if one does, the rest of us ought not feel any outrage at the actions of those representing the law astounds me. I don't think that anyone on this thread has supported the people who are looting, and I feel it is disingenuous to imply that those of supporting protestors support those who are looting.
So in interest of taking this conversation in a new direction; what would a more balanced spread look like? Speaking for myself, I personally think we already have a nice balance, especially as far as traditional fantasy art is concerned. Paizo has done a pretty danged good job of promoting inclusivity. I think that the problem that started this thread is the same problem that causes a lot of arguments on the boards and about RPG rules on a whole - failure to consider the rest of the context. If all of Paizo's art was similar to the art in the ACG, I could see how you could argue that Paizo is trying to be somewhat neutered. But taken in the context of all of the art they've produced, we've got a nice spectrum. I'd like to see a more overtly sexy male iconic, but I'm only speaking for myself.
After reading all of these posts, I see y'all are talking about me. :-P Seriously though, the most annoying gamer is either: He claims he's been playing since the days of the red box, but still doesn't know what saving throws are or which die is the d20 or He opted for febreeze instead of a shower
@Malaclypse No, it was a serious question. Do you know what these words mean? You are using sex-negative in a way that no-one else I am aware of uses the term. You are saying that there are extremists on these boards (on the topic of not having all of the iconics sexed out). You have implied that having a variety of women in various styles of dress is puritanical. You have implied that in order for a woman to feel excluded by catering to male sexual interests in advertising, they'd need to be a Alice-Shwarzer-esque extremist. What can I take away other than that you honestly don't know the meanings of these words? What can I take away other than you honestly haven't read through this entire thread? What can I take away other than you are intentionally refusing to take arguments on their whole, and instead are focusing on sentences taken out of context? I am honestly trying to communicate with you, but I don't understand how you can get to the points you are making. These forums have a lot of non-native english speakers, and I work with a lot of non-native english speakers in my private life. I don't think it is insulting to be asked if this is your mother tongue. **edit**I do apologize for including the altered state bit. IT was meant to be a joke, but I didn't mark it in any way as to make that clear. I'm sorry.**edit**
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.No one in the thread is being sex-negative. And as TheJeff said, no one is being sex-negative in the article I linked to. Malaclypse, is English your first language? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm being serious. Because if it's not, you are navigating a particularly difficult linguistic and cultural concept very well. If it is, you are failing, badly. Perhaps deadmanwalking is right and you are just currently chemically altered. You don't seem to know the meaning of the words assumption, hostility, sex-negative, puritan, exclusionary, or extremist. Like I said in my previous comment to you, I don't believe that fruitful communication with you will be possible. Toodles. @Scarletrose, I would be interested in discussing what you term erotophobia with you, but again, I feel that it may be off-topic. However, I do feel that it might be good for you to explore some different "schools" of feminism. If you are getting the feeling that as a male, you can't be a feminist, I suspect you are hanging out in some rather narrow corners of rad-fem.
First, @Scarletrose, my apologies for misunderstanding you. I still vehemently disagree that feminism supports some sort of erotophobia, but discussing that would be off topic. I do, however, kind of agree with you on the eroticism and evil bit. I hadn't really thought about it until you brought it up. But even in the ACG, the most scantily clad character presented is the Divine Commander Warpriest (page 129) who at least appears, to me, to be riding a fiendish mount.
This was also discussed earlier in the thread. "Sex sells" is not a very good defense. The fact that advertising can be "sexy" does not in any way imply that advertising must be "sexy." There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you." Finally, for the sake of sport, lets assume that your WAG about male to female purchasing ratios of PFRPG products are accurate. By focusing on sexualization and objectification of women, we are telling 20% of the market that their dollars are welcome, but they, themselves…a little less so†. That'll tilt things even more in favor of how much money is spent by men than by worm on PFRPG, but only by diminishing their total customer base. I suppose that there is a certain percentage of men that won't play unless there's at least X% of cheesecake in every item, but I don't believe that their numbers are equal to even 20% of the market. So, from a purely economic stance, which do you exclude? The few people who are damaged enough that they won't buy something if there isn't a constant supply of T&A? Or 51% of the population? †: Clearly women still buy products marketed to men using sexual objectification, but that is often because it's the only game in town.
If you disagree that, on economic terms, it's better to court your entire audience than to court part of your audience in a way that's exclusionary toward a significant minority of your customers then your understanding of "economic matters" and mine are so wildly divergent that I don't think that fruitful communication will be possible.
Did you read all 8 pages? The conversation is no longer exactly what it was when the OP started it.
Unfortunately, large portions of the American political apparatus will ignore the larger issues that Ferguson represents because of the alleged robbery by Brown. Because as we've already seen repeatedly in this thread, tu quoque seems to be perfectly fine for many people. But for me, it wouldn't matter if Brown was a horrible person and the officer was doing the right thing by shooting him, because it's bigger than Brown. It's about how police react to their population. It's about treating peaceful protestors as criminals. It's about assaulting and abusing a free press. It's abut arrests without cause. It's about the thin blue line defending the cops who do do wrong/immoral/illegal things as a sort of fraternity. It's about Scalia's "new professionalism" protecting police departments from outside review. Yes, there was looting and rioting the first night. But after that, the protests were largely peaceful. And the police reacted with armored vehicles meant for combat zones, with long range acoustic devices to deafen and subjugate the people they have sworn oaths to defend and protect, with disregard for civil liberties and private property, with animosity toward a free press meant to keep the government honest and to protect society from encroaching tyranny. But Brown was a black kid who may, may, have committed assault earlier. So all of the actions of the cops are "justified." Just like their actions toward Eric Garner were "justified." Just the like the 115 cases so far in 2014 where police departments have used SWAT teams against targets other than hostage or barricade situations (you know, the reason that SWAT teams exist) were justified. When the police treat their citizenry as the enemy, we will respond as the enemy. When the police treat the citizenry as human beings, we will respond as human beings.
At some point in some source somewhere (this may have been pre-PF), Sense Motive was given as a way to determine your opponent's puissance relative to your own. Bluff could be used to make it seem higher. It wasn't perfect, but it worked. **edit - It was "Oriental Adventures" from 3rd Ed. I would suggest changing the DCs.** Sense Motive: "Sense Motive: Characters use this skill in an iaijutsu duel (see Chapter 6) and at other times when they want to appraise the skill of another character (usually an opponent). Because of these uses, it is a class skill for samurai. In an iaijutsu duel, samurai use the following DCs: Opponent's Character level = DC 15 Opponent's ranks in Iaijutsu Focus = DC 20 Opponent's total attack and damage bonus with primary weapon = DC 25
This is what I'm actually afraid of. For years my games were at my house and my digital gaming material was on a computer all of the players had access to. I never said "don't steal my files" because I never thought I needed to say that. Now I realize that I should have said that, but that genie is long ago out of the bottle.
Thank You for illustrating why this type of thread keeps coming back, and why they need to.When you come to the point where you can say "what I enjoy…may be sexist [, but/and] I do not care," then I think that it's a prime example of a time when a) I'm absolutely comfortable calling your style badwrongfun and b) the conversation really doesn't need to happen again.(Actually, it should be in under Do We Really Need to Have This Discussion Again, but that's neither here nor there.) So, Lord Frye, are you willing to have a conversation about why Paizo's art should depict black characters and white characters as equally competent? (It does, to the best of my knowledge, this is a hypothetical argument.) Or are you asserting that portraying women as equal to and as competent as men is less important than showing various races as equally competent? Or are you making some other point? Again, this isn't a censorship issue. There's been no Mapplethorpe-esque congressional pressure to suppress the waist high slit in the cut of Soeni's garb. There's been no putting previous editions of the PF CRB to the fire for impropriety - or indeed, of revising the art in previous printings. There's been no pursuit by Paizo of fans who produce Freiya inspired hentai. (I'm sure this exists and that there's a "rule" for it - this is the internet, after all.) It's a matter of not always getting cheesecake in your RPG products. As I said in my first post in this thread, I like cheesecake, but I'm not going to say that it's a downfall of society or a failure of Paizo's because I don't get to apply my tastes monolithically across a hobby anymore. I would say that Jirelle is pretty damned sexy. When Keira Knightly dressed similarly in Pirates of the Caribbean, I don't recall a lot of people claiming that she looked "desexed." The only difference between these iconics and the earlier ones is that the examples we've heretofore seen of the new iconics don't show as much skin as some of the earlier ones.
(Actually, it should be in under Do We Really Need to Have This Discussion Again, but that's neither here nor there.) When you come to the point where you can say "what I enjoy…may be sexist [, but/and] I do not care," then I think that it's a prime example of a time when a) I'm absolutely comfortable calling your style badwrongfun and b) the conversation really doesn't need to happen again. If you or Sitri or anyone else came on here asking if it was a good idea that black Iconics are shown as just as competent and heroic as white characters, instead of remaining simple stereotypes because you enjoy an older style and you don't care if it's racist, then this conversation would't be occurring because as a society we've all come to terms with the fact that that is badwrongfun. Same thing here. It's really that simple. There is badwrongfun. If your enjoyment of Pathfinder or of anything else relies on sexist tropes, if you can't enjoy a female character unless she's showing ample skin, then there's something wrong there. Paizo hasn't censored anything. Paizo isn't removing sexiness from the game. Paizo isn't telling you that you can't prefer what you prefer. Paizo is providing iconics that cover more awesome ideas than "pretty ladies sure are fun to look at." As for Wiggz's comment - there is a major and fundamental difference between religion in government (in the U.S.) and religion in public. That discussion would be a severe derailment of the thread, however.
Censorship must be done to others. Bowdlerization or self censorship can be done to oneself. If Mr. Reynolds' art was already existing and they insisted that in their product it must be covered up, it would be censorship. If they order new products fitting their desires, it is at best self-censorship (bowdlerization). The dictionary is not the end all of language - it tells you the absolute basic of definition, not the rest of the cultural meaning. This is why dictionary based automated translation software gets things so badly wrong. ***
Which of Joe' three statements are you disagreeing with here? 1) That covering the iconics in their iconic portrait leaves room to be more revealing elsewhere2) That "that" (1) is a better way to do it - or 3) That the characters' primary characteristic is not "to look sexy for the players" One seems pretty objective. Two is, I agree, completely subjective. Three could be determined by asking Paizo what the intent of the existence of the iconics is. (I assume that Joe is misusing the word "characteristic" and means "purpose," otherwise, I'm not entirely sure what is meant by his statement) Later in that post you said
I think it is problematic that people claim that women, or men for that matter, should be covered up, and that is the appropriate direction to move. I think that this might be the crux of the disagreement here. I think that there is a distinct difference and definite middle-ground between "non-sexual materials don't need to be sexualized at all times even though homo-sapiens are sexual creatures and therefore respond well to sexual stimuli" and "women, or men for that matter, should be covered up." Do you disagree with this statement? Again, I am perfectly happy to see pictures of pretty and or sexualized women. I'm sure that there are people who identify differently with their sexuality that enjoy pictures of attractive and sexualized males. *hit tip to Joe M.* But if the purpose of the iconics is to convince me it would be awesome to role-play a badass brawler like Kess and not to promote sales through sexual tittillation (even if said tittillation is so low-key as to be subconscious), then I don't see what the problem is of not having Kess show more skin. Your later arguments got bad, which is why I started with the bowdlerization/censorship line. For instance, your assertion that KSF had committed the composition fallacy when her statement clearly started with the phrase "speaking for myself." Your argument that KSF had committed the straw man fallacy was just as bad. Your actual statements were
If they pull up the brawler's belt a half inch, the entire female lot is ready to go for 1960's prime time television decency standards. and I restricted the statement to the females because they are the new iconics who seem to be censored. The men as a whole are far more exposed. Whether their art fits "sexy men" or not I really can't say. By reading the thread you referenced it is clear I am not a good judge of that. All I can say is I can see people b&**~ about sexy looking female art and then in the new release of the Iconic art, it looks like there is a conscious effort to hide bodies of the females. which seem to imply that women being fully covered up, like Jirelle, is what you would count as censorship (I still disagree with how you are using this word). Is that not your point? A straw man is intentionally mischaracterizing your opponents argument to make it easy to defeat. If your argument is not that women without a certain amount of skin showing are being censored, then what, precisely, is it? As you should know, since you are couching the discussion now in logical argumentation "Marketing explicitly uses sex to sell" ≠ "All marketing must use sex to sell." Paizo has the choice of how to market its product. And not all market has to involve sex. Edit - KSF beat me to most of my points. *hat-tip*
I agree with Amatsucan, and I am an aggressive annoying loud-mouthed atheist. Run the setting the way it is. If he puts-down the local priest, he has to understand that he is going to lose the support of the people. Have clerics actually use real magic to actually do good where the character can see it. Have a cleric save the day with the power of his faith by destroying an undead fiend. Have the priest who he has just insulted take the high road and heal his wounds anyhow. The player will either keep his character stuck in his ways (at which point he's playing a Straw Vulcan ) or his character can grow and change, which is always fun. Or the locals can get fed up with him being a jerk, grab their torches and pitchforks, and run him out of town...
It doesn't imply that at all. It implies that other males do, but that does not exclude anyone else. You'd have had a point if you pointed out that by saying "the next male" I'm implying a predictable average of "enjoy[ment] of cheesecake," which does pretty well ignore males who *don't* enjoy it (which runs the gamut from asexual to homosexual to anti-pornography to those who just don't care for it), but I think it's reaching pretty hard to say that "the next male" is exclusionary of women. I doubt you'd argue that my saying "I enjoy pizza as much as the next American" implies that *only* Americans enjoy pizza. Perhaps I'm wrong. Anyhow, sex does sell, and I have no problem with the fact that it sells, but I don't see a reason to oversex every Iconic. I think we've got, over the years, a nice range. Yeah, I do like my warriors wearing more - it's just sensible. But Seoni, Alahazra, Feiya, Lem … They are characters who don't want to be near the spot where the blades are actually swinging anyhow, so why bother with that heavy and burdensome protective gear?
I agree 100% on both of these points, Samy.
I (sadly) admit to having (intentionally) broken a game before. It's not my proudest moment*. I think that it really almost always comes down to differing desires and expectations. My mantra has become, in the near decade since that happened, "communicate with your players - sit down and have honest talks with the people you are playing with." *: By "it's not my proudest moment" I mean, of course, that it is a source of great personal shame, especially since the DM was then and is still a close friend.
How can you hug, with those tiny little T-rex arms? I am now imagining James Jacobs with arms "strong enough to bone a T. rex with." Which is somehow weirder than imagining him *as* a T. Rex.
I played in a game where a character would not harm living creatures from our plane. So she could fight undead and outsiders, and due to her character's philosophy, fighting outsiders was limited to evil outsiders. It was actually a lot of fun, but a) it took a lot of work on the DMs end b) we (the other players) all had to keep her character's restrictions in mind and c) she came in understanding that she was going to be pretty useless in our combat situations, save for buffing and healing. I think that c above is the most important. The player really needs to understand what they are getting themselves into, or they are going to have a bad time.
You missed a golden opportunity HaraldKlak. Short answer: No Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :-P Seriosuly though, no, you can't cleave thru non-adjacent enemies. You don't need a feat to cleave through (non-animated) bottles. But you can make the rules seem ridiculous by torturing language. P.S.: You don't need a feat for that, either.
GreyWolfLord, I think another thing to keep in mind that the folks offering the optimization advice generally believe they are being helpful. I honestly don't believe people are going out of their way just to be mean - they are answering what they see as your "deeper problem." Letting you know "rogues suck" may be an inelegant way of putting it -and I would argue that such phrasing borders on "being a jerk"- but it is a way of trying to get across that rogues aren't as fun, if you care about raw numbers, as one might hope they could be. You could be a newcomer to the game and not know basic points like the fact that the game tends to reward specialization. If you don't care about raw numbers, then their advice probably won't matter, but at that point, Vic's advice becomes the best you could hope for. Anyhow - my point is just that it helps if you try to see the "good" in what people are saying, even if they are saying things in boorish ways. If I had a dollar for every boorish role-player I've met over the years…Well, I wouldn't be wealthy, but I would have a good chunk of change.
Where is the RAW that spells with evil descriptor are evil acts? I think that, at a certain point, asking after RAW becomes either futile, silly, or both. Are evil spells evil? RAW, to my knowledge, doesn't say that they are - it's just a spell descriptor. Is doing something evil (casting an evil spell) an evil act? How fine do you want to parse language here? RAW doesn't say you no longer get to take actions once you have the dead condition. It also doesn't specify which direction things fall in a plane with "normal" gravity. *shrugs*
I know, I know… Another thread asking for help with problem players or problem GMs. There should be a whole sub-forum dedicated to just this. Anyhow. I just moved long distance. Luckily, I was able to find a group that role-plays days after arriving at my new home. Score! However, there are some really bizarre dynamics in the group, and I was wondering of my wise forum friends could help me out. The first issue - and for me, the hardest to grok - is that game night involves everyone associated with the group. One player has a spouse, an elderly parent, and 4 children (aged 12 to 18). Only he and one kid play. However, the whole crew comes to game night. Another player only plays board games, but still shows up at game night and brings his significant other and her child, neither of whom play any game at all. Every member of the group has this sort of thing going on to some extent or another. I'm the new guy. I realize that. But they want me to DM, and for me, all of these additional people are a huge distraction/mood killer. Add to that the fact that the game is going to be held at my house, where I feel extremely rude not playing the part of proper host. (Let alone not having anything fun for kids to do.) I plan on having a discussion tomorrow with the group as part of my "session 0" with the goal of establishing desires for and expectations of a game, but I'm not sure how to broach this topic specifically. Is there a nice way to say "All right guys, you have to limit camp-followers to the absolute minimum"? The next issue is preference of game. There is one player that will be joining us who hates, HATES, HATES all things D&D, and she considers Pathfinder to be nothing but D&D with a new name. Further, she feels even more strongly about the use of minis and maps in the game. The other players are either ambivalent toward minis and maps or prefer them, but the group has been playing for several months without these props to mollify the player. (note: I use both in my game, and I'm not willing to budge on this issue.) I strongly suspect that the player is not going to enjoy the game, but she insists that she wants to play even though it is a setting, system, and style she won't like. Any words of wisdom for this? What I do know: • Obviously there are going to be differences of expectation and desire (hence tomorrows talk)
What I don't know
--- In the end, I'm mostly just grousing and looking for a place to focus my anxiety (I'm a socially awkward introvert myself, after all). Any wisdom pertaining to dealing with such a gaming shock, however, would be greatly appreciated. This I submit to you all, oh wise and powerful players of Pathfinder!
Thank you all very much for your assistance with this. Customer service like this is one reason I am loyal to Paizo, and the reason I am always floored when I see threads saying y'all have been horrible/tyrants/etc. I look forward to our continued business and, انشاء اللہ, UPSMI will not be as problematic for other users as it has been for me.
You mentioned time scales no less than 5 times over the course of this thread (before this post). I think it is unreasonable for you to claim that someone following the conversation has "no basis to make a determination about [your] desired haste." My main point, though, was that it is simply wrong - whether by design or mistake - to imply that the FAQ system simply doesn't work. It is working - as Irontruth pointed out - so the only remaining question is time.
|
