Except it really isn't.
It's like making characters that are commoner level 1 that may get to 5 at tops..and sending them into the Epic Dungeon full of Dragons and monsters so that they may pick off a goblin here and there and then run. Great..and when you come back there's 3 more goblins in their place.
If you're going to make these games you either need to make the players capable more or the world less daunting and unchangeable.
1. I didn't start this thread to draw attention. Someone else created it.
2. The fact he brought up people wanting to ban me just makes me want to speak my mind while they push on banning me. I'm not going to kiss people's rear on a FORUM (or anywhere else for that matter). I never attacked their character and said they were evil or something. I said what I thought about his post toward me.
It would make sense just to have one On going thread discussing thread locks just as there is one for spam bots. This is where people could at least get an EXPLANATION for a thread lock. If you're going to lock a thread that has gone on pages the least you can do is give a one or two sentence explanation. If people are spending SO much of their time moderating I'm sure 10 seconds could be spared for this.
I unfortunately don't have the text in front of me but, again, WoD books if I remember correctly gave pretty explicit power to the Storyteller because there was so much grey area. If you don't use it to reel the game in and let players go crazy then that's the Storyteller's fault.
There are some things that really deserved houseruling like Celerity. It should be pretty obvious that letting someone easily attack (5?) times a round is a mistake.
I'm sure I'm going to hear the same argument about their support that Supply in the military gives to Infantry
"Hey! Without Supply, bullets don't fly!"
Ya, herp-derp. Don't care.
Do I think threads should be locked as much? Not really, but considering we've realized at this point you can just start new threads on the same topic (assuming its not about something really crazy) its not really the end of the world.
I frankly don't remotely care what Liz, Jessica, or Chris think because I'm sure its one of them that's said it. When they add to the creative of a game and it's design and aren't replaceable like other logistical businessmen to a product then maybe I'll value their opinion.
MANY barbs are thrown back and forth on here by a NUMBER of different people. When one is directed at me, yes, I generally send one right back. That being said, these arguments (before mods have gotten to them) have never devolved into "Your momma is so.." or "I hope you die in a ..." . Even the heated discussions are still about the thread.
In FACT, many times by the time a mod gets to it the conversation has already gone back to the discussion and the argument is gone...but then they come back and delete posts so it makes the conversation confusing for those trying to catch up. It's un-derailing threads that have already corrected themselves.
You make it sound like these people begrudgingly mod threads out of some martyred sacrifice for justice. I think they like the authority they have to do it and if they have it want to exercise it occasionally instead of doing nothing at all. I guarantee if I wasn't here, other lesser offenses would get moderated just to use mod privileges.
So then which is better "good"
a bunch of not caring people who donate their tax dollars which help save thousands of lives around the world.
Or the few who actually do care that donate directly and save a few hundred?
I'm sure the thousands saved really give a crap about the apathy of their donors, so which really is the greater good.
Something being BAD for your health does not necessarily mean it is BAD morally. The argument can be made by Mills/Betham or others that to kill a child in itself is bad, but to kill a child to save 5,000 children isn't necessarily.
It's not to say I agree with this, but they make strong arguments for their point.
Considering how much GM Fiat is given in WW games, the system isn't that easy to break unless you have a spineless Storyteller that lets you get away with every interpretation you have for the rules.
I liked the idea of Werewolf and Hunter, and I didn't need to be a god to play it...but on SOME level you have to be able to actually make a DENT in the system. Hunter was a bunch of unremarkable mortals who could have no impact on the WoD unless you really bent the system to make them better. Same with Werewolf. A bunch of hippie furballs living in the woods that there is NO way they could put a dent in the system that vampires have created. You should at least be able to feel like you're making SOME difference.
1) It's a 0 level spell so you can't expect it to do much
"If you look at the description of LG, that's pretty much what it is. There are right ways to do things because they are the right ways, and not doing them is the wrong way.*"
*By Kant's point of view
And so people know who aren't familiar with Kant, the intent is what matters not the consequence (like some later writers contended).
how is a person "ordered"? Orderly? Follows his own code and precepts? Because in that case it's basically still talking about what the person defines as Good.
If I follow the 10 commandments as my "code" that is a value judgement I'm making on what precepts and codes I believe to be right or wrong.
we could get into the reason and logic of this, but it looks like what he's talking about is how you are creating a false scenario.
They don't have to make a choice on it because they don't have to deliberate on whether or not to lock threads just like I don't have to decide on whether to eat cookies or pie when neither of them are in my house. It's a voluntary choice on deliberating on threads.
...now I want cookies.
the fact that these are modern examples is irrelevant because they are minor laws that its arguable whether they're hurting anyone.
These laws exist in all eras. You're supposed to, by law, cow tow to the emperor in imperial China. This is a pretty big law..And what if I don't? Am I no longer lawful good?
This. Before releasing it, run an AP for a little bit then modify yours to make it better based on how these "traintracked" campaigns work.
I am still curious if, because they sell a product and it's probably rated to certain groups, Paizo has any legal obligations or risk by what is said on these forums.
Could, theoretically, people post porn all over the site or graphic images? Could they post Mein Kempf and hate speech? I don't know if there's a legal guy on these boards that could answer this or not.
He INSISTED on her using it like a douche.
The DM did change some of his ways by not having the Paladin totally babysit and he wandered off when people got tortured. He also didn't just throw down a hailstorm when people got blown up, he made consequences like the God viewing his char as evil. Should the change to cleric be mandatory? No, and the player said "sure whatever" to the change. He didn't say NO! and then get it pushed on him.
As for the whole thing about the Bard dying I don't think that was him getting targeted as much as an on-going joke for the movie that he is "that guy" who's char is always dying.
In terms of who was worse, Cass was 100x worse than Lodge. Lodge just needed to work on his scenario to not make it unbeatable and to make the clues more obvious of what the players need to do.
Ah so it was Hunter. I thought so. That's probably your first mistake lol. I bought it but when I really looked over it it was kind of a pointless game as everything was sooo underpowered there was no way you'd ever do more than kill a neonate. Maybe Ancilae at best. It was also before integration so you'd have to know Vampire to be able to play that at all.
Either way being on sex chat rooms at a session is strange behavior..I don't know what type of friends you have to be friends with this guy .
Do I really need to provide examples?
1. Him saying no game can beat him.
This could go on forever. The DM had issues in his style as brought up with convos with the girl, but Cass was clearly being a complete douche throughout the game.
If you create a thread mentioning MMOs and RPGs, 4e will inevitably be brought up. I can't think of another RPG where those two things are correlated by players more.
YOu could argue the fact that games like PF have a zillion classes and archetypes is like MMOs as well. Everyone wants cool powers and something to give them an edge.
It seems like players make the assumption the game is "railroaded" a certain way just to f#~~ with them and control them and their characters. No...its because the DM has certain things written on his notes and if you do something 180 degrees different it means he has nothing to use for the next 3 hours. DMs have to be creative and flexible, but if there is a whole plot going on where you're at in NYC you can't say "well my character takes a vacation to Mexico" and expect this session to be able to continue.
functionally (mechanically) it is different based on you are using an outside source for it. Its not a class/PC function so you have to go buy it.
fluff-wise it's stupid because well..what we've been talking about. Either way I never said healing surges were the end of the world or not something that works for 4e..but lets call it what it is.
And I would say PF and others are influenced by MMOs or games in general with the influence of Final Fantasy and other stuff that use Japanese/asian culture.
Are you sure that was from the 2e MM? I seem to remember it having different color and format scheme and all the pictures being color.