another_mage's page

To prepare for that one fight, I often need to read and understand large numbers of stat blocks, reference feats and spells, work out how they synergise, work out what buffs will be up prior to or during combat then run all of those creatures as intelligent and powerful combatants that want to survive as well as destroy the players.

Given that my work involves large quantities of brain power as well, then high level game play quickly loses its lustre.

This is precisely why I stopped my Pathfinder campaign at Level 12.

Up to Level 9, I found myself spending maybe 4 hours out of game to prepare for 4 hours of gaming.
After that, the time required grows significantly because of the combinatorial nature of powers.

And the power level itself ramps up pretty quickly as well. Poor planning leads to one of two destinations:

- The group steamrolls over the enemy like nothing, because I forgot Player X has Ability Y.

- TPK, because I forgot that none of the players had an effective counter to Big Bad's Ability Z.

Neither outcome is fun, for the players or myself. So, I get to spend 8-10 hours planning around it.
And even after all of it, there's still the element of player surprise that is crazy-difficult to plan for.

So, now I'm running a Shadowrun 5th game for the group. It remains to be seen how much planning will be necessary at Prime Runner levels.

What are the rules on describing viscera and gore? I have a couple of ideas for projects that might appear in these forums and I would hate to accidentally break the rules.

And remember, these forums are run by Americans, so there is generally a little more leeway with viscera and gore.

Sex, not so much; a nipple on TV can lead to a $500,000 fine.

The Walking Dead, however, remains a very popular show.

If we could mutually block each other this forum would be far more productive.

If you are using Mozilla Firefox, you may be interested in my paizo_ignore Greasemonkey script.

I know there are a lot of people who go on to the messageboard, but tend not to comment for several other reasons. Having an anonymous poll would give them an opportunity to give an opinion and have it heard if you will. It would also allow for certain opinions that are popular to be noticed without being drowned in the sea of vocal minority battles that have a tendency to pop up a lot

Messageboard polls like this are self-selected. Unfortunately, that means the population is unknown, the data has almost no meaning, and the results can only be interpreted in a very loose and unsatisfying way.

For example, a poll might ask, "Do you think the Rogue is too weak in Pathfinder?"

At the end, you could say, "80% of the people who responded said the Rogue is too weak in Pathfinder".
That sounds impressive, but it is on par with a poll that I conducted just last week.

POLL: Should Paizo give $100,000 to another_mage?

Sadly, I think your vocal minority would dominate the polls even more than they do the messageboards. It might serve as a social marketing tool for Paizo, as the vocal minority would probably send out links to people equally like-minded and equally vocal. However, I don't think any of that would improve the discussion or content here on the messageboards.

Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder?

Neither. Next weekend, I am helping my group make characters for Shadowrun 5th Edition.

I also ordered 100d6 on Amazon ... hope that'll be enough. :-)

v7 seems to be missing the section under "Script Settings" for "Included Pages". Older versions had http://*.paizo.com/, http://paizo.com/*, and a couple others there; v7 is blank.

Looks like this is a difference between the @include and @match tags.

Older versions had a metadata block like this:

// ==UserScript==

// @name paizo_ignore_v4
// @namespace http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~meade/greasemonkey/
// @description Ignore posters on Paizo's messageboards
// @include http://paizo.com/*
// @include http://*.paizo.com/*
// @include https://paizo.com/*
// @include https://*.paizo.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

And the latest version has a metadata block like this:

// ==UserScript==

// @name paizo_ignore
// @version 7
// @updateURL http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~meade/greasemonkey/paizo_ignore.user.js
// @namespace http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~meade/greasemonkey/
// @description Improve signal-to-noise ratio on Paizo's messageboards
// @match http://paizo.com/*
// @match http://*.paizo.com/*
// @match https://paizo.com/*
// @match https://*.paizo.com/*
// @require http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.1.0.min.js
// @grant none
// ==/UserScript==

Note that all of the @include tags became @match tags.

The @match metadata imperative is very similar to @include, however it is safer. It sets more strict rules on what the * character means.

For details, see the documentation on Match Patterns for Google Chrome. Chrome implemented @match first, and Greasemonkey has been designed to be compatible.

Source: http://wiki.greasespot.net/Metadata_Block#.40match

However, just as you pointed out Orthos, it appears that @match tags DO NOT show up in the Script Settings.
I just checked, and it looks like there is an open issue about adding this feature to Greasemonkey:

Display and edit @match rules in 'clude editor #1703

So it appears the script will keep working on the specified pages. It just won't show up in Greasemonkey's include/exclude list yet.

Unless I am mistaken, it doesn't seem to install properly. I open the link, it says "downloading" and sometimes it downloads, sometimes it doesn't. Even if it does, pressing the install button doesn't do anything (or is grayed out, if it didn't dowload). Looking at the user script tab, a few times it mentioned that v6 was installed, but after closing the browser and opening it again, the script was gone.

Sorry for the delay, my Internet connection at home has inoperative all weekend.

If you do run into trouble installing v7, you may need to:
- Click the Greasemonkey menu (small arrow next to the monkey icon)
- Click "Manage User Scripts..." on the drop-down menu
- Find "paizo_ignore" in the Add-ons Manager tab
- Click the "Remove" button on the right-hand side

After that, just click this URL to install Ignore v7:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~meade/greasemonkey/paizo_ignore.user.js

With the old version removed and the new version in place, everything should work. Go into a thread on the Messageboards and see the Hide / Block options show up.

Let me know if this works, magnuskn. :-)

Good News: The dependency is easily replaced. I'll get v6 up shortly.

Ignore v7 is now in place.

Happy, err... Ignorance is bliss! :-)

Anyone else getting an error when they try to install this? Mine's popping up:

Download Error wrote:

Error downloading URL:

https://userscripts.org/scripts/source/145813.user.js

Unknown error.

Looks like userscripts.org is down for the count.

Bad News: The Ignore script pulled a dependency from there. Greasemonkey isn't going to like not being able to download that. :-(

Good News: The dependency is easily replaced. I'll get v6 up shortly.

If I were given the power to permanently suspend ten people from the boards

I almost sent a private message asking for a list, so that I could pre-load it in the ignore script.

Why must Ethics be such a cruel master? :-(

Solution that should make everybody happy:

- Allow PFS players to roll for their stats.
- Any stat array over a 20-point buy equivalent is thrown out, and must be re-rolled.

People who like rolling get to roll for their stats. PFS play balance is maintained.

I love Win-Win solutions.

we have no plans for an ignore feature.

The perfect opening for a shameless self-plug ... must ... resist...

Will Save: 1d20 ⇒ 2

So, there is this great plugin for Mozilla Firefox that adds a client-side Ignore feature for any users that are interested.

Ignore v5

"Don't be a jerk" is short and concise, if slightly subjective. Long rules are bad, in this case, because gamers gonna game. If you give rules, they will find loopholes and exploits.

As far as 'strictly enforced', I unfortunately don't think Paizo has enough moderators for (or rather, enough moderator time) to drink from that particular firehose.

With a little code, I'm sure Paizo's database is rich enough to create a Naive Bayes classifier that could pick out posts that are likely to require moderation.

The problem is very similar to filtering spam e-mail. Except here it's a toxic post (and not a Viagra advertisement) that requires filtering. The significant difference here is that Paizo has an exceptional corpus of well labelled data, including hand-moderated posts and community flagging data. Pretty much exactly what you want for building a classifier.

I'd be surprised if the classifier couldn't pick out 95% of the posts that required moderation.

The spam problem has already been solved:

xkcd 810: Constructive

We're all just waiting on an implementation...

Aliases v1

Install:
1. Mozilla Firefox
2. Greasemonkey
3. paizo_aliases.user.js

I created a Greasemonkey script to help manage your Aliases on the messageboards.

Notes:
- Use your Aliases tab in your account to manage your aliases.

- The drop-down list ("Post As") underneath the textarea where you write your post will have all hidden aliases removed.

- Important: Select your preferred alias before you click Preview.

If you click the Preview button, you go from "paizo.com" to "secure.paizo.com". Browser security will not allow "secure.paizo.com" to access the list of hidden aliases from "paizo.com". After you click the Preview button, your drop-down WILL NOT have hidden aliases removed. So... Select your preferred posting alias BEFORE you Preview!

- You can also "manage" other people's Aliases. There isn't really any point to doing so (the changes never leave your browser, so nobody will ever see it but you), but go ahead if it floats your boat.

I seem to not be able to get a thread started on the messageboards. There is no start thread button... what am I missing or doing incorrectly. There is a flatten option, that I don't understand either.

It should be up by the title of the thread. For example, the Website Feedback forum at:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizo/websiteFeedback

Look over on the right hand side of the title "Website Feedback", you should see a section that says:

Add New Thread | Focus

For me, it is located right next to the Forum Search box on the right hand side of the page.

That "Add New Thread" link should help you get a new thread started.

"Booksellers took most of the profits from their works, so they relied on patrons to survive."

Holy Shit: A Brief History of Swearing by Melissa Mohr

At this point in the thread, I think it may be time to put down the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.
I think a high school Physics textbook, followed by a high school Biology textbook, may be much more enlightening.

Hmmm ok not what I was after, badly worded question. That does change the box size but not the text its just more spread out now. I still can't read it easily.

Which OS (Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, etc.) and browser (IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc.) are you using to browse the site and write replies?

In Firefox, I can think of two things that might be making your text unreadable:

1. Font Configuration
* Under Edit -> Preferences there is a tab Content
* In the Content tab there is a section labeled Fonts & Colors, select the Advanced... button.
* In the Advanced... button dialog, there are configuration options for your fonts, Proportional, Serif, Sans-serif, and Monospace.
* The textarea for writing a response is typically this "Monospace" configuration. You can increase the size by selecting a larger size from the drop down on the right hand side.

2. Page Zoom
* Under View -> Zoom, the sub-menu has several options: Zoom In, Zoom Out, Reset, Zoom Text Only
* If you've previously (and perhaps unwittingly) hit Zoom Out, your text may appear terribly small.
* Try selecting Reset (or holding down Control and pushing the number key 0) to bring the text back to it's default zoom.

Let us know what browser you're using and we may be able to help more.

In my campaign, I'd roll the dice out in public and behind the screen.

If the characters would know if the roll succeeded (i.e.: attack rolls, saving throws, damage rolls, etc.) then I made my rolls out in public view.

If the characters wouldn't know if the roll succeeded (i.e.: Sense Motive checks, Perception checks, etc.) ... "I just realized that I totally failed to notice that bugbear hiding in the grass." ... "I just realized that I totally failed to discern that you were lying to me." ... then I made my rolls behind the screen.

More often than not, I would roll, do the mental math, and simply call out "Hits AC 25" or "Saves DC 17". I'd wait for the player to tell me if the baddie hit, or saved, or whatever. It is quite possible that my players might have "fudged" it a few times, but I didn't care, as long as they were all having fun.

One downside is that as a GM, you can't fudge a roll to save a character. However, a big upside is that when a character actually DOES survive impossible odds, it is VERY impressive.

All in all, I think it really depends on the table. Some tables prefer the GM keep some secrets and fudge it here or there. Other tables want to know that the rules are the rules are the rules; they don't mind a character living or dying, so long as it was fair and square.

In my opinion, a GM should ask the players which play style they prefer and honor that choice. I think it makes for a much better game.

Why would hosting it on the web store be a bad thing?

Google says hosting it on the web store is for security; the user's own protection. I agree 100%. I know a protection pitch when I hear one...

That's a real nice extension you've got there. It'd be a real shame if your users couldn't install it.

Is there any way to get this script to work in Chrome? Please? All of the previous versions seemed to work fine except this one.

I've mostly abandoned Chrome as a development platform because Google is going to require Chrome extensions to be hosted on the Chrome Web Store, at least for Windows users.

On which platform are you using Chrome?

It looks like Tampermonkey might be worth a shot, as it might allow Chrome to run the Greasemonkey version of the script. (You may need to rename it "paizo_ignore.tamper.js" instead.)
I'd try it myself, but I've got some pegged dependencies that won't let me install the latest version of Chrome.

Can you give that a shot and let us know if it works?

In case anybody on this thread missed it:

Ignore v5

I open a browser window (Firefox, latest production update) and enter paizo.com. Page opens fine. Click on messageboards and the page "https://secure.paizo.com/paizo/messageboards" sits with the spinny going round and round and round......

Did you install the new Ignore v5?

It seems that I had a jQuery conflict bug in v5 that caused this exact behavior.

If so, please re-install the script (same location: paizo_ignore.user.js) and the messageboards should work again.

Sorry for the confusion.

Is anyone having issues with version 5? I can't get Firefox to open the Paizo messageboards now that I have Ignore v5. To see the boards, I have to use Chrome, which of course won't let me use Ignore.

Thank you for the bug report. It looks like this was due to a jQuery conflict.

Please reinstall the ignore script (same location as above) and the messageboards should work again.

Ignore v5

Install:
1. Mozilla Firefox
2. Greasemonkey
3. paizo_ignore.user.js

Notes:
- Your old ignore list will not be preserved in the upgrade. (Sorry)

- The "Ignore" link has been renamed "Block User". The function is still the same.

- There is now a "Hide" link. Per a brilliant suggestion by Maizing, this link will hide the specific post without blocking everything else the user has ever written.

- The lists to Un-Hide posts and Un-Block users are still at the very bottom of the page. Scroll all the way down, and click to remove it from the list.

- The Un-Hide list is quite cryptic; sorry about that. Hopefully you won't need to un-hide too many times.

another_mage wrote:

Christopher Anthony wrote:

Thanks for the bug report. I'll get that fixed.

Sorry, just to clarify, are you fixing the new threads to be compatible with the Ignore Script?

I hope for the reverse :)

Don't worry, it's nothing personal Gorbacz (I don't even actually use my own Ignore Script), I'm just trying to plan out my week/weekends.

This week, I'm involved in the Seven-Day Roguelike Challenge 2014 (7DRL), so my time is a bit limited.

If our esteemed developer is fixing the new threads to be like the old, then the Ignore Script will continue working and those who use it will be happy.

If our esteemed developer is fixing the old threads to be like the new, then the Ignore Script will break everywhere and those who use it will not be happy.

I'd appreciate a heads-up from Christopher Anthony either way, just so I know what I have in store for this week. (i.e.: If I need to take a break from my 7DRL development and switch over to fixing the Ignore Script at some point or not.)

Feedback from script users is always welcome too. If I do end up needing to fix the script, I'll probably put in the Hide Post feature and maybe some other goodies too.

Mythic Super Jager Overlord wrote:

It has stopped working on threads that were started after the new layout came up. The script is still working on threads that were in place before the changes.

Thanks for the bug report. I'll get that fixed.

Sorry, just to clarify, are you fixing the new threads to be compatible with the Ignore Script?

Truth of the matter is that being abusive to retail staff is a boorish act that's not offset by the fact you're buying product. Americans for some reason, seem to have a greater crop of the type of people who have always seem to feel that purchasing from a venue gives you license to abuse the people that serve you.

It's the customer extension of the business management mindset.

Even a mediocre manager can get productivity from employees who produce well and are easy to get along with. However, getting productivity from "difficult" employees is the heart and art of being a great manager.

When these great managers train their sales representatives, they pass on this same idea; getting money from difficult customers somehow makes you a better sales representative.

Honestly, I think it's nonsense, because difficult customers are high maintenance and tend to be a loss rather than a profit in the long run. There are some cowards who worry their complaints will generate negative PR, but truly the difficult customers who complain all the time are known as such by their friends and family and their words don't have nearly as much impact as anybody might fear.

There is an interesting idea gaining traction that businesses should absolutely "fire" difficult customers in a self-deprecating way. Basically, "Sorry, our business doesn't have the capability to meet your demands. Here's a list of our competitors, we hope they can serve your needs better than we have been able to."

It's brilliant because it exports the cost of the difficult customer to a competitor. And, if enough businesses pick up on this notion, a customer who is difficult beyond reason will soon find themselves without a service provider (or paying astronomical rates to hire people who will put up with them.)

Another mage, seems like the author is saying that "evil" is the lack of empathy? They still do not wake up in the morning and tell themselves "I will go out and be evil today". They have a very different perception of the world than maybe you or I, and that causes behavior we cannot understand.

Their behavior is perfectly understandable. It's much easier to drown an unwanted kitten in the bathtub and throw it in the dumpster than to seek out an adoptive home. It doesn't make that particular action any less evil.

In my opinion, it would be better if they woke up in the morning and told themselves "I will go out and be evil today". At least then we know that they know they're doing something evil. The fact that they can commit evil acts with casual disregard for the impact of their actions is, in fact, significantly worse. "Yeah, I drowned Mr. Whiskers and threw him in the trash, what of it?" ... It's downright chilling.

The personal belief system I try to base my responses (written and mental) is simply that "evil people" do not exist. People get very upset if others do not agree with them, and that turns the issue into a simple disagreement into "right versus wrong".

I think that "evil people" definitely exist. I recommend The Science of Evil by Simon Baron-Cohen.

Here's an idea... instead of an "ignore" function, maybe a "hide this post" function could be added to the boards? I have found (on many boards), that often there will be one (or more) posters who will make posts that can range from thought provoking to inflammatory. In such cases, I would flag the inflammatory posts, but read (and perhaps respond to) the others.

Perhaps flagging a post could hide it? Or give the option to hide it (in case the flag was a mistake)?

Wow, that is gold! It makes me want to break out Firebug and make Ignore v5 just to add that feature!

1 hour, 35 minutes ago | Flag | List | Reply | Hide Post | Block User

Nice!

And then the next day, they are at your house ... forcibly converting you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

RAmen.

I prefer Chrome. It's faster and synced with all my devices without me having to do anything.

Are you running Chrome on Microsoft Windows?

Do you use the Ignore Script?

On 29 Oct 2012, I noted that Google was curating extensions through the Chrome Web Store.

On 07 Nov 2013, Google announced that local Chrome extensions will be blocked on the Windows platform starting in January 2014.

It is not clear to me if this prevents the Download/Drag/Drop workaround that allowed Chrome users to install the Ignore Script in the past.
My guess would be that it does, so people using the Ignore Script on Google Chrome on Microsoft Windows may find that the script no longer works in January 2014 with no way to reinstall the script.

Unfortunately, I haven't owned a computer running Microsoft Windows for a number of years.
I cannot provide support for this issue, because I have no means of testing a solution.

Possible workarounds are:

1. Switch from Chrome to Firefox (and install Greasemonkey)

2. Switch from Windows to Linux or OS X

Another possibility is that I could get a developer account on the Chrome Web Store and maintain a distribution up there for Windows/Chrome folks.

Are there any users here on the messageboards who are tied to Windows/Chrome?

Let me know if this is something you'd like me to do.

My book is not damaged beyond the pages falling out, so I'm wondering if there's anything I can do to fix it. I don't know how the pages stay together normally, but that weird black magic is failing. Any advice?

Gently and carefully tear all the pages out and put them into top loading sheet protectors.

Then put the protected pages into a heavy duty three-ring binder.

Use a scissors to cut the cover into front and back pages and slip them into the view covers of the binder.

I did this with several GURPS 3E books that fell apart on me. The "binderized" books are durable as hell, resistant to food/drink spills, lay flat to make an excellent dice rolling surface, and you can add errata to the pages or the binder itself as appropriate.

On the downside, they are bulkier and heavier than a standard AP book. This can be good or bad, depending on your needs for moving and storing the book.

molten_dragon wrote:

You're right, no analogy is completely valid, so I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place.

I brought it up because this comment:

molten_dragon wrote:

I'm sure someone who was really determined to share the PDFs publicly could find a way around the password.

reminded me of the houses/locks analogy that gets trotted out every time this subject gets brought up.

The use of this analogy reminds me of the finger pointing at the moon. Somebody points at the moon and the person looks at the finger and asks, "What is so interesting about your finger?"

The point isn't the lock ... it's the key.

Locks on bikes, lockers, cars, houses, etc. can be always be picked. The point isn't that a lock is fool-proof. Rather, the point is simply:

Whose interests are being served by the lock?

When I lock my car and have the key in my pocket, the lock is serving my interest. If somebody else (say, the Chicago police) put a wheel clamp on my car, that lock is NOT serving my interest. (Note: Who holds the key in each of these cases?)

In this sense, the analogy between locks and DRM is quite apt. Products containing Digital Restrictions Management serve the interest of the product's creator, not the product's owner.

I'd like to see DRM Money. That is, money that allows me to remotely enforce restrictions upon it, even after spending it.
So, I would be able to tell the company selling me a DRM product the ways in which they can/can't spend the DRM money that I traded them for the product.

Fair is fair, after all.

If the ignore script of Another_Mage is that important and he has abandoned development of it then someone else who wants / needs it with the requisite programming skill needs to take over maintenance / development of it.

I don't want to get caught up in the debate about an official ignore function.

I just want to clarify that I am still willing to maintain the community's Ignore script. True, I don't have much time for Role-Playing Games these days and don't visit the Paizo forums as often, but I am still writing JavaScript (in particular, Node.js). So, I may not have quite the same turn-around time that I did in the past, but I am still willing to maintain the Ignore script.

With that community service announcement aside, I return you to your regularly scheduled debate...

Now Available

another_mage's Truesight Goggles
https://github.com/blinkdog/truesight-goggles/raw/master/src/main/webapp/js /truesight-goggles.user.js

This version only works with Mozilla Firefox and Greasemonkey; sorry Google Chrome users.

What's in this new version?:
- Brings most of my old scripts together in a single script.
- All of the features are controlled via a jQuery UI

Usage:
- After loading the script (and disabling any of my other scripts), reload the page
- Look for a transparent owl in the lower-left corner of the screen.
- Mouse-over the owl and click on it to bring up the control box

Control Box (Display):
Underline All Links: Forces every link on the site to appear in Underline.

Control Box (Ignore):
Remove Posts by Ignored: Decide if the Ignore list should be applied or not
Your personal ignore list appears here. Click to highlight the people you want to remove from the list, and then click "Remove" at the bottom of the list.

Control Box (Posts):
Embed Images: If someone includes an image URL in their post, embed that image directly into the post body.
Embed YouTube Videos: If someone include a YouTube URL in their post, embed the YouTube video directly into the post body.
Hyperlink URLs: If someone posts a URL but doesn't 'linkify' it, then 'linkify' it automatically
Link Game Terms to d20pfsrd: If someone includes gaming terms in their post then link those words to d20pfsrd.com (magic missile links to magic missile)
Replace Smurf Avatars: Removes certain blue avatars and replaces them with the author's original avatar. Don't forget to laugh like Gargamel.

Control Box (About):
Link to the license (Affero GNU General Public License v3+)
Link to the source code (on GitHub)

Owl Avatar:
If you open the Control Box somewhere on the page and then lose it by scrolling around, just click the Owl again. It should center the Control Box wherever you happen to be in the page.

Final Version
Unfortunately, personal time constraints mean this will probably be the final version of my site-enhancement scripts.
Honestly, I'm not 100% happy with this version, but I've run out of time for it.
Sadly, these features didn't make the cut:

* Make a version that is compatible with Google Chrome
* Update the game term links for new d20pfsrd.com content
* Allow game terms to link to Paizo's SRD in addition to d20pfsrd.com

My party has been at me to post the outcome of their encounter with the Beholder.

After a failed negotiation (the Beholder wanted a new statue for its collection, but the party wouldn't give up their Catfolk), fighting ensued.

The Barbarian didn't get a chance to car surf the Beholder. The Wizard cast Baleful Polymorph on the Beholder to turn it into a Flying Squirrel. The Beholder failed both it's save against the spell and the second save to retain its abilities and mental scores.

The party waited for the flying squirrel to descend to the ground and then spent round after round (after round!) boot-stomping the flying squirrel (which still had a Beholder's hit points).

After the toughest flying squirrel in the history of Golarion was turned into tomato paste, the party celebrated their victory and continued sneaking into Highhelm.

At my table, I run things like this:

- If the character would know the outcome (i.e.: attack rolls, saving throws, etc.) then the roll is made in public. Players roll for their characters. I roll for the NPCs. Always out in the open.

Sometimes, the screen blocks my view of the die and I have to stand up to see it. In that case, the players may know if I succeeded even before I do.

- If the character would not know the outcome (i.e.: Sense Motive, Perception, etc.) then I always roll in private behind the screen and tell them what they do/don't figure out. (The truth may differ and is unknown to the player.)

If something comes up where the character would get a perception roll (i.e.: notice an enemy sneaking up, notice a trap before setting it off, etc.) then I automatically roll for them, behind the screen, without telling them what the roll is about. If they succeed, I tell them about the thing they noticed. If they fail, they are told nothing until the thing suddenly happens to them.

I never fudge the public rolls; they are obvious for all to see. I call out the AC hit. The player is the one who tells me if I actually hit or not, based on their current AC.

I very rarely fudge the private rolls. If I do, it's always toward the better story rather than for or against the characters. For example, if the character fails a perception check by 1 and I think that making the perception roll would make for a more interesting session, then I won't give the full info, but I'll say they get a funny feeling or something doesn't seem right.

Note that "Surprise! X happens to you!" can be very disconcerting to players. The loss of control over the situation can very easily lead them to feel like they didn't have a chance and/or the GM was out to get them. Be sure to use it sparingly.

I've found the players are more receptive to being ambushed by enemies or traps when they also get to ambush the enemies from time to time. This is especially true when they go to the trouble to set up their ambush. Let them do it. When they know 'ambush' is a neutral game mechanic and not just the GM out to screw the party, it's much more exciting and enjoyable.

Also: Talk with your players. My system works well at my table because my players trust me and they enjoy the way I run the game. With a different set of players, I might choose to roll absolutely everything out in the open and just ignore blatantly obvious metagaming. Why?

My group and I have never played through a character romance, so sexuality is largely ignored.

This is my group's experience as well. My players try to kill the bad NPCs and get rewards from the good NPCs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

telnet://godwars2.org:3000

file:///tmp/hello.txt

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

telnet://godwars2.org:3000

file:///tmp/hello.txt

Rise from your grave!

Oh, I can just imagine the rules lawyering (and subsequent events there after) of a "nice" round table game in prison

Not in Wisconsin

Although to be fair, the ruling was against D&D, not Pathfinder...

I consider myself a passable programmer and a passable GM, but even simple stick figures are beyond my skills at art.
So, I have an odd art request, if anybody is willing to try.

I'd like an image of my Paizo forum avatar (owl.jpg) wearing Truesight Goggles, as described below:

These goggles, constructed of a pair of perfect prisms held in place by golden frames and affixed to the head by a black leather strap, grants the wearer true seeing continuously. Furthermore, once per day on command, the wearer can use analyze dweomer as the spell.

Source: Goggles, Truesight

Thank you in advance to anybody who can help! :-)

And that is why you don't let a Harrow Master anywhere NEAR a Deck of Many Things!

I don't allow a Deck of Many Things to appear in my campaign.

In playing RPGs for two decades:
- I saw a lot of instances where it introduced unbalanced elements to a campaign
- I saw a lot of instances where it derailed campaign plot lines
- I saw a few instances where it was used to cover (i.e.: lend a credible in game explanation for) the increasingly obvious power differential between the PCs and a GMPC.
- I have never witnessed a DoMT that enhanced a campaign.

I could see a plot line where some important NPC throws a kingdom into jeopardy because of bad draws on a DoMT.
However, that would be background for the PCs to discover in the course of their adventure, and never something that I would let them acquire and/or interact with.

Tyrion Lannister

See: The Best of Tyrion Lannister - Game of Thrones, Season 1 (Warning: GoT Spoilers!)

In the comments section of the video:

Angel77777771: Just goes to show, it doesn't matter who you are or what you look like, you can be attractive just by being confident and funny. Man, I would definitely sleep with Tyrion.

Tyrion Lannister: You wouldn't be the first.

Cersei Lannister: Oh, shut up, you little fool.

LOL

Except when they are responsible, because your behavior was perfectly acceptable under normal circumstances but there were circumstances you couldn't have known which change the result of that behavior.

I'm not sure that "continually calling and coming over to my residence uninvited" is perfectly acceptable under normal circumstances in this situation. However, I can see your point in a more abstract case.

another_mage wrote:

"By ignoring me, you set yourself up for this perceived harassment."

In my opinion, the most disturbing aspect is belittling the victim's perception of the victimizer's actions ("perceived harassment").

Or, for those who understand better with sarcasm:

{sarcasm on}How dare the victim "ignore" this stalwart gentleman? Clearly then, she had all this coming. Never seen a more obvious case of setting herself up for it, ignoring him and all like she did. Oh, but really she's just crazy. See, because really, it's only "perceived" harassment on her part, not "real" harassment. But still.. she set herself up for it.{/sarcasm off}

• If you have a history of not answering your phone and thinking nothing of it,
  
• and I am asking you to provide a copy of a document that will make my life easier,
  
• and you have not said you will not provide it,
  
• nor have you asked me to stop calling you (i.e. demonstrated that you aren't just being typically hard to get hold of),
  
• then calling you repeatedly is not harassment.

Acknowledging that is not "victim blaming."

The actions themselves don't matter in this case. I'm not trying to prove that the actions qualify as "According to Hoyle" harassment. We're not taking the Pepsi Challenge here.

In essence "If you've a problem with {my actions}, its of your own doing, not mine."

1. The person acting explicitly disclaims responsibility for those actions. ("not mine")

2. The person acting explicitly places the responsibility for the actions on the person acted upon. ("your own doing")

3. The person acting suggests that if the victim feels victimized ("if you've a problem") that it is the victim's blame ("your own doing") and not the person acting's blame ("not mine").

The final sentence is quite explicitly victim blaming.

Telling another person they are responsible for your behavior is victim blaming. Regardless of what the behavior may or may not be.