kmal2t's page

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'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.

Avatar-1 wrote:

The solution to that is to have unofficial moderators; have someone at Paizo who just has to moderate the moderator's activity.

Who will moderate the moderator moderators?

Edward Snowden.

And corrupt is up to the individual. I could say the U.S. system is pretty corrupt, but I abide by the laws.

And what about intention?

I don't obey all the laws because I think they're right. I do some because I don't want to get a fine or go to jail.

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?

How lawful is lawful?

I would be considered a pretty lawful person..would I be "breaking my alignment" by downloading music and occasionally jaywalking when the crosswalk is a 1/2 mile away?

You're honestly surprised that a conversation about MMO and RPGs turned to 4e?

ORLY?

tacos.

Here is the real version of the response you're going to get: If you don't like the way we're doing it you can post in customer service where it will be ignored or locked or email customer service where it will be deleted.

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.

Now Nymian...

Do you want to do the bare minimum? Or do you want to express yourself? You want to express yourself, right?

I didn't see anyone reply to what I said, but again, Paladins made mroe sense in 2e when they were a special class you had to have good enough Ability Scores to qualify for. It bcomes a little more muddled when they're a base class just like everything else.

Do I really need to provide examples?

1. Him saying no game can beat him.
2. Him insisting on using his bikini mail character for the girl when she made her own and him telling her she can't play it.
3. Them all metagaming and insisting they just go straight to the mountain (led by cass).
4. Him yelling at the girl at the end telling her it was the stupidest decision ever made in a game.
5. Him insisting on playing a monk elf when it was already agreed upon that wasn't part of the setting.
6. Him insisting he gets a roll for the being possessed by the demon (ok whatever) and then pouting when he rolls a 1 and his char gets taken

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.

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.

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but Paladin made a little more sense in 2e when you had to "earn" Paladin by getting good enough rolls to qualify for it. It was like Cleric 2.0 I guess. There was also a different Xp scale for classes like Paladin to show their superiority to base classes.

Antihover.................................................................. ........................................................................... .........
Forward: Take from this what you will. If you agree with me then continue to take my movie advice. If not, then find someone else who's tastes are the same as yours.

Suggestion: Wait to see it on TV...if nothing else better is on.

Review: I should have listened to my original instincts about this movie when I kept seeing promotions for it through silly Carl's Jr. commercials and other advertisements. This should have been a clue enough to avoid it, since I don't remember The Dark Knight eating Big Macs. But the ads for the actual movie seemed decent enough. I should add that Superman was never my favorite superhero, even though I have seen Smallville a number of times. When I saw Zack Snyder and Chris Nolan's name attached to it, though, I thought this had the potential to be a good re-imagining of Superman (like the Dark Knight trilogy) and I would keep an open mind. This movie has rocked my faith in Chris Nolan.

The movie begins with a very strange sequence on Krypton that, for a lack of a better word, includes Kryptonian Pterodactyl mounts that people apparently fly around on. There's an extended aerial combat scene with plenty of lasers and explosions, and it almost felt as silly as some of the "new and improved" combats added by the new Star Wars 1-3 movies. I just tried to look past this, since I don't read the comic books and maybe things like this are in them that the average viewer might not know about. When we eventually get to Earth it doesn't get much better.

This was a movie that seems like it didn't know what it wanted to be. Some of it tried to be serious, and other parts were just plain hammy and awful. It was a movie trying to take itself far more seriously than it should have. This is compounded by the fact that the scenes felt like a sequence of disjointed, fleeting moments that never really had cohesiveness or a solid direction. It never melded to make a solid movie and really felt like a bad, made for TV mini-series. The sentimental flashback scenes don't work in a movie that carries cheesy lines such as "You know they say it's all downhill after the first kiss", or that uses cliche scenes of military personal and "Mr. Scientist" discussing their plans in the "Let's Solve S**t" control room.

As far as characters, this movie was too scattered to ever stay on one character long enough to care about them. Russel Crowe and Michael Shannon are two accomplished actors that can't save this movie, even with an addition of Kevin Costner and Diane Keaton. Shannon has moments of good performance, which you'd expect of him, but are overshadowed by scenes of hammy overacting and yelling. You almost expect him to stop mid-scene at points and yell "ACT-TIIIIING!". Crowe never seems that attached to what's going on. Costner and Keaton aren't around long enough to care what they think or what happens to them. Louis never draws you in enough with any sense of sex appeal to care if she ends up with Clark, which brings us to Superdud. Henry Cavill's performance ranges from barely competent, to wooden, to hammy and awful. There are times where he feels like a 1950s Superman and is about to say "Have no fear! Superman is here! Off and away!" The one good thing you can say about him is he looks like what people expect Superman to look like and he's pretty damn ripped.

And the action sequences? The only good thing added by this movie was the sonic boom effect they did for flying. Other than that it gets pretty stupid and, yes again, hammy. Much of it feels like an even more over-the-top version of a Matrix movie as Clark and various bad guys hurl each other through an endless amount of buildings and collide with each other in giant mushroom clouds of dust. And Superman, the guy who never kills people, NEVER tries to draw the fight away from crowded areas and continues to fling people through buildings and be flung which looks like it could probably lead to HUNDREDS of deaths if not more. Seriously, this movie seemed like it had a quota of number of body hurls and buildings falling per x minutes of film time. By the end of this I was hoping Zod would destroy the earth to spare mankind (and the audience) of having to endure more of this movie that drags on WAY TOO LONG.

I'm not sure if there was a conflicting vision where Chris Nolan lost control, but I'm really hoping this was NOT the movie he intended to make.

If you Like: Superman as a character and like superhero movies in general you might like this if you're just looking for mindless action entertainment.

I don't agree that 2+2=4. Don't argue with me or you're pushing your views on me.

4e isn't "WoWish" because it replicates anything from it.

It's the fact that it has things that MMORPG people want in a video game.

Easy to use, lots of powers, straight to the point of killing stuff and flashy despite "simulationsim"

Why do you keep signing your name at the end as if we can't figure out that it's you posting?

==Kmal2t

hexagonal grids become an obvious problem when trying to have neat spaces. When you're trying to draw the walls of a dungeon and the hexagons are all split its likely to cause confusion. This would be my guess.

Two year old thread dig. Nice, vamptastic.

In 2e there was an option for weapon speeds to try to reflect how some weapons should be faster and go before others.

The problem with creatures is people often forget this:

Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

Even 2e had something similar written in the MM.

A few orcs? CE. Waste em.

edit: ugh. Just when I thought I was out, alignment in this thread dragged me back in. I knew it was you 3.5 fredo.

we've moved that conversation to the other thread btw ;)

We are talking about elementary school kids..beat up? Maybe.

But luckily in the girls restroom she's only suseptible to ridicule and emotional abuse until she kills herself.

kmal2t wrote:

If their code says they must be "lawful" then that means they have to obey the laws of where they currently are. This could easily conflict with their own code of good as in the example I gave.

Now, that's the simplistic view. The alignments as described are not that simplistic at all. Certainly Lawful Good, for example, as an alignment isn't described in the actual rulebooks in such a simplistic fashion.

Quote:

Porphyrogenitus: Ok good racism and ethnic cleansing are bad. Then I'm sure you make sure that the orcs or goblins you are attacking are in fact "evil" before you invade their camp or dungeon and don't just kill them on the basis that they are a certain race.

Meow!

But we got you to concede that, contrary to your previous unsupported assertions, morality isn't simply a matter of subjective perspective after all.

Quote:

And there is nothing "inapt" about the examples as they provide perfect examples of how morality and people don't fit neatly into these little categories.

They don't do that, actually.

Quote:

And just because I don't like alignments doesn't mean "any mechanic is flawed and should be tossed because it doesn't capture the full complexities IRL in a paragraph of a gamebook".

It's true they I already cited how the WoD was better IMO. No morality system is going to be perfect because its for a GAME, but one as bad as alignment should be replaced by something far better.

This whole post leads me to believe you can't follow my posts in the slightest nor follow a sequitur train of thought. You're going to continue arguing with yourself about what was never said or implied. I'm not going to waste any more time on this with you.

It's bad. Rebuttals?

This assumption that if you don't agree with everything people (transgender in this case) call "rights" that you hate them is a total guilt trip. It's like throwing the race card.

It depends on what you want. If you want to do a probe into a law enforcement unit because there's strong reason to believe complaints are being ignored, kudos. If you, however (as I've heard argued), want the "right" to have a free sex change through insurance or on the tax payers dollar I say no. This isn't a medical necessity. But apparently I hate transgender for thinking this way, I'm sure.

D&D is a Role Playing Game.

You don't in checkers say "My checker wouldn't do that, or it isn't realistic that the checker would move diagonally backwards like that." You're playing a simple game with a few simple rules.

In an RPG you are playing a PERSON in a WORLD so in many ways its a simulation of our own reality with certain expectations. The character talks like you can, walk like you can and do pretty much anything a person can and isn't limited to being a game piece that goes left or right. THis is largely why we play RPGs. Thus, its expected that certain things follow like you don't walk forward and suddenly end up 300 miles away, that rabbits don't just fall out of the sky, that people don't suddenly turn 95 when they were just 14 etc. The normal rules of our universe generally apply until said otherwise. And even in this there is often some type of "logic" involved in it.

Rabbits only fall if the great wizard harnesses the arcane powers he has developed to manipulate them in this way. The man teleported 300 miles after a deity from the Outerrealms used his powers to take him away etc. etc. Logic, to an extent, follows even in a fantastical setting.

It's a circular argument. A spell tells you the bad guy is Lawful Evil. Why is he lawful evil? Based on his actions that could be interpreted many different ways and is still not objective other than the moral, subjective interpretations of who wrote said character.

Which again means that to each setting is a different genre and expectations. In a "Kill Bill" (high fantasy) setting its going to be easier and more common for people to do black flips and kill 3 people mid-air. In a Resevoir Dogs (low fantasy and using same director) people are going to get shot and bleed out and die.

It's already been mentioned that part of the reason alignment is still around is how integrated it is into the game with things like (as you mentioned) detect evil, protection from evil etc. etc.

And your example above is part of what I would consider the problem. Reducing everything into white hat black hat. How dull and one-dimensional..but then again D&D was never originally intended to be that complex. It was like Mario..just go kill the bad guys and save the princess.

Player chasing seems to be a reoccurring theme I'm seeing. It seems like something that should be added to DM Advice pages: If the player shows a lack of concern for the game, you may want to just let them go.

I'm an asexual starfish.

But anyway, another suggestion is that in this potentially hostile environment, you may want to consider taking the game to someone else's home. If you simply go out every Tuesday then come back its out of sight out of mind to the sister and gives her less incentive to be involved as she'd have to travel to go to the game.

I have nothing to add other than I agree whole-heartedly with your name.

I'm a tuba. I said it therefore I'm obviously a tuba. He was being drippingly sarcastic about it, which within the context of these conversations should be incredibly obvious.

I don't know how this turned into a discussion about DUI, but let me give some simple words of wisdom: If you can't hang, drink tang. If you can't drink without getting into fights or acting crazy. Don't drink. I'm a grown ass man to know how I am when I drink and I've never gotten behind the wheel or lost a rubber when climbing into bed with Mary Jane Rotten Crotch, as you seem to think happens. I'm not exactly sure why you think all the worst things in the world are going to happen if you get drunk. It sounds like you need a life preserver.

At 2:38 in the morning? Obviously they can't. During the day? I'd like to see you make an offensive thread/post and see how long it goes before removal. I'd wager 10 minutes at the most. And again, the fact that they don't think the thread can go without their supervision, lock "derailed" threads and lock something because "they don't want to have to monitor it" (paraphrase) ..is NOT babysitting. Amirite?

How do they not think the forums should be babysat when they close threads to be reviewed again on monday on the chance that they'll go "nuclear", as if them not being there could lead to chaos and disorder?

Try to focus.

Maybe it's because I'm tired, but this made me laugh.

Again, the idea they need to babysit the forums constantly when I never see the type of ACTUAL inappropriate behavior that normally occurs on forums,....wait, why are you contributing to this thread then? And why are we bothering when we know this is going to get deleted tomorrow morning? Who knows..

As I posted sarcastically in the other thread, the forums will not collapse or implode without the mods being here 24/7 to comb over every post.

I suggest you go look at 4chan or BB.com forums if you want to see what actual inappropriate posting looks like.

I like how he capitalized rapists. Clearly this is a group he respects enough to make a proper noun.

kmal2t wrote:

I interpreted it as being a satire on "how to pick up chicks" manuals, but maybe I'm giving the guy too much credit.

Yeah, if you look at the stuff he posts on Reddit and elsewhere, this guy isn't joking.

Ken Hoinsky wrote:

I spent the past two years as a moderator on /r/seduction volunteering my time to teach redditors how to get better with women. I was very unhappy with the state of dating advice. It's mostly meaningless self-help platitudes or cleverly-disguised misogyny without much in between

I took it upon myself to write a new guide to rectify this problem. I started posting a step-by-step method on reddit last year. I called it Above The Game.

He actually thinks his book is not "cleverly-disguised misogyny" and was genuinely surprised that his Kickstarter caused as much anger as it did.

See that's where I interpreted it as satire. He calls them "meaningless self-help platitudes or cleverly-disguised mysogny without much in between " and then proceeds to give stupid, over-the-top advice like staring in the mirror at yourself for 60 seconds, maintaining gratuitous contact, and putting your d**k in her hand.

If they want to ban him from making future materials that's fine. If they want to comb over kickstarters before they're posted, fine. But this guy didn't destroy the fabric of society. Posting a "manual" on sexual assault by telling people to go put your dick in their hand is no more a real manual than a murder manual that tells people to go hit people with a bat. It's not providing any insight that makes people more "efficient" at sexual assault or enables them to get away with it. Its just a stupid troll book.

Banning dating guides is a silly solution to a potential problem.

And yes, making a blanket ban to dating guides is performing surgery with a malfunctioning wobbly chainsaw. It doesn't even get to the root of the problem which wasn't dating guides, but producing offensive content, which as I said, could be in a million other genres of books. There is nothing inherently offensive about a dating guide so to ban them as if they were the problem is ludicrous.

Once threads go off topic, only Keanu Reeves can save us all and get the thread back on topic.

Here's what I should have posted earlier:

Jessica Price wrote:

I'm locking it so the staff with moderation powers can enjoy their well-earned weekend without having to keep an eye on this thread so it doesn't go nuclear. I'll check with other members of the team on Monday to see whether they think it's worth unlocking it.

How about we show some respect to the moderators and actually follow their suggestion to let things rest until they've made a decision?

And if you have a problem with doing that, well:

Vic Wertz wrote:

I'll reiterate what I said in another thread:

If you don't like the moderation around here, you are welcome to leave.

Why do we need the mods? Because they are the hero that the forum deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we'll criticize them...because they can take it...because they are not a hero...they are a silent guardian, a watchful protector...the Dark Knight.

Uh oh. This thread is going slightly off topic. And minor insults were made. Where are the mods? Without them here 24/7 the forums will descend into anarchy! SAVE US!

And even if the thread does go off topic...its a forum..its inevitable. Calling a thread "hopelessly derailed" is beyond silly. As if everyone in the thread is in a bus heading one way and can't turn it around. All you have to do is tell people to get back on topic and the future posts should go back to being on topic.

Its not like the thread has to reverse course in a linear fashion and slowly change topics back toward where the conversation started from. It can abruptly go back to being on topic.

Telling someone to read the forum rules and going after them personally and accusing them of being a jerk. Gee, what type of person would do that?